Not bad but not as good as the originalshare
Sorry but the two main actors are exceptionally poor (you only need to look at their other movie performances to appreciate that these are D-List actors). Both should stick to small screen cameos.
((In addition this adapation is a horrible mess))
My advice to anyone considering a Hitchcock remake - DON'T DO IT!
It is like trying to compose variations on a theme by Bach, Mozart or Beethoven. Just forget about it.
Brian De Palma was influenced but he made his own movies not remakes.share
I didn't think the original was all too great to begin with, but this one was hilariously bad. Cybill Shepherd was god-awful and Elliott Gould's dry humor failed miserably.
It's still good for a laugh, though, if anything else.
It was awful. Nowhere near as good as the original.share
More enjoyable and more fun than the dull tedious original, especially Lansbury, Lowe and Carmichael.
The great Arthur Lowe steals the film in every scene he's in.
I agree that this remake is good fun. It builds on the Hitchcock original and pays respect to it. It pays respect to the period in which it is set as well. Not too many changes in the vernacular. In fact I think the British are just as olde-worlde as the British in the original. I can watch this and the Hitchcock original quite comfortably and enjoy both.share