MovieChat Forums > Rear Window (1998) Discussion > Non-biased opinions of people who seen t...

Non-biased opinions of people who seen this movie wanted...

posted 17 years ago by verybignsexyman-1
12 replies | jump to latest

I am a hugefan of Alfred Hitchcock and any movies "Hitchcockian" such as Roy Schedier and Meryl Streep in "Still of the night" and basically all the De Palma films that started with "Sisters" and ended with "Body Double". I enjoyed the Psycho remake with Vince Vaughn and the recent Rear Window-esque teen flick "Disturbia". Now my question is this, being a collector of all things Hitchcock and Hitchcock related, is this hard to find made-for-tv movie worth tracking down? It only has about a 5.4 rating, but I feel it may only be because those rating it poorly are Hitchcock fanatics who are just rating it compared to the original. For lovers of movies in general and people not judging it in comparison with the original, is this a good movie and worth tracking down? Just for the record when I want a movie I either love and haven't seen in a while or want to by knowing I would like it based off the trusted opinions of others I can go crazy trying to find them sometimes, and I just want to know if I should save myself the headache and not bother because it's simply not a good movie... Thank you in advance if anybody actually responds to this.

[–] hbotis 16 years ago

It's not bad. You are buy my copy! I'm done watching it. It's German-made Pal Region 2 though....

[–] scubarev 15 years ago

Save yourself the headache because it's simply not a good movie. I'm not a Hitchcock fanatic or an anti-remake disciple, but I know a boring movie when I see one. There is no tension, no suspense, and precious little action in this flick.

While I like Christopher Reeves' previous work, this seeemed like it was made out of pity or charity for him after his accident. Or maybe it was a vehicle for showing what life is like for a quadriplegic. Either way... BORING.

[–] TMC-4 (19408) 2 years ago

https://www.datalounge.com/thread/30506475-christopher-reeve-

R47, it's been a long time, but at the time I thought he was getting good reviews for Rear Window because no one wanted to be a heartless bastard. Unfortunately, the accident had compromised him as an actor in ways other than movement. His voice was very limited in power and expressive range. He got a Golden Globe nomination and won a SAG for that film, but I suspect people were rewarding "courage" and "perseverance."

Remaking one of the really good Hitchcock's is perilous even in the best of circumstances, as we saw with Gus van Sant's Psycho the same year. The recent Rebecca on Netflix was another dud. I know that was more a new adaptation of the novel than a remake of the 1940 film, but it didn't compare.

by Anonymous reply 144 March 25, 2022 3:21 AM

[–] WendingWanderer 15 years ago

I don't know if you're still thinking about this film, but Netflix has it if you want it.

I haven't watched it yet, so can't give an opinion about it's worth.

[–] fidelio1980 15 years ago

There was no reason to make this film other than to take pity on Christopher Reeve and give him a starring vehicle where he wouldn't have to move. The man couldn't pronounce words properly, nor did he have much control over his face, so he couldn't even express emotions visually.

The only possible justification for making the movie, other than to give Reeves one last starring role, is that it updates the old one with technology - even though the main character can't move, he has a computer and various machines on his side, that he uses to his advantage. The scenes with those devices are hardly spellbinding, though.

[–] BooBoo516 15 years ago

As other posters here have mentioned there was no need for this film to be made, and of course there are better ways to spend 90 minutes. The original is an amazingly entertaining film. That being said, I thought this film was watchable. There was some good suspense and some interesting changes to the original storyline. Christopher Reeves had little to do, but given his real life situation that was to be expected. Darryl Hannah was quite good and so was Robert Forster in his small role. My biggest problem was the ending which left me a bit unfulfilled, otherwise I would recommend this as a curiosity piece.

"Self-sacrifice is the real miracle out of which all reported miracles grow"
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

[–] jimorr 15 years ago

When a movie is remade, it really has to bring something new to the party. When the original was damn near perfect, this is very hard to do. This film largely fails. Not a bad effort, but like that other Reeve remake, Village of the Damned, just not as good as the original. Nothing against Mr Reeve, it was certainly not his fault. The remake of Psycho, which you mentioned, was, again, not bad but was never going to be as good as the original but would always be compared to it. I really do not see the point of remaking classic movies, it is a thankless task.

[–] profbrane 12 years ago

Honestly? It's pretty lame.

[–] death_jamm_productions 12 years ago

it's a decent film, forget about the original when you see this..stop being so elitist

http://www.mickey-rourke.com/

[–] kylopod 12 years ago

I think the movie's greatest virtue was that (unlike Gus Van Sant's dreadful remake of Psycho), it didn't try to copy Hitchcock. That would be an exercise in futility, anyway, since the original was one of his best films, and one of the greatest suspense films of all time. You simply can't improve on that, and it would be pointless to try. All this remake tried to do was tell the same story with a character who had a much more debilitating condition than that of the James Stewart character in the original. That's an intriguing twist on the premise, and I liked the way the movie presented Reeve's disabilities and wove them into the story.

What I didn't like was that it tried to downplay the element of voyeurism that was so central to the original. In the original, the murder plot is only one of several "stories" the Stewart character is watching from his window. It becomes front and center, but the movie still spends considerable time on the lives of the other people he observes--remember the way he gives the residents names such as "Miss Torso" and "Miss Lonelyhearts" and so on. The remake would have worked better if it had taken a similar approach with the Reeve character, and it would have had an added level of poignance, because it wouldn't be simply an attempt to relieve boredom, as was the case for the Stewart character, but would be a symptom of Reeve's despair at what he has lost in his own life.

The remake goes a little into what Reeve sees in the other apartments but then quickly plunges into the murder plot, and I felt at some point that it was trying to avoid the emotional issues that would confront a man with Reeve's condition.

[–] rrattbbooyy 12 years ago

This film was difficult to watch, too much of nothing at all going on. And the ending wasn't enough payoff to make me feel like it wasn't just a waste of 90 minutes.

Then I saw the original Hitchcock version and I realized it was no fault of the remake that it sucked, because the original it came from was nothing special itself. If you remake a weak film, how can you expect it to be much more than that?