SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

kkonrad-29861 'Rebecca' might be the best film Hitch made in the '40s, and it still holds up great today. As matter of fact, it is one of the greatest psychological thrillers of all times (and not only my personal opinion, I dare to think). It starts of as sweet romance, the first 30 minutes really look and sound like lighthearted romantic comedy where charming man with troubled past falls into innocent young woman. But soon, the darker note are pressing in, and the viewer is tangled into the twisted mystery world of Manderlay. It is one of those movies where repetitive viewing, when you already know all the twists and turns (which some might be quite shocking, but never preposterous) never fails to engage the viewer. Also the cast and performances. Hitchcock's movies always starred some of the greatest actors of the time and most of them gave their best performances in Hitchcock's movies. 'Rebecca' is not an exception. Laurence Olivier is perfect as charming wealthy man with troubled mind, and Joan Fontaine just shines as innocent, but never dumb or dull, simple girl who is not used with the high class British lifestyle. George Sanders always manages to come off as charming, even in his villainous roles.Masterpiece in every aspect.

dustypistol I'm not saying that this is one of my favorite Hitchcock films (it isn't), but it IS one of my favorite books. Because of the production code being in full swing in 1940, several main plot points are either much too subtle or were left out of the film altogether, and I want people who have seen "Rebecca" to understand some of the most important things in the story.-First of all, why the heck was Mrs. Danvers such a creep? Because she was in love with Rebecca, who was using her like she used everyone else! Daphne du Maurier (the author) was also a lesbian, and this dynamic in her writing was intentional. If you watch the movie again with this in mind, with Danvers as a jilted lover who was upset by 1) Rebecca's cheating on her (and Max); 2) R's supposed pregnancy; 3) Rebecca's drowning; 4) Max's remarrying; 5) Rebecca's body being found (again); and 6) the new Mrs. de Winter's getting rid of Rebecca's things, it makes a LOT more sense. Trust me. Danvers was not *just* creepy / evil.-Why did the relationship between Olivier and Fontaine seem off? Because it was. He was distant; she was naïve; it was supposed to be a weird match. They actually only really fall in love when she helps him cover up the murder (in the book, he DOES kill Rebecca, not just cover up her death - the revelation / plot twist is not just that he murdered her, but that she was a really manipulative and horrible piece of work under all of her "charms", and that he hated her.The book is amazing. I won't tell you everything that Hitchcock had to leave out, but the film does seem unfinished because of it (and Fontaine overacts like crazy).

ericrnolan Scratch one thing off the bucket list - I finally got around to watching Alfred Hitchcock's "Rebecca." (A cinephilic uncle introduced me to a handful of the director's better known classics when I was an adolescent - "Rebecca" was one that we never got around to.) Based on my own enjoyment of it, I'd rate this film an 8 out of 10.Please bear in mind that this is one of the slower Hitchcock films. Until its plot accelerates toward its end, it spends much of its running length as a methodically paced, brooding Gothic romance and mystery. It's also a psychological thriller, and you can tell that Hitchcock is working to translate onto the screen its character-focused source novel. (I haven't read Daphne du Maurier's eponymous 1938 book.)"Rebecca's" final act brings the viewer into familiar Hitchcock territory with some interesting surprises. What I liked best about seeing the director's style, however, was his trademark sharp characters and dialogue - with both heroes and villains sparring in a dry-witted and rapid-fire fashion. It's something you don't often see today. I don't think all old movies are like this - some of the "classics" I've been recommended are absolutely vapid. But Hitchcock treated his viewer as intelligent adults, and I think it's part of the reason why people love him.

jovana-13676 I was so scared when I watched this film as a kid. Mrs. Danvers is scarier than any vampire, she appears and disappears almost like a ghost, so ominous it's clear something must be terribly wrong with this household. One almost expects her to announce, "This is Hell and I am the Devil." For the young woman that moves into this house (Joan Fontaine), she sure is. A new wife of the owner, Max de Winter, she feels small and insignificant, constantly unfavorably compared to Rebecca, the deceased first wife, by Mrs. Danvers, the housekeeper. We see her roaming about the gigantic house, lost and confused. She doesn't even have a name and Rebecca does, still the lady of the manor, as ever. We never see a picture of Rebecca though, and our mind, just like the young Mrs. de Winter's, can't stop trying to imagine the greatest beauty to ever grace the earth. She was prettier than Joan Fontaine! Her husband Max, played by Laurence Olivier, doesn't help her much with his constant put-downs. Olivier was perhaps a better film actor than he had thought of himself. The film shifts from romcom, to psychological, to very real horror. Cynics would say, the natural stages of any marriage. But in the masterful hands of Alfred Hitchcock, it's art. The Selznick production - impeccable, as always. Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers will forever give me nightmares. Oh, the glory days when women were villains!