Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

pyenme I appreciated the romantic aspect of this version, even if it may not have followed the spirit of the book entirely. Maybe that is because I think Charles Dance is hot, and any chance I have to see him in a romantic situation is OK with me! On the whole, I think this "Rebecca" is very good - and stands its ground along side Hitchcock - not as a comparison, but as a different approach. I did get the British version (I have a region-free player) because the PBS version cut out 18 minutes. I do believe the British version (with the honeymoon scene) may have been shown originally on Masterpiece Theatre, but in the US release DVD, it (along with a couple other scenes I like) were cut. Glad to have that region-free player!!

Garrett Bays The second Mrs. DeWinter has no first name, and she was never given one for the film. Caroline DeWinter was the ancestor that the second Mrs. DeWinter dressed as for the costume ball. If this was not mentioned in the film, it should have been. It is mentioned in Alfred Hitchcock's masterful version of the book, by Dame Judith Anderson. Now, in context of the film, it was definitely closer to the book than Hitchcock's version (which you can blame David O. Selznick for the changes in the plot), and there is some very good acting, but it still seems like what it is, and that is a television film. Christopher Gunning provided a very emotional score though, with a heart wrenching theme for cello and orchestra.

classicera First of all, I enjoyed the old classic version of the 1940s REBECCA with Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine and I have seen it over 100 times in my lifetime. However, I find myself very captivated by this 1997 version by Masterpiece Theatre and with its great actors, the assemble cast, the music score, the filming location and the more detailed storyline, which is simply superb and very well done. I believe the 1997 version is the best version of Rebecca, second to the book. Further, I have seen ALL the versions of Rebecca and have read the book by Daphne Du Maurier and can actually comment in good faith that this is simply the best adaptation with more details about the characters that you don't see in the 1940s version. With this superb 1997 adaptation, you are able to see a more deeper version of both Max and the second Mrs. DeWinter's characters played by Charles Dance and Emilia Fox. You see that they are in love in this version whereas in the Hitchcock version, it's not so obvious. You also get a better sense of Mrs. Danvers' character who you almost feel sorry for in this adaptation. Additionally, you'll see a few glimpses of what the beautiful Rebecca might look like.I believe this 1997 version of Rebecca stands alone as a great love story and great mystery that will keep you captivated.

Jon Kolenchak It is impossible to review this film without comparing it to Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 version. This production has no romance, no mystery, no suspense, and no atmosphere -- all of the things that made Hitchcock's version a masterpiece.The only thing that makes this film watchable is Diana Rigg's new take on the character Mrs. Danvers. I found her to be the only believable character in the production -- different than Judith Anderson's interpretation nonetheless, but well done.If you've never seen a film version of Rebecca, watch the Hitchcock version instead of this one.