User Reviews

Modern remake of "Rear Window" in which the lead character (Christopher Reeve) is paralyzed and lives in a high-tech home filled with assistive technology.

This film gets a lot of criticism because it is not Hitchcock. And yes, that is true. It probably had no chance of matching the original. But viewing it not as a remake but as a film by itself, it is not all that terrible. It was made for TV, but seems to be of a highest quality than that. And you have to admire that someone wanted to give Christopher Reeve a starring role when his ability became so slim.

The "hacking" a guy's computer when he's one room over is a little silly, because you know... um... people can hear that?

It is many years since I saw Jimmy Stewart in the original "Rear Window" but if my memory serves me right I feel that this re-make for TV comes nowhere near the original. It lacks the terror, the fear, the excitement that the first "Rear Window" brought to the screen. In the first version it was a simple photographer armed with a camera and flashlight, but here we have an architect with computer and digital camera. A photographic studio has now been become a lavish apartment and there is plenty of room for the electronic chair (formerly a simple wheelchair). In the updating I feel that much of the atmosphere has been lost. While I admire Christopher Reeve's attempt to return to the screen in his paralyzed condition, I feel his acting ability is definitely restrained. There is not much response from or interest in the other actors either. The best that can be said is that this film is a therapeutic exercise for Christopher Reeve. I found the result rather dull and lacking the excitement necessary to make up for the immobility and frustration of the central character.

Although this re-make is OK as re-makes go, it would be next to impossible for anyone to equal the directing genius of Hitchcock or the mastery of Jimmy Stewart. As terrific an actor Christopher Reeves is, I think he bit off more than he could chew when he tried to re-make the character played by Jimmy Stewart, one of the greatest rated actors in motion picture history. The same goes for Darryl Hannah. She is a good actress, but one could easily argue the superiority of Grace Kelly. I admire the attempts of these people, however, when one ventures to remake a Hitchcock classic like Rear Window, one should stay closer to the original story line. They don't call him the master of suspense for nothing.

1998 was the year of the Alfred Hitchcock legacy remakes. Three of the master of suspense's most famous motion pictures ("Rear Window" (1954), "Psycho" (1960), and "Dial M for Murder" (1954) were remade in the same year. They gave writing credit to the original story, novel, and play authors that inspired Hitchcock's movies, but they were essentially just remakes, or in the case of one, a copy. Now I saw the 1998 remake of "Rear Window" (1954) within a week of the diabolical copy of "Pyscho" (1960), so my expectations for the remake of the former were immediately lowered and I was frankly expecting another hour and a half of torture. What I got surprised me. I do not recommend the remake of "Rear Window", but I must admit that it exceeded my low expectations and for the first two-thirds of the film, I was enjoying mild entertainment until the third act, when the film shot itself in the foot, fell flat on its face, and did not get back up again.

The plot is basically the same as the original 1954 film with a few minor changes to the characters. In the original, the protagonist of the film was a photographer played by James Stewart confined to a wheelchair by an accident. In the remake, the protagonist is a quadriplegic played by real-life quadriplegic Christopher Reeve, who made this movie shortly after his horse-riding accident that left him disabled for the rest of his life. Save for a few other changes, the plot and basic unfolding of the story is the same, with Reeve looking out the window at his neighbors across the courtyard and becoming interested and suspicious when the wife of an abusive man (Ritchie Coaster) disappears mysteriously.

First of all, let me hand out my praises to Christopher Reeve for his terrific performance. It was very authentic of the filmmakers to cast Reeve since he was a quadriplegic and Reeve used all that he had and gave us a very sympathetic and likable character. I was also very pleased how in the beginning, the filmmakers used some of their own ideas instead of just flat out borrowing from the original. I also felt the music by David Shire was very good; it reminded me a lot of James Horner's magnificent score from "Braveheart" (1994).

Unfortunately, the movie also does have its flaws and when the third act of the film comes into play, that's when it really begins to suffer. For the flaws that existed right from the start, let's begin with the supporting cast. Darryl Hannah gives it her all, but she's just not as compelling as the well-written character played by Grace Kelly in the original. Robert Forster (who was also in the dismal 1998 remake of "Psycho" (1960), plays the detective who's helping the voyeur trying to solve what appears to be a murder case, but he doesn't have the same presence and charisma that came out of the detective played by Wendell Corey in Hitchcock's film. And what I missed most was the presence of a character like the one played by Thelma Ritter. In the original "Rear Window", she was the real light of the show. James Stewart was the star, but Ritter stole every scene she was in. Here, there's no such character. The protagonist's nurse is surprisingly dry and boring and there aren't really any substitutes. I also felt that the editing of this movie was vastly imperfect, with scenes going in and out and fading into and out of one another without any real sense of where it's going and scenes that are supposed to generate suspense and fear don't succeed. And in the final third of the movie, the filmmakers just take it in the wrong direction, play it out badly, and it becomes very standard, very conventional, and not very primal. And it was at this point that I really lost interest, for I felt I'd seen it before a million times, and even if I hadn't, I still doubt I would have been able to stay interested.

My bottom line advice is the same for the two other 1998 remakes of Hitchcock's legendary films: rent the original. If you want a truly great mystery/suspense-thriller, stick with the master of suspense in the original "Rear Window" (1954). I definitely recommend seeing that one first and, if you're interested like I was, check out the remake with Christopher Reeve and you may or may not be totally disappointed. Me, I was left feeling a little letdown, but not anywhere near as much I was expecting and this is most certainly a better film that Gus Van Sant's diabolical remake of "Pyscho" (1960).

I haven't seen the old version but this one certainly got its taste. Beside the brilliant performance by Miss Hannah and Mr Reeve, most of the supporting stars has been performing well too.

The story should has more suspense, more heart pounding scene so that to make this thriller a better one to be seen.

The best thing I can say for this film is that it enhances our appreciation of Alfred Hitchcock. His 1954 original has roughly the same running time, but it has so much more going on: A dozen recurring minor characters give texture to the script and complications to the plot. The plot itself involves far more twists, turns, and red herrings, plus twice as many confrontations between the heroine and the villain. The romantic relationship is far steamier, and the climactic scene is utterly original and totally terrifying.

In this new version, the mystery story has been "streamlined" to allow more time for techno razzle-dazzle and detailed presentation of the challenges faced by the disabled every day. The cause is worthy, but the shotgun marriage of movie-of-the-week message with murder-mystery drama serves neither facet of the film very well.

There are a few effective scenes, and the actors make the most of the feeble script. Christopher Reeves may be paralyzed from the neck down, but he knows how to use his handsome, highly expressive face and voice. You won't forget Jimmy Stewart, but you do get involved with Reeves' character. Reuben Santiago-Hudson is delightful in the Thelma Ritter role, and Robert Forster is fine as the hard-bitten cop. Darryl Hannah, alas, does little with less; a star willing to take on a Grace Kelley role deserves more support from her producers!

If you'd like to support people with spinal cord injuries and see a good thriller, write a check to Christopher Reeves' foundation, then rent Hitch's masterpiece.

What on earth was the point of this load of dross? I presume it was a vehicle for Mr Reeve? Hitchcock's Rear Window, was one of the greatest suspense films ever, the only suspense here was how long could I keep awake. Robert Forster ought to have known better, he is a superb actor and is just about the only character in this movie one can recognise as being bothered. Teleplays, with some honourable exceptions, are usually crap, but there was more wood in this script than in Sherwood Forest. Leave well alone when it comes to attempting to remake the classic movies, I admired Christopher Reeve for his heroic struggle against adversity, he will be remembered for doing many better things than this. If only I could have given it nought out of ten. DREADFUL.

well alright, it's a good movie, but it's a remake. I don't like remakes. in fact, I dislike them. it's not original anymore, whatever remake it may be. also now the story is good. the acting is good, because perfect is too good to be true. the music is the only new thing, I guess. by the way, the music is the only thing that gives the suspense. and off course, the fabulous camerawork, but hey, that should be. I give this movie 2 stars because it's a remake.

What was the point of this travesty? Might as well take all the masterpieces and do remakes and heap insult and sacrilege. Was this a charity case for Mr. Reeves? If so, nice intent. However, nice intents can turn into embarrassment. As it is when you try to replace Jimmy Stewart on the screen. And Daryl Hannah as the contemporary Grace Kelly replacement? Another horribly cast blemish.

I would love to hear what Hitch would have to say to the producer, director, and actors of this farce. I do not understand why some producers want to "modernize" a classic. Occasionally, it can be pulled off with some success, but not here.

This movie was a disgrace to the film Hitchcock directed in the 50's. Remaking this classic wasn't a bad idea, but they did a terrible job. They removed all of the elements that made the original great and all that was left was a bad TV movie. They would have done much better to stick closer to plot of the original.

This movie wasn't really bad... of course it wasn't really good either but Hitchcock remakes are always so bad, and can never equal his original work. This movie pretty much messed up the whole concept of the original "Rear Window", which was excellent.

Gus Van Sant's remake of PSYCHO at least had an interesting premise behind it - is a clone of an art object in itself? We know the answer now :-)

This appalling remake of REAR WINDOW has only one use, and that a cautionary one. You can't improve on perfection.

OK - we all feel sorry for Christopher Reeve. What happened to him shouldn't happen to anybody. But giving him this role was either an act of misplaced kindness or one of cynical exploitation and CR's bank balance is the only thing that has benefited from this total abortion of a remake. Just about everything that was worth having in the original has been fubarred here.

I'll stop here before I become *really* abusive. Avoid this turkey like the plague.

So many films have been remade in recent years, and I'm always fascinated as to why. The only justifiable reason that I can see for remaking a film, is if the original had potential, but was in the hands of the wrong director. In the case of 'Rear Window', Alfred Hitchcock's original version was close to perfection. That being the case, why did anyone feel a need to remake it? While sticking to the basic storyline of a man confined to his apartment and becoming suspicious that a neighbour has murdered his wife, there are a few changes. Christopher Reeve plays the lead character, who is not a photographer but an architect, and has been pompously renamed Jason Kemp. Also the lead female role, played by Daryl Hannah, is not his girlfriend (to begin with) but his colleague. And there are some other differences here and there, such as the lack of exploration into the complexities of relationships, and the fact that Jason Kemp has two medical assistants on call 24 hours instead of an insurance nurse that visits daily. I suppose the makers deviated in these areas so that the film would not look like an exact copy of the original, but these differences do very little, and in some cases let the film down.

For a thriller, this film hardly manages to mildly scare. Jeff Bleckner's direction does not labour on key points in the film long enough to generate much tension, nor is there much atmosphere. The film's soundtrack also does not help matters. The best part of the film is Christopher Reeve, who does stand out from a cast with little substance. Thelma Ritter's character of an insurance nurse in Alfred Hitchcock's version, has more spark than the two medical assistants in this film put together. Then again, that may be largely due to the relatively shallow script that the actors have to work with.

That being said, this was a very needless remake. Not all of Alfred Hitchcock's films were classics, but when it comes to his best films, I don't believe it's possible to improve on them. Apart from this attempt, 'Psycho' has been remade, as well as multiple remakes of 'The 39 Steps'. Let's hope it stops there.

Lets get one thing straight. Most reviewers have panned this because they say it loses what Hitchcock created. Fair enough, if the film had been trying to emulate Hitchcock. It isn't.

After Chris Reeves' accident, there was only ever going to be one role he could ever play again and this was it. How many other movies have wheelchair bound heroes? So for Chris to return to the profession which he loved, this had to be the one. Now I know many people have a love affair with Hitch, but I must admit I never found Rear Window to be a classic like some of his others, the idea came from creating a movie on a single set. The camera never moves out of Jimmy Stewarts room, until he falls out of the window.

While this was an interesting excercise and experiment, I find that not even the great Jimmy Stewart can keep his energy up throughout the film. It is as static as the camera.

The modern version, although a technical remake with the same basic plot line, is not attempting to do the same thing. First of all it is a showcase for Christopher Reeves. This may sound like a vanity project but it is not. Reeves as Superman was a cult hero but never about to win an Oscar. This is a performance that if you accept it, because it is hard viewing watching him knowing that he is portraying his everyday life, will haunt you. Having lost the use of his body, Reeves shows everything through his face. The part where his air supply is disconnected was done for real, can you imagine performing while your entire life depends on the people around you. Reeves leaves you with no apology for his condition, asking for no sympathy but a simple laying bare of the human soul, his, trapped in a useless body. A sterling feat in a thriller.This is not just about chris or people in his condition, but about all paraplegics and quadriplegics trapped in a shell of a body. By the end, you will know what it is like to live like that, and perhaps you might change your attitude or appreciate what you have, just a little bit more.

Other than that, the rest of the cast are decent and the direction is competent, the style is of a TV movie, but its the best TV movie you will see. It's not Hitchcock, it doesn't try to be and it shouldn't be compared to the original. But from Christopher Reeve, who sadly (or perhaps for him, a release), passed away not so long ago, it is the greatest performance of his life and a wonderful epitaph.

This movie is so bad it does not deserve to bear the name of one of the greatest movies ever made. About the same as painting a VW red and calling it a Ferrari. Throughout the movie Hannah and Reed seemed to be disinterested in each other until the last scene when they suddenly kiss and pledge everlasting love. Where is this building? How can there be so many titillating scenes going on at the same time in full view? Doesn't anyone ever close the shades? Is this movie about a voyer or an entire population of exibitionists? I am ashamed to say that I watched the entire movie, but I was fascinated that a remake of such a great movie could be so utterly bad.

I only watched this film to the end as I wanted to see how it would end. I wish I hadn't bothered. A really disappointing finale. Reeve is fine but the script is hopeless. Why couldn't his neighbours simply have drew the curtains? Reeve's character's likeablilty goes out the window as he invades everyone's privacy. Hope he can do better than this in the future.

This movie stinks. I mean, sure, nobody expected Christopher Reeves, of all people, to top Jimmy Stewart's performance in the original, but pairing him up with Daryl Hannah was a brilliant move right up there with allowing Joel Schumacher near the Batman franchise more than once. The wooden performances are only topped by the flat dialogue and stupid script. There's more suspense in the average washing line than this travesty. If you've got a choice between watching this or the original, then there's no choice at all. In case I haven't been clear enough, avoid this thing at all costs.

Even if it's based on a true story, a movie is always a fictive work. So, the cast acts and not live the story (above all, today with all those blue screen sets…). But, sometimes, there are magical exceptions, when a movie transcends its make-believe content to show a truth in all its purity.

This is the case here with the exceptional performance of Christopher Reeves: he didn't play the tetraplegic because he WAS tetraplegic.

Did people ever wonder what this difficult state implies and all the efforts and dedication Mr. Reeves had to reach for his job. It's a Superman's task. And he delivered it successfully, because his acting of this "strange" watcher was truly convincing. It reminded me of the best moments in the Superman's saga where he was also remarkable… Sure, you will be stunned by the first twenty minutes, especially if Superman was the last time you saw him. It's deeply moving to remember him as the more powerful human. And then, you will be delighted for the next hour, because with his big heart and craftsmanship, you will forget his physical condition to only see the story he had to tell.

So, it is a shame that he didn't get the Golden Globe for this role, even if he was nominated. I wonder how the winner could accept the Globe while knowing he was in competition with such an inspired colleague. Fortunately, Mr. Reeves will later win the SAG award.

And for those who pay attention to the direction, the director's choice to actually shoot literally the title of the movie (at least, a third of the movie has the rear window for setting) is a good bet.

Finally, it is not a movie that you will watch over and over, but it deserves at least ONE TIME and you won't ever forget it (like Mr. Reeves)….

After successful architect Jason Kemp is paralysed in a far accident, he takes to staring out of his front window, aware of people's routines and actions, he spots that Eileen Thorpe has vanished, a woman who confronted her adulterous husband.

I was looking forward to this, it's a great story, and the original film is nothing short of a masterpiece, this sadly was pretty woeful.

There's very little suspense, almost no tension, it is such a pale imitation of the original, and I know they tried to put a modern day spin on its but ultimately it fell flat. I do actually think this is as bad as its reputation suggests.

I can't explain why, but it's so depressing, and I'm not sure if that's the film, or seeing Reeve.

I must applaud Christopher Reeve, very brave and inspiring for him to lead this film, and credit to the writing team, for getting him centre stage, and despite sounding a little weak, he's solid.

Ritchie Coster is woeful as Thorpe, he's the least convincing villain from any Hitchcock story that I can think of.

In future, I'll know not to veer away from the original.

4/10.