This TV film is adapted from a well-known Gothic novel. Gothic? Well, that's what some people call it; this is not the first such adaptation of course, and it would be difficult for it to be worse than anything directed by Alfred Hitchcock, having said that, it makes a full-blooded attempt. Its saving grace is an early appearance by the gorgeous Emilia Fox as the ingénue. When you've said that, you've said it all. Not having read the book and not intending to ever, I can say only that any allusions to lesbianism in a mainstream novel of the day published in either the US or the UK would have been veiled, to put it mildly, promiscuity was frowned upon in the cinema too under the Hays Code in the US and even more stringent censorship in the UK. No, "Rebecca" misses the boat, and would even the dumbest of blondes be quite so blindingly loyal to a wealthy husband she suspected of murdering his first wife?

I wanted so much to like this version of "Rebecca." I had seen both the Hitchcock movie and the 1979 Jeremy Brett/Joanna David/Anna Massey version, and read the book countless times. A new version with another talented cast seemed like a great idea.Unfortunately it didn't work. Charles Dance is nobody's idea of Maxim de Winter. He doesn't look like the description in the book, nor does he sound right in the part -- "de Whiner," maybe. He's totally ineffectual in the role. Ms. Fox -- the daughter of Joanna David, repeating her mom's role -- is not bad but not too good either. And poor Diana Rigg! I had thought she would make a wonderful Mrs. Danvers. To my shock, she was terrible. Someone please tell her that "bad hair" does not automatically equate with menacing!The casting is bad enough, but what in heaven's name possessed the writers to go tampering with the plot? Du Maurier's plotting was masterful. Apparently someone wanted to put his own individual stamp on this version, and in the process changed a couple of key parts of the plot. And we can't even blame the Hayes Code! The Hayes Code of the 1930s and 1940s said "good guys" couldn't deliberately do bad things, so the Hitchcock version's key plot change was a concession to Industry Standard. This 1997 version has no excuse. Possible spoilers: Someone deliberately, gratuitously, changed the method of Rebecca's death. Why? And why give Maxim some sudden inexplicable desire to rescue Mrs. Danvers from the chaos she created? Did the writers not read the book first? Or did they decide that the book, which had been a classic and a commercially viable success for almost 60 years, needed improvement?VERDICT: If you haven't read "Rebecca" by Daphne du Maurier, this may seem like a serviceable, if not very thrilling, story. It probably won't drive you into the bookstore either, though. (The 1979 version sent people scurrying in droves to the bookstores.) If you HAVE read du Maurier's wonderful book, you probably already know that the version truest to her story (the one du Maurier herself called truest to her story) was the 1979 version. Run, don't walk, to find it. Unfortunately that will take some doing, since the BBC in its infinite wisdom has given us the 1997 version on DVD while refusing to make the far superior 1979 version available. The last time the Brits made such a bad choice, the American colonies revolted. Maybe we should do it again and not watch anymore Brit TV until they give us a proper version of "Rebecca."

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.

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.