I accidentally came upon this version. I had seen Hitchcock's version and it came to as "dubious, questionable". But this version really makes it a horror. The picture on the front of the case shows a woman with a "naughty glance". But if you wait you see behind this an absolute determination of immense cruelty. And that is not she but Mr. de Winter.Is it "sophisticated amusement"? For who?

This version of Rebecca was meant to be Gothic and warped, instead it came out as lethargic and overlong with a disappointing first episode the moved at a snail's pace. Only Faye Dunaway's fruity acting as Mrs Van Hopper kept you awake.Charles Dance looks too old as Maxim de Winter, almost a cradle snatcher as he woos young, inexperienced and rather plain Emilia Fox and swiftly marries her, only months after the death of the first Mrs de Winter.When he brings his new bride to his mansion, Manderley, she is overburdened by the hovering spectre of his late wife who was beautiful and well liked especially by the demented housekeeper Mrs Danvers (Diana Rigg) who adored her.Max just sulks in the background as the new, young Mrs de Winter can do no right. However the truth about the first Mrs de Winter soon comes to light and Max has to reveal his dark secret.The second episode was much better than the first as we gets to the kernel of Daphne Du Maurier's story but then it is also Jonathan Cake's turn to ham it up.Dance and Fox have very little chemistry together and the whole thing looks a little too old fashioned even for 1997.

I have always found Lawrence Olivier's portrayal of Maxim de Winter to be distant and forbidding, which detracted from the Hitchcock version of Rebecca, although that film has so much to recommend it. This lovely, warm adaptation is blessed by Charles Dance who makes Maxim a much more attractive man worth fighting for and Emilia Fox is a wonderful actress, even at this young age. The difference in their ages is important to the story and the casting here is so convincing that the book is really brought to life. I am glad it lacks the sinister quality of Hitchcock because it's refreshing to see a different approach and in some ways a more modern take on the story, even though it is set in the correct period. Although I knew the story well, I was still gripped by it, and was surprised by some twists. I saw this when it was originally shown on TV in 1997, and have just seen it again - I think I liked it better this time. Well worth 4 hours of anyone's time, to do justice to such a great novel.

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.