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."

Totally miscast - Emilia Fox is too confident, beautiful and elegant to play the plain, awkward, painfully shy second Mrs De Winter. Charles Dance is too old to play Max De Winter (he's supposed to be 15 - 20 years older then her, not 30) and he lacks any sense of darkness or anger. Even Manderley itself is dreadfully unimpressive. Only Diana Rigg, as Mrs Danvers comes anywhere near creating a character similar to the book.The directing is of the 'point and shoot' variety, with no subtleties.The one trick, with Mrs Danvers and the light, is lifted straight from Hitchcock.In fact the whole thing has no sense of mystery or doom or tragedy. There is no chemistry between the leads, despite the script showing them kissing passionately at a time in the book when he barely touches her. There's no romance between them, in fact their kisses seem awkward and forced, and a bit disgusting, given how much older than her he looks (not to mention his lack of sex appeal and passion) The script itself is terrible, deviating from the book, having her challenging him at a time when in the book, she can barely speak to him.If you love the book, like I do, don't bother with this. Watch the Hitchcock version, with its great acting, sense of tragedy and doom, deep romance and a script practically lifted from the book, instead.

If Charles Dance hadn't been the perfect, slightly crotchety, dashingly attractive and aristocratic Maxim de Winter, I wouldn't have even given this 2 stars. Well, okay, the period sets and costumes *were* wonderful, Manderley *was* luscious, and the cold, crashing sea around Manderley gorgeous and ominous! But beyond that ...I think my main problem is with the Emilia Fox as the second Mrs. de Winter. She seemed colorless, insipid and wimpy and lacked what I'd always believed was an essential sweetness which originally attracted Max. Occasionally the chemistry between Fox and Dance was good, especially the marriage bed scenes, but overall the direction and performance created a second Mrs. de Winter that made little sense to me.Also, Diana Rigg's much-touted performance left me cold; although, to be fair, in both her case and Fox's, I suspect that a large part of the problem was in the script and direction, which tended to be cadenced and lingering to the point where it seemed contrived to me.And, sigh, at a certain point Frith's villainy became a bit over the top, and he habitually hit the same note again and again, the same facial expressions, the same sneer, the same smarmy charm, all of which was very effective in his first scene, but didn't wear well with repetition.Essentially, I spent most of the movie, a retelling of a favorite story of mine, checking my watch to see how much longer I needed to endure it.

I have not yet seen this movie, but my sister and I are reading through Rebecca right now, and I'd like to explain to those who misunderstood: Mrs. De Winter had herself announced as Caroline De Winter because she was dressed as that lady (the lady in the painting)and acting that part. I mean, it's a costume ball. She intended this to make everyone think, "Who?" and look to see. Caroline is not her name; the point is that you never even know what her name is.I have seen the old version of this movie, and in my opinion and that of my sister, as we read the book, Laurence Olivier is absolutely the definitive Maxim De Winter in every way.