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."

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.

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.