Reviews & Ratings for
Rear Window (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

20 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

A wan, earnest re-make of a classic thriller

Author: Harry Matthews from Brooklyn, NY
22 November 1998

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.

38 out of 64 people found the following review useful:

Why?

Author: Peter Kendell from Wokingham, England
28 June 1999

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.

18 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Don't try to change a good thing.

Author: tunette5 from Green Bay, Wisconsin
22 January 2001

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.

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

The absolute pits!

Author: mike-1730 from United Kingdom
9 January 2008

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.

21 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

An insult to Hitchcock.

Author: anonymous from Atlanta, Georgia
6 May 1999

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.

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

A thrill-mobile going five miles per hour, with the occasional wheelchair jam

Author: drstrangelove112 from United States
17 October 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I can't say this movie was extremely disappointing because I didn't have any high expectations in the first place, the main reason being that this movie was trying to remake a classic movie that should never have been remade. But that aside you still wouldn't have that good a movie. For one thing the romance isn't believable for a second, and the romance doesn't have that big apart in the first place, so there's not even a chance to develop the romance to make it believable. Another thing is that little facts are given to convince you that the murder really happened, and yet the whole movie you are forced to believe that the murder happened, and the characters never even remotely doubt it, which is another reason the original is better, because in the original the whole movie you don't know if it happened or not, facts are thrown in saying that the murder happened and then others facts are thrown in saying it didn't happen, and that kept suspense building, you wondered if it did happen. Also, in this version the murder is the whole plot, while as in the original other dramas are going on and they would take a break to watch them. This movie also has nonstop cheesy lines and clichés, and movie is neither suspenseful, nor dramatic. As much as I hated this movie I will say that it did have some good acting from Christopher Reeve and Darel Hannah. other then that, I would watch the original instead.

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

bad...

Author: Russell Dodd (ye5.man@tesco.net)
29 July 1999

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.

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

It is not just another remake

Author: tlaycock-3 from USA
22 November 2003

It is not just another remake. They destroyed what was a good story line.

Christopher Reeve plays on everyone's sympathy because he was paralyzed. He should have stopped acting before he made this show. It was pure trash. Next try to make something.

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

A Disgrace to the Original

Author: Cody from College Station, Texas
22 November 1998

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.

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Terrible

Author: Richard Sampson (sampsr@home.com) from Burlington, Connecticut
26 November 1998

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.

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Add another review

Related Links