1998 was the year of the Alfred Hitchcock legacy remakes. Three of the master of suspense's most famous motion pictures ("Rear Window" (1954), "Psycho" (1960), and "Dial M for Murder" (1954) were remade in the same year. They gave writing credit to the original story, novel, and play authors that inspired Hitchcock's movies, but they were essentially just remakes, or in the case of one, a copy. Now I saw the 1998 remake of "Rear Window" (1954) within a week of the diabolical copy of "Pyscho" (1960), so my expectations for the remake of the former were immediately lowered and I was frankly expecting another hour and a half of torture. What I got surprised me. I do not recommend the remake of "Rear Window", but I must admit that it exceeded my low expectations and for the first two-thirds of the film, I was enjoying mild entertainment until the third act, when the film shot itself in the foot, fell flat on its face, and did not get back up again.
The plot is basically the same as the original 1954 film with a few minor changes to the characters. In the original, the protagonist of the film was a photographer played by James Stewart confined to a wheelchair by an accident. In the remake, the protagonist is a quadriplegic played by real-life quadriplegic Christopher Reeve, who made this movie shortly after his horse-riding accident that left him disabled for the rest of his life. Save for a few other changes, the plot and basic unfolding of the story is the same, with Reeve looking out the window at his neighbors across the courtyard and becoming interested and suspicious when the wife of an abusive man (Ritchie Coaster) disappears mysteriously.
First of all, let me hand out my praises to Christopher Reeve for his terrific performance. It was very authentic of the filmmakers to cast Reeve since he was a quadriplegic and Reeve used all that he had and gave us a very sympathetic and likable character. I was also very pleased how in the beginning, the filmmakers used some of their own ideas instead of just flat out borrowing from the original. I also felt the music by David Shire was very good; it reminded me a lot of James Horner's magnificent score from "Braveheart" (1994).
Unfortunately, the movie also does have its flaws and when the third act of the film comes into play, that's when it really begins to suffer. For the flaws that existed right from the start, let's begin with the supporting cast. Darryl Hannah gives it her all, but she's just not as compelling as the well-written character played by Grace Kelly in the original. Robert Forster (who was also in the dismal 1998 remake of "Psycho" (1960), plays the detective who's helping the voyeur trying to solve what appears to be a murder case, but he doesn't have the same presence and charisma that came out of the detective played by Wendell Corey in Hitchcock's film. And what I missed most was the presence of a character like the one played by Thelma Ritter. In the original "Rear Window", she was the real light of the show. James Stewart was the star, but Ritter stole every scene she was in. Here, there's no such character. The protagonist's nurse is surprisingly dry and boring and there aren't really any substitutes. I also felt that the editing of this movie was vastly imperfect, with scenes going in and out and fading into and out of one another without any real sense of where it's going and scenes that are supposed to generate suspense and fear don't succeed. And in the final third of the movie, the filmmakers just take it in the wrong direction, play it out badly, and it becomes very standard, very conventional, and not very primal. And it was at this point that I really lost interest, for I felt I'd seen it before a million times, and even if I hadn't, I still doubt I would have been able to stay interested.
My bottom line advice is the same for the two other 1998 remakes of Hitchcock's legendary films: rent the original. If you want a truly great mystery/suspense-thriller, stick with the master of suspense in the original "Rear Window" (1954). I definitely recommend seeing that one first and, if you're interested like I was, check out the remake with Christopher Reeve and you may or may not be totally disappointed. Me, I was left feeling a little letdown, but not anywhere near as much I was expecting and this is most certainly a better film that Gus Van Sant's diabolical remake of "Pyscho" (1960).
The plot is basically the same as the original 1954 film with a few minor changes to the characters. In the original, the protagonist of the film was a photographer played by James Stewart confined to a wheelchair by an accident. In the remake, the protagonist is a quadriplegic played by real-life quadriplegic Christopher Reeve, who made this movie shortly after his horse-riding accident that left him disabled for the rest of his life. Save for a few other changes, the plot and basic unfolding of the story is the same, with Reeve looking out the window at his neighbors across the courtyard and becoming interested and suspicious when the wife of an abusive man (Ritchie Coaster) disappears mysteriously.
First of all, let me hand out my praises to Christopher Reeve for his terrific performance. It was very authentic of the filmmakers to cast Reeve since he was a quadriplegic and Reeve used all that he had and gave us a very sympathetic and likable character. I was also very pleased how in the beginning, the filmmakers used some of their own ideas instead of just flat out borrowing from the original. I also felt the music by David Shire was very good; it reminded me a lot of James Horner's magnificent score from "Braveheart" (1994).
Unfortunately, the movie also does have its flaws and when the third act of the film comes into play, that's when it really begins to suffer. For the flaws that existed right from the start, let's begin with the supporting cast. Darryl Hannah gives it her all, but she's just not as compelling as the well-written character played by Grace Kelly in the original. Robert Forster (who was also in the dismal 1998 remake of "Psycho" (1960), plays the detective who's helping the voyeur trying to solve what appears to be a murder case, but he doesn't have the same presence and charisma that came out of the detective played by Wendell Corey in Hitchcock's film. And what I missed most was the presence of a character like the one played by Thelma Ritter. In the original "Rear Window", she was the real light of the show. James Stewart was the star, but Ritter stole every scene she was in. Here, there's no such character. The protagonist's nurse is surprisingly dry and boring and there aren't really any substitutes. I also felt that the editing of this movie was vastly imperfect, with scenes going in and out and fading into and out of one another without any real sense of where it's going and scenes that are supposed to generate suspense and fear don't succeed. And in the final third of the movie, the filmmakers just take it in the wrong direction, play it out badly, and it becomes very standard, very conventional, and not very primal. And it was at this point that I really lost interest, for I felt I'd seen it before a million times, and even if I hadn't, I still doubt I would have been able to stay interested.
My bottom line advice is the same for the two other 1998 remakes of Hitchcock's legendary films: rent the original. If you want a truly great mystery/suspense-thriller, stick with the master of suspense in the original "Rear Window" (1954). I definitely recommend seeing that one first and, if you're interested like I was, check out the remake with Christopher Reeve and you may or may not be totally disappointed. Me, I was left feeling a little letdown, but not anywhere near as much I was expecting and this is most certainly a better film that Gus Van Sant's diabolical remake of "Pyscho" (1960).