Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

TheUnknown837-1 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).

Nazi_Fighter_David Christopher Reeve was forced to stay on a wheelchair since his tragic 1995 equestrian fall... He was lonely and with emptiness in his new life... His approach to the window was not an act of voyeurism, but a sincere wish to see how life was going on...Reeve was observing what he could never do again... He was watching the movements of everybody: lovers, newlyweds, lonely hearts, old people... And for the fact of being a real-life quadriplegic, he gave the performance of his life... He was the perfect choice in the role of a distinguished architect whose life becomes altered after a violent car collision...Paralyzed from neck down, and surrounded by cell phones, computer, voice-activated technology, Jason Kemp is in complete control from his astonished therapy operation suite... He is able, with only his voice, to turn on the lights, to open the elevator, to exchange e-mails with the killer...But Reeve was also communicating to us his severe moments with great close-ups to his anguish face... We watch his breathing difficulties from the breathing machine...Reeve was seen as the man, who was not acting all the time... His face related it several times... We felt his distress, his bitterness, his agony, his vulnerability... And as much as he suffered in silence, he fought for life... His weakness was his endeavors for perseverance... Christopher Reeve (1952-2004) was a superhero in his determination and tenacity... He proved it in being the first Quadriplegic actor on a high-tech wheelchair in a leading role... He gave, under Jeff Bleckner wise direction, a perfect, chilling performance and a highly entertaining remake...

NapoleonX Lets get one thing straight. Most reviewers have panned this because they say it loses what Hitchcock created. Fair enough, if the film had been trying to emulate Hitchcock. It isn't.After Chris Reeves' accident, there was only ever going to be one role he could ever play again and this was it. How many other movies have wheelchair bound heroes? So for Chris to return to the profession which he loved, this had to be the one. Now I know many people have a love affair with Hitch, but I must admit I never found Rear Window to be a classic like some of his others, the idea came from creating a movie on a single set. The camera never moves out of Jimmy Stewarts room, until he falls out of the window.While this was an interesting excercise and experiment, I find that not even the great Jimmy Stewart can keep his energy up throughout the film. It is as static as the camera.The modern version, although a technical remake with the same basic plot line, is not attempting to do the same thing. First of all it is a showcase for Christopher Reeves. This may sound like a vanity project but it is not. Reeves as Superman was a cult hero but never about to win an Oscar. This is a performance that if you accept it, because it is hard viewing watching him knowing that he is portraying his everyday life, will haunt you. Having lost the use of his body, Reeves shows everything through his face. The part where his air supply is disconnected was done for real, can you imagine performing while your entire life depends on the people around you. Reeves leaves you with no apology for his condition, asking for no sympathy but a simple laying bare of the human soul, his, trapped in a useless body. A sterling feat in a thriller.This is not just about chris or people in his condition, but about all paraplegics and quadriplegics trapped in a shell of a body. By the end, you will know what it is like to live like that, and perhaps you might change your attitude or appreciate what you have, just a little bit more.Other than that, the rest of the cast are decent and the direction is competent, the style is of a TV movie, but its the best TV movie you will see. It's not Hitchcock, it doesn't try to be and it shouldn't be compared to the original. But from Christopher Reeve, who sadly (or perhaps for him, a release), passed away not so long ago, it is the greatest performance of his life and a wonderful epitaph.

tlaycock-3 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.