Shortened version for television. Mason is good because he is a good actor but I still prefer Olivier or even Charles DancE-but he's definitely better than Armie Hammer. Hackett is dull without the fluttering fragility of Joan Fontaine. I think Nina Foch is miscast-she's s good actress but too good looking for Mrs Danvers.
3 Reviews
Just saw this version
kp22kc25 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I just found out this even existed last week. Ordered it from Canada and got it right away. Nice little production of Rebecca. Only an hour, plus original commercials. Reminded me a lot of the old Dark Shadows show. Black and White and occasionally the faces are squished, but very watchable. Based on the Hitchcock movie so there are no surprises and has the same changes that the original movie had from the novel. Nina Foch is a blond Mrs. Danvers and it was a little distracting at first, but got used to it right away. Lloyd Bochner is Favell. James Mason and Joan Hackett make very good Maxim and the new Mrs. De Winter. He is quite a bit older than her so it works. She is a little too old for the character, but it doesn't really matter. Very nice production for a "live" telecast. Of course not as good as the movie or the later Jeremy Brett/Joanna David version, but probably as good as the most recent version.
Not a likeable heroinne
HotToastyRag1 July 2018
Thankfully, this version of Rebecca is only an hour long, and that's with commercial breaks. Joan Hackett isn't any less irritating than Joan Fontaine was in 1940, and even though James Mason is more likable than his predecessor, he doesn't save the movie because he has a much smaller part than the female lead.
Joan impulsively marries the mysterious James and when he brings her back to his mansion, she gets curious as to the reason behind his strange behavior. It sounds much more interesting than it actually is, no matter which version you watch. While Laurence Olivier was moody and hormonal, James Mason actually seems to have motivations behind his actions and dialogue. Still, Joan is rather silly, gullible, and spineless, and if you can't root for her, you're not going to like the movie. Try Jane Eyre instead.
Joan impulsively marries the mysterious James and when he brings her back to his mansion, she gets curious as to the reason behind his strange behavior. It sounds much more interesting than it actually is, no matter which version you watch. While Laurence Olivier was moody and hormonal, James Mason actually seems to have motivations behind his actions and dialogue. Still, Joan is rather silly, gullible, and spineless, and if you can't root for her, you're not going to like the movie. Try Jane Eyre instead.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
