Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

PassTheButteredKarn What was the point of this travesty? Might as well take all the masterpieces and do remakes and heap insult and sacrilege. Was this a charity case for Mr. Reeves? If so, nice intent. However, nice intents can turn into embarrassment. As it is when you try to replace Jimmy Stewart on the screen. And Daryl Hannah as the contemporary Grace Kelly replacement? Another horribly cast blemish.I would love to hear what Hitch would have to say to the producer, director, and actors of this farce. I do not understand why some producers want to "modernize" a classic. Occasionally, it can be pulled off with some success, but not here.

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).

Michael_Elliott Rear Window (1998) ** (out of 4) After a car accident a man (Christopher Reeve) is left paralyzed and begins killing time by spying on his neighbors when he thinks he hears one of them murdered. There's some interesting aspects to this remake of the Hitchcock classic but at the end of the day there are just way too many problems for the film to really work. Reeve is very good in the part, although it took me some time to get involved with the film because the early scenes of him in rehab and dealing with being paralyzed where rather depressing to watch. Daryl Hannah is wasted in the Grace Kelly role and Robert Forster's roll as the detective is very badly written. It was interesting how the filmmakers used an upscaled apartment for a crippled but the actual murder case is very boring and the ending is a big letdown.

bob the moo Having survived a car crash, Jason Kemp is left paralysed from the neck down and his only comfort is the fact that his high paying job has allowed him to have his flat kitted out with loads of assistive technology. Trying to cope with the loss of his body, Jason is determined to stay busy but soon finds himself becoming fascinated with the apartment block across the road from his own flat. He spots a woman across the road getting into a domestic with her boyfriend and call the police on him. Being just as nosey, one of his helpers, Antonio, feeds his interest by getting him a camera and monitor set up. However when the boyfriend comes back something happens and the woman he has been watching seems to no longer be in the flat Jason suspects murder.The term "vanity project" could be applied to this film since it is more about Reeve himself than his character, but in this case it would be a hardhearted person that would attack the film on this ground. The film has a certain amount of novelty value due to the presence of Reeve but outside of that it is hard to ignore how inferior it is to the Hitchcock original. I know some reviewers have been so moved by the presence of Reeve that they have found it difficult to review the film as what it is meant to be – which is something of value in its own right. As such this remake isn't actually that good because it lacks tension, character and originality. It isn't terrible of course, because it is reasonably engaging but, aside from the novelty value, I can't see why anyone would chose to watch this in place of the original.Reeve is pretty good in the lead role. He is natural enough and convincing in his sense of panic but he is hardly given that great a performance. I can understand why viewers would be sympathetic in their judgement of his performance but perhaps they have been a bit too generous – it is brave, but not brilliant. Talking of "not brilliant", good to see Darryl Hannah still churning out the wooden performances. Forster is a nice "pre-Jackie Brown" find but doesn't have much to do, while I didn't care for Santiago-Hudson that much.Overall this is a so-so film that benefits greatly from the presence of Reeve. Aside from his return to the screen there isn't a huge amount to make this worth a look – particularly when it has been done so much better elsewhere.