Rebecca

I got through a lot of secondhand embarrassment while watching this but that doesn't change the fact that I actually like it, I think the acting was exaggerated and awkward on purpose because in their setting and date the norms were supposed to be that way so they were supposed to portray the characters that way. This actually made me curious if I should read a book to gain another perspective (⁠ㆁ⁠ω⁠ㆁ⁠) . This is just my opinion and other people might differ but that's fine , although it took me time to finish this because I'm embarrassed for the FL I still like it. I think you have to put yourself inside the world of this movie to understand why the characters behave the way they do. Should I read the book? where can I read it for free ?

source: Rebecca

Rebecca

In kissing off her nasty, disapproving guardian (Mrs. von Hoffstetter) and improbably marrying wealthy Maxim de Winter, nameless, socially-retarded servant Joan Fontaine leaps from the frying pan into the fire. Van Hoffstetter is instantly replaced by the awful, iron-willed, disdaining housekeeper at her new estate, Mrs. Danvers; some sort of nightmare embodiment of all that's wrong and masochistic about British servitude. Not able to get over her own mousiness, Fontaine develops a fear of Danvers, and a bizarre inverted power-dynamic develops. The plot (eventually) thickens... The big revelations are hopelessly convoluted and plot-negating. Here's the final hour's worth of conflicts which all reverse themselves into pointlessness. --- Maxim can't bear to be reminded of Rebecca apparently because she was such a paragon of womanhood. Oh, but wait, he actually hated her; what a stroke of luck for our heroine! --- Someone else is buried in Rebecca's grave, meaning (gasp!), Rebecca's still alive? Nope, she's dead anyway. --- Rebecca was a conniving bitch and was provoking Maxim to kill her? Oh, but luckily, she accidentally fell and died anyway. --- Rebecca was probably pregnant making it look like Maxim killed her? Oh, but no, luckily she was full of cancer and would have died that month anyway. OH come on already! Such poor writing. One of these limp developments would have been too much. Generally, we don't go to a movie to watch dumb luck neutralize a catalog of threats in someone's life. Rebecca is unusually slow and uneventful. I've rented this three times previously, out of a sense of obligation, and fallen asleep each time, after no more than 45 minutes; and never finished it. The idle rich are shown having lots of time to be idle and fret about obscure things; pretty dull, unless you're into time-jumping, class-fantasy. I watched it recalling that the British pretty much consider their upper-class to be lunatics. I fell asleep again this time, but trudged on just to be through with it, once and for all. At the first twist, the damned thing should have ended, but there's still about an hour of reversals left! It's decidedly un-Hitchcockian except for Hitch's odd use of miniatures and rear-screen, which is becoming distracting here. A puppet of Mrs. Danvers closing a tiny window is unconvincing even at the scale of TV. This is a dull, clumsy, overlong melodrama with tedious, long-delayed segments devoted to exposition. There's also a costume ball; a bankrupt cliché if there ever was one. Rebecca is a bad movie.

One of Hitchcock's worst. The script is insufferable and at times involuntarily funny. Mitchell and Webb made a parody, but they couldn't make it more funny than the original. The characters in the film are psychotic and moronic, acting in the most bizarre ways imaginable. This film is a test of patience. Perhaps that's what Hitchcock was going for. I can't believe anyone in their right mind would watch this for enjoyment. I only had to endure it for professional reasons. Final verdict: This film should be avoided at all cost unless you are searching for material for a parody of some sort.

This review won't be accepted gracefully on this website but at least I am honest in telling you this was a big disappointment to me, considering all the great reviews I read (not here) prior to seeing it. Some of that praise is simply because it's an Alfred Hitchcock movie with "Hitch" being a big favorite among national critics. Even though I own a good amount of classic films, this was way too slow, way too corny and old-fashioned. I should re-purchase this film and use it the next time time I have trouble getting to sleep at night. Joan Fontaine has a nice, pretty wholesome face but that's about it. Her character in this was just plain stupid and got worse as the film wore on, especially at the end. Judith Anderson, whom I read was so "creepy" in this, was not anywhere near as evil as built up to be. As usual, the real-life wacko, George Sanders, is the most interesting actor in the film. Having said all that, I do want to highly praise the sets and camera effort of this movie. The best part of this melodrama was the cinematography with some wonderful scenes inside "Mandaly" (the mansion). The cameras did a great job with the use of shadows, some of the best I've ever seen. Without the visual treats, I doubt I could have stayed with this 130-minute film.

The only Alfred Hitchcock (Oscar-nominated for directing) film to win the Best Picture Oscar, "Rebecca" is one of those typical films from the amazing director that chills, entertains and puts you on the edge of your seat each time you watch it. Joan Fontaine (Oscar-nominated) has just married the very wealthy Laurence Olivier (also Oscar-nominated), but she is haunted by his mysterious housekeeper (a show-stopping Oscar-nominated performance by Judith Anderson) and the memory of the film's titled character (Olivier's late wife). Hitchcock, noted for his subtle sexual under-tones in films spares none of that here as Anderson's character and the late titled character's relationship seemed to go much further than employee-employer. Anderson slowly tries to drive Fontaine to insanity and the end she may accomplish her devious goal. Hitchcock's first real major U.S. debut stunned the Academy and audiences alike and would lead to the coveted Best Picture Oscar. It is not the best film the legendary director ever worked on, but it is still an amazingly good production that works on many cinematic levels. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

his movie is a 10 from the very beginning. The casting is brilliant, the story is hauntingly beautiful, the performances are the best of what Hollywood once was, and the sets are of quality design and architecture. The direction is awesome, but it's Hitchcock, and I expect nothing less from his productions. Rebecca is a glamorous, beautiful socialite who has won the hearts of all who knew her. Well, almost all. But a year after her untimely death, her grieving husband near his wit's end, has grown seemingly suicidal and aloof. He engages his grief while on a trip to Monte Carlo, and meets the beautiful personal secretary and maid of a long-time friend, Mrs. Edythe Van Hopper. She is young, naive, and completely unprepared for the life which is awaiting her; all qualities which George Fortescu Maximillian 'Maxim' de Winter finds endearing. I won't detail the events in this movie, as the story itself is quite haunting, with surprises around every turn. This is a definite "must have" in any suspense / horror / Hitchcock / classics movie collection, and a mandatory must see for all fans of all movies. It rates a 10/10 for its absolute perfection, from... the Fiend :.

I'm not saying that this is one of my favorite Hitchcock films (it isn't), but it IS one of my favorite books. Because of the production code being in full swing in 1940, several main plot points are either much too subtle or were left out of the film altogether, and I want people who have seen "Rebecca" to understand some of the most important things in the story. -First of all, why the heck was Mrs. Danvers such a creep? Because she was in love with Rebecca, who was using her like she used everyone else! Daphne du Maurier (the author) was also a lesbian, and this dynamic in her writing was intentional. If you watch the movie again with this in mind, with Danvers as a jilted lover who was upset by 1) Rebecca's cheating on her (and Max); 2) R's supposed pregnancy; 3) Rebecca's drowning; 4) Max's remarrying; 5) Rebecca's body being found (again); and 6) the new Mrs. de Winter's getting rid of Rebecca's things, it makes a LOT more sense. Trust me. Danvers was not *just* creepy / evil. -Why did the relationship between Olivier and Fontaine seem off? Because it was. He was distant; she was naïve; it was supposed to be a weird match. They actually only really fall in love when she helps him cover up the murder (in the book, he DOES kill Rebecca, not just cover up her death - the revelation / plot twist is not just that he murdered her, but that she was a really manipulative and horrible piece of work under all of her "charms", and that he hated her. The book is amazing. I won't tell you everything that Hitchcock had to leave out, but the film does seem unfinished because of it (and Fontaine overacts like crazy).

A stylishly directed and photographed film that examines a number of themes, such a deception, death and depression, and explores well the emotions of its characters. It is rare to find a film like this, as it tackles various genres, ranging from being a romance to a mystery to a drama to even a comedy at times, and all without seeming pretentious. The cast is truly magnificent. Judith Anderson is a stunner is a quiet but sinister role, and George Sanders is even more impressive in lively but also sinister performance. Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine are perfect for their roles too. The film won Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Cinematography quite deservingly – this is one of the best films Hollywood has ever produced.