The Web    www.100share.com    Google
 
Rear Window (1998)
List Price: $9.98

Our Price: $0.40

You Save: $9.58 (96%)

 


Customer Reviews:

  • Has its moments.
    This movie has been vigorously lambasted by most of the previous reviewers as being an inept and forgettable ripoff of Hitchcock's classic.

    Yet there are some aspects of this movie that I would submit rival (and even surpass) the original:

    1. The villain here is a lot scarier than in Hitchcock's version. That chilling shot when the guy finally looks across the way to see Reeve staring at him is much more heart-pounding in this version.

    2. Christopher Reeves's is a much more convincing character than that of Stewart's.

    3. The scene in which the villain confronts the Peeping Tom is much more intense in this version.

    4. Reeve's relationship with the woman rings much truer; in Hitchcock's version I kept wondering what a dish like Grace Kelly's character would be doing wasting her time with Stewart's aging character.

    5. The ending in the remake is much more ambiguous; one gets the palpable feel that, even after their suspicions were roundly dashed, there is an nefarious element hanging in the air, only facets of which can ever be known. Hitchcock's ending doesn't have any of this.

    Nevertheless, there are a thousand little reasons why Hitchcock's version is, on balance, a superior effort; my only point is that this redux doesn't deserve to be consigned to the dustbin of VHS history....more info

  • Reeve still has it!
    If memory serves, this adaptation is closer to the original version than Hitchcock's, except with modern gadgets. Christopher Reeve can still say volumes with his eyes and facial expressions and Daryl Hannah showed discomfort at first in unfamilar territory, as any of us would, when encountering a quadriplegic. I purchased and watched this video expecting it to be different from Hitchcock's version (which is probably my all-time favorite movie) - and it was. I fear that most people judged this against Hitchcock's brilliant film instead of a wholly different movie. Also, it is difficult to see "Superman" appear helpless - which he decidedly disproves. I, for one, was delighted to see him return so victoriously in a role tailor made. Bravo!...more info
  • It wasn't very good
    hitchcock's version was alot better. The new one is just too hi-tech. If your gonna see one, see hitchcock's version...more info
  • I really am glad that Reeve...
    made a movie after his accident but Rear Window just wasn't the movie for him....more info
  • Chris is really cool
    But this movie just wasn't for him and i don't think rear window could possibly be made without Kelly, Stuwart and of course...Hitchcock!...more info
  • Rare Case of a Remake of Hitchcock being good --DVD??
    Hitchcock was a brilliant director. This is the only remake of a Hitchcock film that I think was better than the original. Why is this one better? It built on what Hitch had done and kept the best. Reeves -- a parapalegic playing a parapalegic -- was brilliant. Al of the acting was in the face. Gestures could not help. There were so many little touches and glimpses into Christopher Reeves real life. I would have like to have seen Reeves receive an Oscar for this performance. It was that good. Not everything about the film was great, but Reeves performance and the glimpses into the life of a parapalegic who could care about a stranger raise the film to great heights and make it even more enjoyble to watch than the original. I have both. I would like to have this one on DVD....more info
  • WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL?
    WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL? WHY CANT I SEE IT? WHERE DID IT GO...more info
  • Not the original, but still great
    If you're looking for a remake of the original, then you will be disappointed. However, if you're looking for a good movie, then you've found it. This is a great film. It's not Stewart/Kelly/Hitchcock - but then again, who could ever touch that version?...more info
  • One of the better Remakes
    I can count the number of remakes on one hand that deserve checking out. This is one of them. Christopher Reeve is excellent in the part that James Stewart played in the original Alfred Hitchock classic. I have the vast majority of Hictchock movies on DVD. I don't think this takes anything from the original. It is just another perspective that happens to work very well. Using a real paraplegic instead of a pretend set of broken legs made it more realistic to me. Anyone that insist on watching only original versions is blinding themselves to excellent entertainment. I have seen my share of dud remakes, but this isn't one of them. I highly recommend anyone that likes thrillers to give it a chance. Another remake I recommend is "12 Angry Men" with William Petersen. Let's hope they release this version of "Rear Window" on DVD. I have the James Stewart version and it is great, but I'd like to have this for my collection too. Fans of Christopehr Reeve should also get "Somewhere in Time" and "The Aviator"....more info
  • It's cool that Chris Reeve was in it but...
    it just didn't have the chemistry of the Alfred Hitchcock version....more info
  • Life in the Village
    This film begins on a highway at night. A driver on a cell phone strays over the divider line and there is a head-on collision. Architect Kemp is in a hospital bed and interviewed by police detective Charlie. The other driver died at the scene. Kemp undergoes rehabilitation - his neck was broken. These scenes are educational. Kemp will return to his home and await a cure for a full recovery. His ex-wife Lila visits him. Kemp returns home with a private attendant. The police detective returns to tell Kemp the other driver was at fault. Kemp watches the occupants of the building across the courtyard. [Don't they own drapes or just don't care?] Why doesn't Kemp watch cable TV for vicarious thrills? Like the earlier version, you need to interpret the actions of the people. Its like a modern silent film. Couldn't that couple just go on the "Jerry" show to resolve their differences?

    Kemp installed cameras to watch his neighbors. [Isn't that illegal?] Then he hears a woman's screams in the night, followed by stillness. Dogs bark in the night. Did something happen? Kemp notices the absence of the battered wife. The police detective shows up and tells them Kemp's allegation lacks corroboration; the known facts say his wife left on a visit to her sister. Later the wife returns - but is there a difference? Claudia does her detective work, but a page reveals her snooping. Will something happen to reveal Kemp's spying? Will Thorpe threaten Kemp? Will somebody's plan go awry? [What about fingerprints or DNA evidence?] Will help arrive just in time for a happy ending? Can murder be proven without a body? {Yes, but not in this case.] Did the police overlook something?

    This is a modern version of Hitchcock's famous 1954 film. I think it is a good film, but the original seemed better because of a richer story and cast. The film cleverly used the condition of Christopher Reeve. [Always wear a seat belt!] There seems to be a flaw in this film. Concrete is porous, a body encased in concrete should emit the odor of putrefaction. But maybe nobody noticed this in this Village? That couple spent so much time together in their rooms that is suggests "cabin fever".
    ...more info
  • ONE OF CHRIS REEVES BEST, I THINK
    REMAKE OF AN OLDIE BUT GOODIE. LOVED THE MOVIE. CHRISTOPHER REEVE DID A GREAT JOB. SIT ON THE EDGE OF YOUR SEAT MOVIE. ...more info