Rebecca (recent Ben Wheatley adaptation)

[zomgmouse]

Anyone seen it?

Seems to be getting an utter sledging virtually everywhere. I didn't think it was that bad. Not great, by any means, but does maintain a certain misty intrigue. And the

Spoiler alert

final look to camera

[close]

made me think twice.

[BlodwynPig]

I actually like the actors in this one, but no need for Scott Thomas, doesn't carry the menace I would imagine (I got to the arrival at the house but not further, so she may turn out to be excellent as Danvers). I love the book and the original film and even the stage play. This feels unnecessary but I'll get round to watching it all. Not a good sign that it's not a "one sitting" film.

[touchingcloth]

I saw it. I wasn't familiar with the book at all, but I thought it was decently made in terms of the look and the acting, though I found the music a little bit one-tone, just a constant ominous background regardless of how ominous the onscreen action was.

My main criticism is not of the adaptation but the source material. The three main characters - the husband, Rebecca, the new wife - were all absolute head cases.

The new wife

Spoiler alert

getting married to the guy after what felt like three days in Monoco

[close]

- mental.

Whichever way you cut the story of

Spoiler alert

Rebecca's drowning and/or shooting

[close]

, it's mental.

The housekeeper

Spoiler alert

throwing herself into the sea at the end

[close]

is, again, quite mental.

When Mandalay

Spoiler alert

burned

[close]

, my only real reaction was GOOD, I AM GLAD.

[SteveDave]

If it's Ben Wheatley I bet the ending is rubbish.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

(Rebbetic palice officer film)

[Thomas]

My main criticism is not of the adaptation but the source material. The three main characters - the husband, Rebecca, the new wife - were all absolute head cases.

The new wife

Spoiler alert

getting married to the guy after what felt like three days in Monoco

[close]

- mental.

Whichever way you cut the story of

Spoiler alert

Rebecca's drowning and/or shooting

[close]

, it's mental.

The housekeeper

Spoiler alert

throwing herself into the sea at the end

[close]

is, again, quite mental.

When Mandalay

Spoiler alert

burned

[close]

, my only real reaction was GOOD, I AM GLAD.

One of these does not happen in the book. The rest are confirmed yes mental.

I was very disappointed by the 2017 adaptation of My Cousin Rachel (though the titular Rachel is well-cast), especially next to the brilliant 1952 version. From the trailer, this new Rebecca doesn't strike me as ace, either,[nb]I know it's not supposed to be a remake of the Hitchcock film, but the way Maxim tosses off his marriage proposal in that adaptation - from another room, he's not even onscreen - is more pleasing than the desperately romantic, face-in-hands variation in the trailer for this new one. Can't remember how he does it in the book.[/nb] but I'll check it out eventually. Lengthy enough runtime. Wheatley's High-Rise was stylish, but rather an empty adaptation.

[BlodwynPig]

I saw it. I wasn't familiar with the book at all, but I thought it was decently made in terms of the look and the acting, though I found the music a little bit one-tone, just a constant ominous background regardless of how ominous the onscreen action was.

There was one bit of music early on that was great, not on the soundtrack - or at least the bits I've dragged myself through so far.

[BlodwynPig]

One of these does not happen in the book. The rest are confirmed yes mental.

I was very disappointed by the 2017 adaptation of My Cousin Rachel (though the titular Rachel is well-cast), especially next to the brilliant 1952 version. From the trailer, this new Rebecca doesn't strike me as ace, either,[nb]I know it's not supposed to be a remake of the Hitchcock film, but the way Maxim tosses off his marriage proposal in that adaptation - from another room, he's not even onscreen - is more pleasing than the desperately romantic, face-in-hands variation in the trailer for this new one. Can't remember how he does it in the book.[/nb] but I'll check it out eventually. Lengthy enough runtime. Wheatley's High-Rise was stylish, but rather an empty adaptation.

At least here we have two leads (especially the male actor) who are not predictable and I would share an evening port on the balcony with. Much modern drama is destroyed by the self-aware acting of the new victors and starlets

[IsavedLatin]

I was very disappointed by the 2017 adaptation of My Cousin Rachel (though the titular Rachel is well-cast), especially next to the brilliant 1952 version. From the trailer, this new Rebecca doesn't strike me as ace, either,[nb]I know it's not supposed to be a remake of the Hitchcock film, but the way Maxim tosses off his marriage proposal in that adaptation - from another room, he's not even onscreen - is more pleasing than the desperately romantic, face-in-hands variation in the trailer for this new one. Can't remember how he does it in the book.[/nb] but I'll check it out eventually. Lengthy enough runtime. Wheatley's High-Rise was stylish, but rather an empty adaptation.

Ooh, I would be interested to hear more about your problems with the 2017 MCR, as I thought that was rather good (admittedly it was utterly dependent on R Weisz, whom I found excellent).

As for this Rebecca, I watched up until the return to the house and turned off then.  I don't feel compelled to continue but equally don't altogether agree with the utter trouncing it's had critically.  It's been a mighty long time since I saw it so can't be sure if it holds any water, but just the casting of the 90s ITV adaptation sets an extraordinarily high bar to clear for any subsequent adaptation, for me -- Emilia Fox, Charles Dance (for my money a much more compelling Maxim than Larry O) and Diana Rigg as Danvers.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

Not seen but I find that despite my initial hype for Wheatley circa Field in England/Berberian Sound Studio time he consistently fails to deliver. Sad to hear he hasn't picked up the slack

[chveik]

Not seen but I find that despite my initial hype for Wheatley circa Field in England/Berberian Sound Studio time he consistently fails to deliver. Sad to hear he hasn't picked up the slack

this one's Strickland's (who is a far stronger director with a lot more potential imo)

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

this one's Strickland's (who is far stronger director with a lot more potential imo)

oh yes of course you're exactly right. in that case i think wheatley is a letdown and we should just stick to the infinitely superior strickland

[PlanktonSideburns]

yea feild in england has definatley been the high water mark for him

watched this and the hitchcock one again recently - thought weatleys was allright, - bit of great cinematography, - feel like the problem is that i just dont care about these toffs and their worries, - something more outrageous and disturbing should be happening behind closed doors, - the twist that the husband though his first wife was actually a bit of a bellend makes me want to do a bit of a partridge shrug really

[peanutbutter]

The total irrelevance of Free Fire seemed like a bit of a career killer to me; like, it was supposed to be his breakout film and it seems like not only was it pretty meh, it showed no signs of any major potential or anything like that.

[PlanktonSideburns]

he seems to have got so obsessed with period costumes on that one and high rise he forgot to make a film

[Thomas]

Ooh, I would be interested to hear more about your problems with the 2017 MCR, as I thought that was rather good (admittedly it was utterly dependent on R Weisz, whom I found excellent).

I agree that Rachel Weisz was brilliant. The perfect choice.

I thought the rest of the film was pretty lacklustre. It snipped out key bits of the novel - not itself a sin - but failed to replace them with anything equally/more interesting. I also thought the turnaround in Philip's feelings was too abrupt. His suspicions seemed to evaporate immediately after that first meeting in the bedroom. Richard Burton's Philip in the 1952 version struggles with his thoughts for a more convincing length of time. We also don't get much of a sense that Rachel is making herself at home. She's not interested in the garden at all, though the looming threat of the laburnum seeds remains intact.

Both adaptations are guilty of omitting a couple of moments that really make the novel:

The first, when

Spoiler alert

Philip tells Rachel to 'take care' on her walk, and then catches himself, half-guilty, and decides not to mention the rickety bridge/arbitrary bit of cliff-edge - here, explicitly, lies Philip's guilt.

[close]

[nb]I might be mistaken, but I'm sure this particular exchange is weakened in the films, and we lose that sense that Philip is hesitant about withholding the risk from her.[/nb]

And second, Rachel

Spoiler alert

mistakenly calling him 'Ambrose' as she dies.

[close]

Neither adaptation does anything particularly interesting in lieu of these moments, but I really enjoyed the 1952 film. But I must praise again the Rachel of the 2017 version - she's totally successful in her mysterious ambiguity.

As for both Rebecca and My Cousin Rachel being soap operas about a bunch of mental poshos, it's true - but Daphne du Maurier makes them feel like ghost stories.

[Captain Crunch]

Has it got a load of stupid triangles in it?