Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
BetterButter

Rebecca (2020)

Recommended Posts


Ever since this was announced, I knew both Armie Hammer and Lily James were miscast, and this trailer has done nothing to change my mind.  At least we will get a great Mrs. Danvers with Kristin Scott Thomas.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I read this book one summer in high school and I loved how creepy it was. The trailer has done nothing to convince me that I should watch this version.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Loved this trailer! The look of it - the costumes, the house, the cinematography. I think the actors are well-cast and seem great so far! I am now obsessed with the song playing in it. 

Share this post


Link to post

I mean, if there was ever an excuse to have a gross age difference between leading man and leading woman... this was it. But NOW Netflix executives decide to grow a conscience and have only three years between the two leads? The entire point of this relationship is that Maxim wants a meek, timid, young and malleable little wife - the audience/reader knows she's completely out of her depth, but the girl in question has an almost god-like reverence for her much older father-husband. 

Probably not helping is the fact that I recently watched Hitchcock's film, which completely nailed the casting. Joan Fontaine embodied Mrs de Winter #2 in a way that blew me away; a perfect marriage of character and performance. Lily James reminds me of Kiera Knightley - every character they've ever played is performed in exactly the same way: same mannerisms, same speech patterns, same expressions. I've never seen either of them disappear into a character, which is fine for fluff like Pirates of the Carribean or Cinderella, but the second Mrs de Winter is one of the most psychologically complex female characters of all time. Half the plot takes place entirely in her head. 

There is one reason for this remake to exist, and that's the pesky Hayes Code not getting in the way of the twist. Hopefully they can work with that: violent undercurrents to hide an even weaker constitution in Maxim is something Hitchcock wasn't able to get away with and which Armie Hammer can probably pull off. (But don't make him a broody Gothic hero. He's essentially a weak man, not a tortured one).

And for the love of God, please resist the urge to depict Rebecca on-screen. She's like the portrait of Dorian Grey - no matter how tempting it is, do NOT show us her face. 

Edited by Ravenya003
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

Hard pass from me. My husband said it best: it looks like a total nothing, a snoozefest.

I agree with the leads being miscast. I like Lily James, but she is all wrong as the second Mrs. de Winter. For one thing, she's waaaaaaaay too beautiful, and they don't even try to dowdy her up (They didn't even go the bun and glasses route!). The point of Second!Mrs. de Winter is that she's plain or, at the very least, pretty in an unspectacular sort of way. Joan Fontaine fit that mold perfectly, and she captured Second!Mrs. de Winter's insecurity, awkwardness, and girlish naïveté. 

In fairness, Laurence Olivier was also too young (at 33) to play Maxim, but they aged him up by greying his hair, and he did a great job playing an older, patriarchal asshole. Armie Hammer always strikes me as hopelessly bland and unthreatening. He couldn't intimidate a guinea pig. 

I'm sure Kristin Scott Thomas will make an okay Mrs. Danvers but, come on, can anyone really top Judith Anderson's delectably evil portrayal?

If I'm going to check out a Rebecca remake, I'll take my chances on the 1997 version with Charles Dance, Emilia Fox (Georgiana Darcy from the 1995 Pride & Prejudice), and the recently departed Diana Rigg. 

On 9/12/2020 at 12:05 AM, Ravenya003 said:

And for the love of God, please resist the urge to depict Rebecca on-screen. She's like the portrait of Dorian Grey - no matter how tempting it is, do NOT show us her face. 

I agree but, unfortunately, we live in the age of anti-ambiguity. If they can show the Once-ler in the 2012 Lorax, what's to stop them from showing Rebecca?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

For me the trailer looks like it's trying to appeal to the Fifty Shades of Grey crowd. 

The only saving grace is Kristin Scott Thomas as Mrs Danvers but I'm not sure that's enough to get me to watch this. 

I'm not opposed to the idea of another adaptation, but so far nothing has been able to top the Hitchcock version. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only one that liked the trailer? I would like to watch this but I'm not sure if I'll be able to. I loved both the book and the original so I could be considered a fan.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

This looks like a major fail,  the movie looks too modern and  can't even remotely compare to the original classic "Rebecca". I'm surprised they even tried to remake it. 

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, The Hays Code.  It made some movies stronger because the filmmakers brought their A game to outwit the censors.  It made movies like Rebecca weaker, because, although wonderfully cast, it couldn't use Max de Winter's more powerful revelation.  Hard pass for me on this latest version.  

Share this post


Link to post

On 9/15/2020 at 9:56 PM, One4Sorrow2TooBad said:

This looks like a major fail,  the movie looks too modern and  can't even remotely compare to the original classic "Rebecca". I'm surprised they even tried to remake it. 

When it comes to classic books and plays, I'm happy to see multiple adaptations every so many years. Each adaptation brings something new to the table and even when they're terrible, they can be fun to snark about. The 1995 Pride and Prejudice is "my" go to P&P but I'm still able to watch and enjoy the versions from 2005, 1980, 1940, etc. 

I enjoyed parts of the Rebecca adaption from the 1990s mainly because of Charles Dance and Diana Rigg. It was flawed, sure, (they shouldn't have shown Rebecca for example) but I thought it was worth watching. 

After thinking it over, I might give this a try just for shits and giggles.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/15/2020 at 7:02 AM, akiss said:

Am I the only one that liked the trailer? I would like to watch this but I'm not sure if I'll be able to. I loved both the book and the original so I could be considered a fan.

Definitely not the only one. I loved it. Never read the book, but I'm familiar enough with the story. I think there was a Lifetime movie that was basically a remake without being officially labelled one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I swear everytime I try not to redo the casting of a film in my head I get pulled back in.   Armie Hammer?   Ye Gods, Just no.    Older, experienced and slightly bitter Englishman is not in his sweet spot to put it kindly.

Clive Owen, Daniel Craig, Jude Law, Ewan McGregor, Colin Firth (if you CGI him younger) Tom Hiddleston, Aaron Taylor Johnson, Matthew McFayden, Thomas Hardy, James McAvoy, Matthew Goode, Michael FAssbender, Charle Hunman, the list is endless, or if you insist on someone younger, someone who can portray an inner brooding mysterious air,  Richard Madden, even Dan Stevens.

Have Chris Evans attempt an English accent.

Vanilla Armie Hammer.   

No.

Lily James is fine I guess, though I would love to see Carrey Mulligan have taken a stab as the female lead.

 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, caracas1914 said:

I swear everytime I try not to redo the casting of a film in my head I get pulled back in.   Armie Hammer?   Ye Gods, Just no.    Older, experienced and slightly bitter Englishman is not in his sweet spot to put it kindly.

Clive Owen, Daniel Craig, Jude Law, Ewan McGregor, Colin Firth (if you CGI him younger) Tom Hiddleston, Aaron Taylor Johnson, Matthew McFayden, Thomas Hardy, James McAvoy, Matthew Goode, Michael FAssbender, Charle Hunman, the list is endless, or if you insist on someone younger, someone who can portray an inner brooding mysterious air,  Richard Madden, even Dan Stevens.

I like your suggestions of Michael Fassbender and Matthew Goode. Matthew Rhys might have worked well too. 

I don't have any issues with Lily James being cast. Agreed that she's very pretty, but it would be easy enough to make her a little more plain.  

Love the suggestion of Carey Mulligan.

All the actresses who come to mind for me aren't the right age. If they'd done this in the early to mid 2000s I think Rosamund Pike would have been great. Same for Felicity Jones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/18/2020 at 12:43 AM, Avaleigh said:

I like your suggestions of Michael Fassbender and Matthew Goode. Matthew Rhys might have worked well too. 

I don't have any issues with Lily James being cast. Agreed that she's very pretty, but it would be easy enough to make her a little more plain.  

Love the suggestion of Carey Mulligan.

All the actresses who come to mind for me aren't the right age. If they'd done this in the early to mid 2000s I think Rosamund Pike would have been great. Same for Felicity Jones.

I dunno, I think Rosamund Pike would have been too conventionally attractive and poised, but I like the idea of Carey Mulligan or Felicity Jones (both of whom are lovely, but can easily play mousy).

If I had to pick from the current crop of young actresses to play Second Mrs. DeWinter, my choice would either be Julia Garner or Eliza Scanlen.

Edited by Wiendish Fitch
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I wish the filmmakers would have considered a WOC for the role of the Second Mrs. DeWinter.  POC were living in England for centuries and this would have been one of the easiest roles in literature to not cast a white woman.  She is a character where everyone but Maxim's sister instantly goes "Why Her?" when introduced including the audience.  

  • Like 4
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

If you read - and liked - the book . . . 

If you saw - and liked - any other version of a movie or mini-series based on the book . . . 

Save yourself two hours and skip this one.  It was dreadful.  Bad casting, bad acting, horrendous variations from the original story.  It was so bad that we were howling with laughter a couple of times.

-5 stars

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the movie was gorgeous to look at, but you'd never know it was based on one of the great gothic novels. Kristin Scott Thomas was an excellent choice for Mrs. Danvers, but she wasn't given enough to really make the character a terror.

Ann Dowd was a lot of fun as the horrible employer, heh. And it was a nice surprise to see Bill Paterson as the doctor at the end. He's a big enough name to have a larger part, though, unless he stepped in at the last minute as a favor. His HIT!G factor didn't match the role, IMO.

I do think this is one of those stories than can be successfully remade every so often, but this isn't that remake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

For the record, I think Maxim is one of the worst love interests ever, right on par with Mr. Rochester. Not just because he killed Rebecca (forget she was a horrible shrew and that she goaded him into doing it), but that he's so cold and distant with Mrs. De Winter II every time she even brings up Rebecca. Wouldn't it have been easier to just tell her from the beginning that Rebecca wasnt the perfect wife everyone thought she was, rather than push her away every time it came up. His treatment left her easy prey to Danvers' manipulation. And when he finally did come clean about the story, she's just glad that she never had to compete with a ghost? WTF?!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I loved the original Rebecca and watched this version with an open mind, despite my misgivings about Lily James and . . . meh. It's impossible for any modern movie compete with a Hitchcock classic. I will try not to compare them save for 1 critique.  

On its own, this movie was lackluster. Maybe it needed a stronger/bolder director? This movie just seemed really small.  And it lacked that gothic feeling. Manderly, I feel, was it's own character in the original version. For this Netflix movie, Manderly lacked presence.

I found no faults with the actors. Lily James, despite my initial misgivings, was fine. And Armie Hammer didn't bother me (I don't think I've ever seen any of his movies). Kristin Scott Thomas was the clear standout (but her Mrs. Danvers lacked a bit of bite and I seemed to pity her. I loathed the OG Mrs. Danvers!)  And I really liked Ann Dowd. The actor who played Jack Fevell seemed so familiar I had to google him. Knock me over with a feather that he was in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies! And Diaval from Maleficent!

One thing I didn't understand was the swarm of bees (or whatever) that seemed to follow Mrs. DeWinter II. 

I hope TMC airs the original Rebecca because I really want to see that version again to cleanse my palette. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Other than showing Rebecca’s lower face, the Charles Dance/Emilia Fox version is the best because she nailed the innocent over-her-head part and he nailed the broken, arrogant Maxim.  Their chemistry was creepy and steaming at the same time.  I tried to watch this and ended up ff’ing to the notable scenes.  They lost the entire essence of the book. Really odd choices.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I was kind of laughing at Lily James canceling just about every interview she had lined up to promote Rebecca due to her affair with a married actor becoming very public (although, what do you expect when you are MAKING OUT IN PUBLIC?). During normal times, the studio probably would have strongarmed her into doing the interviews anyway and had a PR person there to run interference in case anyone tried to bring up all the photos that hit the internet last week, but apparently during COVID, you can just do whatever and everyone just shrugs their shoulders.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I just watched it tonight. I didn't think it was terrible - costumes and settings were gorgeous, so it kept me entertained for 90 minutes, but it also wasn't great. And although I thought Lily James was too beautiful for the part, I didn't mind her in the movie. I was totally dismayed by Armie Hammer being cast in this - he just doesn't have the brooding air of mystery needed for the role. No charisma. Not sure why Hollywood keeps trying to make him happen.

Kristen Scott Thomas, on the other hand, was PERFECT for the role - I just wish she had been given more to do - in some ways her character was made slightly more sympathetic in this version. Danvers is much more fun when she's deliciously evil. The other supporting players were also excellent: Ann Dowd was hilarious as Lily James' awful employer, and the actor who played Jack Fevell did a great job as well.

I feel like this version felt far too rushed and truncated - I think a two part (mini)- miniseries might have given the story more time to ratchet up the suspense & tension. I would have liked a bit less time in the South of France at the beginning as well as the courtroom stuff at the end. I think a bit more time needed to be spent on the middle section - how perfect everyone seemed to think the 1st Mrs. De Winter was, and on Danvers toying with the new wife like a cat with prey. It also felt really sunny, and I wanted a bit more gothic atmosphere, though the manor house sets were great.

7 hours ago, Darlin said:

One thing I didn't understand was the swarm of bees (or whatever) that seemed to follow Mrs. DeWinter II. 

Those were swarms of starlings that often fly together in strange formations  that turn  back and forth in the sky (they're called murmurations). I can't remember 100% from the book, but I think to new Mrs. De Winter II, they often looked like they were spelling the inescapable letter 'R' in the sky.

I loved the book when I was younger, and as far as movies go, there is still nothing that tops HItchcock's adaptation. I did like the PBS version that was done in the 90's with Diana Rigg as Danvers. This one was a distant, waaaaay distant third place for me.

 

Edited by Cheezwiz
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/23/2020 at 8:19 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I wish the filmmakers would have considered a WOC for the role of the Second Mrs. DeWinter.  POC were living in England for centuries and this would have been one of the easiest roles in literature to not cast a white woman.  She is a character where everyone but Maxim's sister instantly goes "Why Her?" when introduced including the audience.  

Your idea gives additional layers to the second Mrs. deWinter's hesitancy and Mrs. Danvers hatred.  It's a bolder, more original, take on Rebecca and one I would look forward to seeing.  Ping me when your Kickstarter campaign starts.

Edited by MissAlmond
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Cheezwiz said:

 

Those were swarms of starlings that often fly together in strange formations  that turn  back and forth in the sky (they're called murmurations). I can't remember 100% from the book, but I think to new Mrs. De Winter II, they often looked like they were spelling the inescapable letter 'R' in the sky.

 

 

Ah! Thanks for that. I googled starling murmurations and I'm fascinated!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Baffling, really baffling. Well, yes the two leads were horribly cast. The rest of the cast was spot on.

Really shouldn't remove the age difference from the script. It's essential to the psychology of the main character.

They really went a long way to make Mrs. Van Hopper a total grotesque.

The endlessly odd scene on the beach in Monte Carlo. Maxim walking out in to ocean in his beautiful clothes and watch.  NEVER.

Sleepwalking? Why? There was no payoff.  

I love KST but what was with the glamour make up? She had false eyelashes and garish red lipstick. On a house keeper in the 30's? WTF?

I could go on but what really pissed me off was the Catherine Tramell look in I's face at the very end. Are we supposed to think she was now a little possessed

Yikes. The du Maurier estate needs tighter controls. And Dame Daphne never considered Maxim a romantic character.  There was no romantic ending, she ends up where she started, traveling the world with an older companion, only now he's her husband.

 

 

Edited by MrsR
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MrsR said:

I love KST but what was with the glamour make up? She had false eyelashes and garish red lipstick. On a house keeper in the 30's? WTF?

I don't think they were actually going for glamour, I think they were trying to make her look harsh and scary, which is the effect troweled on make-up can often have on older women.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On 10/25/2020 at 8:11 AM, MrsR said:

And Dame Daphne never considered Maxim a romantic character.  There was no romantic ending, she ends up where she started, traveling the world with an older companion, only now he's her husband.

"Rebecca" is sadly one of many works of fiction that have been so thoroughly misread over the years that the original purpose and meaning of them has been swept away by cultural osmosis. This adaptation seems to honestly be under the illusion that Maxim is a good guy, that the second Miss de Winter's story is one of empowerment (so then why not give her a NAME while you're at it?) and that they share a beautiful love story. The final speech has Lily James actually say: "I know I have made the right decision. To save the one thing worth walking through flames for. Love." 

Wow. Just wow. 

Here's a good breakdown of the whole thing, particularly these passages:

But the most egregious choice made by the new Rebecca is the one to “empower” its heroine. I’ll say this again: the new adaptation of Rebecca, a novel that is all about its narrator’s meekness and weak character, has decided that what the story really needed was a heroine who is plucky and adventurous, who dreams of traveling abroad, and possesses esoteric knowledge on such topics as botany, forensics, and medicine. This isn’t feminism—the new version does nothing to change the story beat in which the heroine handwaves the fact that her husband murdered his first wife, and helps him evade justice. It’s some executive’s ham-handed idea of wokeness, a panicked reaction against the possibility that people might not like the second Mrs. de Winter. Well, no shit, Sherlock. We’re not supposed to like her! This is a freaking horror story!

It’s quite something to watch someone pour millions of dollars trying to “fix” a story that not only wasn’t broken, but whose point they have clearly failed to comprehend. It’s particularly galling because there are no shortage of ways of empowering the second Mrs. de Winter, if that’s what you want to do (and again, you don’t have to; the original story is perfect just as it is). But all of them require you to acknowledge that her relationship with Maxim is no love story, and that she needs to leave it behind. The new Rebecca fails to realize this so completely that it even bastardizes the novel’s famous opening line into a love-conquers-all message intended to convince us that helping your husband get away with murder is the perfect way to bring spice into your marriage.

It's just so depressing to see such a dark and psychologically complex book be read by idiots who take everything about it at face value and try to "improve" on the "dated" elements (they don't think Daphne du Maurier knew EXACTLY what she was doing??) I recently discovered E.L. James's latest book (of Fifty Shades of Grey fame) also has a guy called "Maxim" as its creepy, abusive, emotionally stunted romantic hero (though in her case, these qualities are what's meant to make him so appealing), but it's honestly the logical endpoint of our collective lack of reading comprehension, and the bizarre assumption that we're supposed to find relationships between controlling, violent men and vulnerable, rather stupid women desirable instead of terrifying.

Here at least is an interesting article about how there's been a certain shift in how romance novels are being written, and the massive wake-up call many women writers got after the #metoo movement. I feel like that mentality might have been behind this adaptation, but in entirely the wrong direction.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I found myself wondering aloud at many points, “Is this supposed to be some sort of feminist take?”  When she Nancy Drew’s the doctor notes I was flabbergasted, and the last line was the nail in the coffin of this complete trainwreck.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Crs97 said:

I found myself wondering aloud at many points, “Is this supposed to be some sort of feminist take?”  When she Nancy Drew’s the doctor notes I was flabbergasted, and the last line was the nail in the coffin of this complete trainwreck.

After watching that scene, I turned to Mr. AZC and asked, "Did we somehow get switched over to Nancy Drew Mysteries?"  

"Complete trainwreck" is a kind description for this mess.

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't seen this particular adaptation, but it kinda harkens back to a certain type of writing for female characters that wants to be read as "empowering" but ultimately makes them flat and two-dimensional, robbing them of their humanity. Men are allowed to be all sorts of things in all sorts of media: weak-willed, strong-willed, good, bad, evil, kind, cruel, a mix of all these things, They're allowed complexity. A certain subset of writing for women insists that only "strong" characters count: Meaning without flaws, not making mistakes, not being allowed dimensionality. Not being allowed to be vulnerable and human, in short.

And misreadings of texts like "Rebecca" go in that vein, I think. One brilliant novel that usually also gets killed by inserting a "strong heroine (tm)" where she doesn't belong is Austen's "Mansfield Park", for example. Fanny Price has been bullied, neglected and emotionally abused all her life. Her fearful, reticent manner is a direct manifestation of that trauma. And makes it all the more impressive when she does stand up for herself even when facing dire consequences. Yet all of that is swiped away, because shyness and meekness is not perceived as "cool". It wrecks the whole point of the novel. Yet they do it again and again, thinking they are "improving" things.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Goodness Armie Hammer was worse than even  I imagined as Max de Winter.

An empty white vanilla yougurt container has more inherent interest.   Even Max's coiled anger/rage was reduced to Armie's pouting.  Absolutely no menace or mystery in this Max.

Whose idea was it to clothe him in that yellow suit in the Monte Carlo scenes?

Edited by caracas1914
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Rebecca is one of my favorite classic novels.

The original movie so perfectly directed by Hitchcock remains in the category of movies that do not need to be remade. JMO should not be remade.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't hate it, but it's basically an inconsequential piece of glitz. It looks beautiful, but that's the problem, I don't think it should. The only scene it felt valid was in Rebecca's room. 

I don't know, maybe they were trying to show Maxim's dominance of the heroine via sex. She was clearly hot for him. 

Someone mentioned changes from the novel. Could you, or anyone really, point them out? I don't think Maxim's brother-in-law being one of Rebecca's lovers was stated explicitly in the film. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bijoux said:

Someone mentioned changes from the novel. Could you, or anyone really, point them out? I don't think Maxim's brother-in-law being one of Rebecca's lovers was stated explicitly in the film. 

It's been years since I read the novel so I don't remember all of the differences. The Jack Fevell character who was Rebecca's bit on the side was actually her cousin (not a sibling or in-law), which, while really squicky, wasn't completely unheard of back then. The novel never specified whether they were first, second or third cousins removed. Every movie adaptation I've seen the actors have always nailed his sleaziness perfectly, including this one.

In the novel, Maxim was presented as substantially older than the heroine/narrator (by at least 20 years or so), which played a lot into the psychology of their relationship - a serious power differential, plus probably some daddy issues etc. I think a lot of people misread him as a brooding romantic figure, when really he was pretty weak willed and also emotionally abusive toward his new bride. In any case, he was not the sentient tub of vanilla yogurt that is Armie Hammer. Mrs. DeWinter 2 was presented as very shy and mousy in the book - so no, not Lily James, as much as I like her.

I do recall the novel revealed  Rebecca's true nature as a vicious sociopath who despised everyone around her (including all of the men she had affairs with), which was sort of addressed in the movie. There were no Nancy Drew escapades in the novel - the storyteller does not bust into a doctor's office to search for files to clear her husband's name.

The book's ending was somewhat bleaker and more subdued than the happy ending with romantic travel photos presented in the movie. In the novel the couple seems to be yoked together by their dark secrets rather than romantic love, and are drifting together in a rootless life of exile.

I'd love to hear from others who've read the novel more recently as my memory is pretty fuzzy, but those are a few points I could remember off the bat.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Cheezwiz said:

It's been years since I read the novel so I don't remember all of the differences. The Jack Fevell character who was Rebecca's bit on the side was actually her cousin (not a sibling or in-law), which, while really squicky, wasn't completely unheard of back then. The novel never specified whether they were first, second or third cousins removed. Every movie adaptation I've seen the actors have always nailed his sleaziness perfectly, including this one.

I thought he was her cousin here as well. But it's possible I added that bit myself because I had the information somewhere in the back of my mind subconsciously. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/27/2020 at 1:32 PM, caracas1914 said:

Goodness Armie Hammer was worse than even  I imagined as Max de Winter.

An empty white vanilla yougurt container has more inherent interest.   Even Max's coiled anger/rage was reduced to Armie's pouting.  Absolutely no menace or mystery in this Max.

 

5 hours ago, Cheezwiz said:

the sentient tub of vanilla yogurt that is Armie Hammer

Haha, thank you both for confirming that Armie was miscast in this role.

  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/27/2020 at 4:32 PM, caracas1914 said:

Goodness Armie Hammer was worse than even  I imagined as Max de Winter.

An empty white vanilla yougurt container has more inherent interest.   Even Max's coiled anger/rage was reduced to Armie's pouting.  Absolutely no menace or mystery in this Max.

Whose idea was it to clothe him in that yellow suit in the Monte Carlo scenes?

I had issues with this movie and one of them was Armie Hammer.  I think Oliver Jackson-Cohen from The Haunting series on Netflix would have been a better choice.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ShadowHunter said:

I think Oliver Jackson-Cohen from The Haunting series on Netflix would have been a better choice.  

I like him a lot - he's handsome and charismatic for sure, but I was picturing someone a bit older by a decade or so. I can't seem to place anyone in the mid-40ish age range who would work. The people I pictured are all too old for the part. Colin Firth, Clive Owen would have worked 10 years ago or so. The only one who comes to mind at the moment is Matthew Goode, but I feel he's very physically slight and not imposing enough.

I dunno, I'm out of current casting ideas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 9/17/2020 at 6:54 PM, caracas1914 said:

I swear everytime I try not to redo the casting of a film in my head I get pulled back in.   Armie Hammer?   Ye Gods, Just no.    Older, experienced and slightly bitter Englishman is not in his sweet spot to put it kindly.

Clive Owen, Daniel Craig, Jude Law, Ewan McGregor, Colin Firth (if you CGI him younger) Tom Hiddleston, Aaron Taylor Johnson, Matthew McFayden, Thomas Hardy, James McAvoy, Matthew Goode, Michael FAssbender, Charle Hunman, the list is endless, or if you insist on someone younger, someone who can portray an inner brooding mysterious air,  Richard Madden, even Dan Stevens.

Have Chris Evans attempt an English accent.

Vanilla Armie Hammer.   

No.

Lily James is fine I guess, though I would love to see Carrey Mulligan have taken a stab as the female lead.

 

They keep foisting Arnie Hammer on us.  Why?  He's proven time and again - he doesn't have "it".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/14/2020 at 4:58 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

Hard pass from me. My husband said it best: it looks like a total nothing, a snoozefest.

I agree with the leads being miscast. I like Lily James, but she is all wrong as the second Mrs. de Winter. For one thing, she's waaaaaaaay too beautiful, and they don't even try to dowdy her up (They didn't even go the bun and glasses route!). The point of Second!Mrs. de Winter is that she's plain or, at the very least, pretty in an unspectacular sort of way. Joan Fontaine fit that mold perfectly, and she captured Second!Mrs. de Winter's insecurity, awkwardness, and girlish naïveté. 

In fairness, Laurence Olivier was also too young (at 33) to play Maxim, but they aged him up by greying his hair, and he did a great job playing an older, patriarchal asshole. Armie Hammer always strikes me as hopelessly bland and unthreatening. He couldn't intimidate a guinea pig. 

I'm sure Kristin Scott Thomas will make an okay Mrs. Danvers but, come on, can anyone really top Judith Anderson's delectably evil portrayal?

If I'm going to check out a Rebecca remake, I'll take my chances on the 1997 version with Charles Dance, Emilia Fox (Georgiana Darcy from the 1995 Pride & Prejudice), and the recently departed Diana Rigg. 

I agree but, unfortunately, we live in the age of anti-ambiguity. If they can show the Once-ler in the 2012 Lorax, what's to stop them from showing Rebecca?

You are wrong about Laurence Olivier. He was 43 when he played Maxim, not 33.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size