A few years ago the BBC made a remake of THE 39 STEPS,I thought it was pretty good.
So I am not against remakes in principle but this example was not very good.
I felt the lead actress was not up to the task of carrying so much of the plot,to be fair there were no great performances in this but the look of the thing was not strong,what is the point of a period piece if it does not have strong period feel?
This was not a remake.
shareThat is very debatable. It was done before, and left to the directors discretion, so as many would argue it was a remake.
shareHi DangerManTX,
This is quite different from the Hitchcock version and more in line with the novel. I'd consider it more of an adaptation than a remake.
The whole thing felt rather disjointed and second-rate. Despite having some excellent performers in supporting roles (Keeley Hawes and Stephanie Cole, both of whom were completely wasted), everything just felt flat and uninteresting. The lead players felt rather one-dimensional; I never became invested in their fates. The Beeb needs some new writers.
Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!
Hi greenegg,
It was a television adaptation, much like the BBC adaptations of the great Hitchcock film, REBECCA, adequate but nothing special. There was no way that it could remotely live up to anything by Hitchcock.
I think you mean to say "like the BBC adaptations of the great Daphne du Maurier novel, REBECCA". Hitchcock's films were just adaptations of novels, just as this production is. In fact, this offering is a lot closer to the source material than Hitch's.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Hi supergran,
I didn't go into a long, detailed analysis of the original film but both television adaptations of REBECCA were more faithful to the novel than the Hitchcock film. Neither, however, had the stunning visuals of the black and white film.
As a rule, television films simply don't have the time, the budget or a genius director like Hitchcock. I noted in an earlier post that this adaptation of the White novel was more faithful to the original work than Hitch's 1938 film.
By the way, there is a new, big screen adaptation of REBECCA on the horizon. The director claims it will to be very faithful to Du Maurier's work.
Fair enough.
Interesting about the new REBECCA film. Thanks for that. I've just gone in search of more information, but most articles are calling it a "remake of Hitchcock's Rebecca". That just ruffles my feathers for reasons that I've expressed here and elsewhere!
I'm a bit of a Jane Eyre nut! Hollywood made a version in 1943 which is, rightfully, considered a masterpiece. But I would much rather watch the 2006 BBC adaptation of the book (not a remake!), nothwithstanding the small budget and inferior(?) direction.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
HI supergran,
I honestly wouldn't consider it a remake unless the director uses all of Hitchcock's work, shot by shot, as Gus Van Sant did in with his horrid version of Psycho a few years ago.
I've always loved the Gothic 1943 version of Jane Eyre and even enjoyed aspects of the 2011 version. Strange, the 2006 adaptation was on television last night and I watched it. Love Toby Stephens, my favorite Rochester.
I didn't care for the acting of the lead actress-it was overwrought with much flailing about--not convincing. Come to think of it, I was disappointed in most of the other acting, as well. This movie doesn't begin to compare with the quality of the earlier Hitchcock film.
share