Rebecca (Ben Wheatley, 2020)

[Nasir007]

The curse of the well-produced movie. How often we fall prey to it. It is necessary to resist always. A well-appointed movie with good design & photography, competent sound and staging and not awful acting can seem like a good movie. It shouldn't. And this isn't.

This really is one of those where you have to wonder - what was the pitch? Why was it greenlit? What was the point?

This movie adds absolutely nothing to Rebecca. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Maybe, its in color so some younger people will watch it. But even they might be better served by the Hitchock version - which I can't believe is 80 years old. The Hitchcock version is better in absolutely every imaginable way - better designed, better shot, better edited, better scored, and above all better written, acted and directed, more engaging and compelling and more suspenseful and dramatic. What did Netflix achieve by making this movie?

I am not at all against remakes. But I there has to be a fundamental idea or conceit driving a remake (or any project)? What is the one interesting thing you are trying to do? If nothing else works, what is the one thing that makes your movie interesting? This movie has that one idea - and it is so banal, so throwaway, so utterly pointless, that it really does not justify making this movie.

And that is a pity. I happen to think that Rebecca is not a great novel (it is a good novel though) but it is a GREAT STORY. It's a crackling tale. Which means it is very readily adaptable for the screen. You could make a very great movie out of Rebecca. Some might argue Hitchcock already did. But there's no reason you couldn't make another one. He did leave a few things out. And you could chance on a fresh angle - that would suddenly be that one kernel to make it fresh and exciting. Like I said, it is a great story. And even in this pointless version, the bones are there. But it wasn't to be.

So what are the failings? The leads are very unremarkable. Is Armie Hammer really good in any role? I think people might cite Call Me By Your Name and Social Network as his notable performances and even there I found him only adequate or ordinary. The guy brings nothing to any role. And this role is very badly written, so he had nothing to work with. But still, he's lifeless. Absolutely dead inside. And think back to Olivier. You have to wonder why was Hammer even cast? He's handsome? I daresay and I don't think very many people would dispute this - Oliver (not just a great actor) was far more dashing in the 1940 version. You could totally feel a young girl getting swept off her feet. Hammer is like a nice looking tall goofy chap. Hardly the stuff of a brooding byronic hero.

And Lily James is equally vapid. You don't give a shit about her. Where are our engaging movie stars? A very dull actress I think.

And herein lies the major failing - the story hardly seems to matter because the two leads are so uninteresting. Who cares what happens to them. Nothing is compelling or suspenseful because you couldn't be bothered if these two bland people live or die. I think this is story-telling 101 - make your characters compelling. If you do that, you don't need to egg on the stakes. I mean if you make the characters interesting, you can have me heartbroken and weeping by the end over a lost shoe or bicycle. The focus of the script is so heavily to make some kind of ghost narrative that it completely relies on it to provide interest. When it should have done the opposite - invest in the characters and see it pay off in the end when the audience cares.

Also the movie is far too modern, nobody behaves in a period appropriate manner. When late in the game you see a period diving scuba suit, it took me out of the movie because everybody was behaving (and almost dressing) in a contemporary way and it was a reminder, ah this movie takes place nearly 100 years ago. Some of it is just plain doesn't make sense. In 1930's the supposedly mousy timid lead character sleeps with a man she met 2 days ago. Um, what? Also the characters actions are often improbable and they don't seem to be acting like normal sensible human beings - even in the most basic way. If I don't see actual humans on screen, it always takes me out of the movie. They key to immersion is NOT 4K or 3D or 48FPS or IMAX or long takes, the key to immersion is probability. A probable tale with probable human behavior will immerse you. Unfortunately, few films today seem to take that to heart.

Anyways, watch the very good Hitchcock version to remind yourself of a very good film and a very interesting, entertaining story.

PS: And yes, Kristen Scott Thomas is the only interesting actor in this. She is the one person screen who you feel is a thinking, feeling human being with an inner life and desires and vulnerabilities or what. Rest all is window dressing - and not that handsome window dressing either.

[thirtyframesasecond]

I found Armie Hammer more interesting in The Man from Uncle than his two more praised performances.

This film seems a waste of Ben Wheatley's talents.

[therewillbeblus]

I haven't seen Happy New Year, Colin Burstead but Wheatley's been "wasting" his talent for years, and I've started to doubt the talents I detected in the first place. High Rise was the turning point for me, in taking a novel begging for world-building and gradually progressing insanity/unraveling humanity, and somehow doing none of that, which came across as nonsensical and just... boring. I read the Ballard novel in anticipation for his adaptation and was thinking that it was completely within his wheelhouse of talent, but nope.

I do like Kill List, Sightseers, and A Field in England, and especially find Kill List to be effective in its development of tone through phantasmagoria.

[felipe]

Is Armie Hammer really good in any role? I think people might cite Call Me By Your Name and Social Network as his notable performances and even there I found him only adequate or ordinary. The guy brings nothing to any role. And this role is very badly written, so he had nothing to work with. But still, he's lifeless. Absolutely dead inside. And think back to Olivier. You have to wonder why was Hammer even cast? He's handsome? I daresay and I don't think very many people would dispute this - Oliver (not just a great actor) was far more dashing in the 1940 version. You could totally feel a young girl getting swept off her feet. Hammer is like a nice looking tall goofy chap. Hardly the stuff of a brooding byronic hero.

It seemed that Hollywood tried hard to make Armie Hammer a star. He had lead roles in half a dozen big budget movies from 2011 to 2016 without ever really scoring any hit...

[The Narrator Returns]

I like Hammer a lot in Sorry to Bother You, he seems like a textbook case of a good supporting actor “cursed” to be in a movie star’s body and get saddled with boring movie star parts.

[Nasir007]

He's just stiff. Not a natural actor at all. He was better in UNCLE but even there he was stiff. And talk about a stiff-off. In UNCLE he was playing opposite Cavill, another famous stiff.

[domino harvey]

Hammer is like the male Alicia Vikander, just an unfinished Sims template of a movie star

[knives]

I honestly love his performances and think he’s one of the best talents we have especially his genius in deadpan comedy. Even in something crappy like Free Fire he’s great.

[therewillbeblus]

I didn’t like Free Fire much, but him and Sharlto Copley were both very funny. His aloof arrogance can be used across a broader range than it seems at first glance, and then when that gets popped in Call Me By Your Name with him revealed as arguably the more vulnerable of the two under the facade, what may seem like stiffness is a subtly moving internalized perf, the extent of which I only really appreciated on revisits. Even though that’s a defense of sorts, I don’t think he’s even close to the upper tiers of our current acting talents, just not worth being called a “stiff” repetitively when that’s a trait he manipulates to flaunt his talent. Hell, he’s funny in The Social Network beyond what’s in Sorkin’s script, by exploiting the latent emotional mechanics finally discovering themselves, behind the curve for once, in a silver-spoon pair of “stiffs”

[thirtyframesasecond]

He's just stiff. Not a natural actor at all. He was better in UNCLE but even there he was stiff. And talk about a stiff-off. In UNCLE he was playing opposite Cavill, another famous stiff.

He was playing a stiff KGB operative, perfect casting really.

[Nasir007]

He's just stiff. Not a natural actor at all. He was better in UNCLE but even there he was stiff. And talk about a stiff-off. In UNCLE he was playing opposite Cavill, another famous stiff.

He was playing a stiff KGB operative, perfect casting really.

Definitely better than some of the other stuff I've seen him in. But in general, I don't think he adds to anything on the page.
Very likable in interviews, I'll give him that.

[willoneill]

Armie Hammer may not be a compelling actor, but he is a good ghost writer of Instagram divorce announcements for former child sitcom stars.

[willoneill]

I watched Rebecca last night, because I'm a fan of both of the Hitchcock film and most of Ben Wheatley's films, but it didn't really do much for me. James and Hammer don't really click, even in the early Monte Carlo scenes. Other than maybe

Spoiler

the nightmare sequence at the ball

, it didn't really feel like a Wheatley film, just a job for hire. And then after the movie was over I read that he's doing Tomb Raider 2 next ... and then TODAY I read that before TR2, he's directing The Meg 2! ... and so I guess Ben Wheatley is the man with the largest gambling debts in England?