A Perversa

This film is another example of why perspicacious cinema-goers have always needed to be very wary when major studios decide to remake a well known classic. Perhaps IMDb should create a list of such remakes and give viewers the chance to vote on them as better or worse than the original, possibly adding comments when appropriate. Hopefully these comments might make the studios concerned much more wary about following this rather dubious practice. This 1983 film is a remake in colour of the classic black and white film of the same name starring Margaret Lockwood, which was released in 1945, and it can still be readily found on videotape. Unfortunately the original 1945 film is not and is becoming very hard to find outside the U.K. where Margaret Lockwood's name still commands enormous respect in the entertainment world.

Although this remake was able to obtain an R rating in the U.S.A. (by report only with considerable difficulty) it is in my opinion straight pornography- not because it realistically portrays the cruelty and violence of an eighteenth century execution at Tyburn, shows two women fighting with horsewhips, and includes a little more nudity than was generally regarded as acceptable at the time of its release, but because all these scenes were only peripherally necessary to the story line and were clearly only featured and prolonged in the way that they were for the purpose of audience titillation. If you want to be titillated in this way then by all means watch this remake which will probably provide exactly what you expect; but if you want to view a work of art which is in fact infinitely more sexy than this remake, join the demand for a DVD of the 1945 film (which is already available in PAL format for the European market) to be released for the North American market as well. This 1945 film has never been released in its original form in the U.S.A. because the meticulously recreated seventeenth century costumes were too low cut to be acceptable to the American censors of the period, so the original version had to be re-filmed before it could find its way into North American cinemas. A North American DVD of this original release would therefore be a fitting tribute to a great work in this its diamond anniversary year.

To mark the passing of Michael Winner and to celebrate the film's 30th anniversary(2013) the time would now seem to be propitious to finally release this movie on DVD even if it's only a DVD-R as most older movies are these days. Of course it all boils down to who currently owns the rights. Originally made for the Cannon banner, most of those films wound up being purchased by MGM whose DVDs are now being distributed in conjunction with 20th Century Fox.

There could also be a problem with the soundtrack by Tony Banks (of Genesis fame). He may be due royalties which the current owner of THE WICKED LADY doesn't want to pay. That happened to a number of late 1960s and early 1970s American International titles when they first came out on video. There could be many different reasons for the delay but whatever they are, they need to be worked out! If the film looks great on VHS (which it does), think of what a proper aspect DVD would look like.

The film was roundly panned upon its original release in 1983. The Brits hated it because they saw it as an unnecessary R rated remake of the beloved 1945 film with Margaret Lockwood and James Mason and the Americans hated it because they either didn't realize that it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek or found it too over-the-top for their liking. To criticize Dunaway's performance as overblown is to totally miss the point. Alan Bates, John Gielgud, Denholm Elliot and the rest of the cast are having a fine old time and the cinematography by Jack Cardiff (THE RED SHOES) is gorgeous to behold.

There is definitely gratuitous nudity and the nearly X rated horsewhipping scene is truly outrageous but that adds to the overheated atmosphere of the film. It's either your cup of tea or it isn't but either way it deserves to be available in the digital format. Is it a fun historical romp or overdone cinematic trash? Let each viewer decide!... For more reviews visit The Capsule Critic.

POSTSCRIPT: A Blu-Ray / DVD version was finally released by Kino Lorber in 2015 and although still available, it is outrageously expensive.

I can't understand the lack of love for this film. It is just a fun costume film with some mild action, all quite entertaining. It's colorful, full of British character actors in good spirits. It also has beautiful scenery from the British countryside and wonderful period costumes from the baroque era.

The film stars Faye Dunaway in the delicious role of Lady Barabara, a very unscrupulous and greedy woman. Faye enjoys herself but she could have let rip a little more, gone the extra inch to portray this very wicked lady.

On the whole an amusing matinée movie. I think if it had less nudity it could have been a film for the whole family, as it was a lot of kids who could have enjoyed it were left out. Maybe that's part of the reason the film wasn't a hit back in 1983.

Having viewed the original version several times, I thought it was great to have a modern up-dated 'Wicked Lady'. I had seen several other of Michael Winner's films, and though not a great fan of his, I found them entertaining. I was even more interested in the production when I was accepted as an extra for the filming of the sequences filmed on White Edge Moor in Derbyshire. It was an experience to say the least, but I did think the completion of the film would be much better, and even though I witnessed the nudity 'first hand', I wondered what all the publicity at the time was about! I viewed it on video just about a year after it was released, and again two weeks ago. I wish now that I had refused to accept my £40 payment, because it lacked everything, except me!

Faye Dunaway was 42 when she starred in this as the young ingenue's sister (or friend?). Age 42 in the 1600's was elderly and the woman Dunaway's character was based on died at the age of 26. Of course, extensive face lifts hadn't been invented yet. Similarly, Alan Bates was 50 when this was filmed - so at least in the same age bracket as Dunaway. These were roles were meant for young people so it's jarring to see Dunaway's blurred close ups. The nudity was puerile and unnecessary.