IMDb RATING
7.0/10
1.3K
YOUR RATING
The gothic tale of a pair of half-sisters whose lives end up caught in a grand conspiracy revolving around a mentally ill woman dressed in white.The gothic tale of a pair of half-sisters whose lives end up caught in a grand conspiracy revolving around a mentally ill woman dressed in white.The gothic tale of a pair of half-sisters whose lives end up caught in a grand conspiracy revolving around a mentally ill woman dressed in white.
- Won 2 BAFTA Awards
- 3 wins & 3 nominations total
Featured reviews
I didnt know what to expect . I only watched it on a rainy sunday afternoon on pay tv . Right from the start it drew me in . The music and settings and characters were excellent . I hadnt heard of any of the actors but they all were outstanding . A wonderful thriller .
Now that ive read other comments on this movie referring to past versions and the book , i will be endeavouring to find out more on this great movie
Now that ive read other comments on this movie referring to past versions and the book , i will be endeavouring to find out more on this great movie
I have not seen this movie yet, nor have I read the novel. In fact, I have not seen any version of this story, including the recent musical. I have this 1997 DVD though, as well as the London cast recording, both of which were gifts. That having been said, I just want to point out an error in two of the reviews...
I am no fan of Hollywood, usually preferring foreign versions of most movies. Unfortunately, reviewers dad-hunter (j. hunter) from the UK and harrsman5 from Chicago have it wrong. Dad-hunter wrote, "For reasons known only to Hollywood" and ends his review with, "Badly done, Hollywood!" Harrsman5 asked, "I wondered how badly Hollywood could screw this up," and said that the movie makers "Hollywoodized" the story.
This was a British production, not a Hollywood project. This is clear from the credits, as well as the IMDb.com description. It is a co-production for the BBC by Carlton International Media, Ltd and WGBH. Carlton and the BBC are in the UK, and WGBH, a PBS affiliate, can hardly be considered Hollywood. While harrsman5 may be confused by seeing it on Masterpiece Theater here in the US, I was very surprised by dad-hunter's comments since s/he is from the UK.
As for critics who chastise it for not being faithful to the novel, I think it's better to rate the movie on its own merits. Many of us have never read the novel, nor plan to. When I finally view it, I will judge it based on the movie alone..
I am no fan of Hollywood, usually preferring foreign versions of most movies. Unfortunately, reviewers dad-hunter (j. hunter) from the UK and harrsman5 from Chicago have it wrong. Dad-hunter wrote, "For reasons known only to Hollywood" and ends his review with, "Badly done, Hollywood!" Harrsman5 asked, "I wondered how badly Hollywood could screw this up," and said that the movie makers "Hollywoodized" the story.
This was a British production, not a Hollywood project. This is clear from the credits, as well as the IMDb.com description. It is a co-production for the BBC by Carlton International Media, Ltd and WGBH. Carlton and the BBC are in the UK, and WGBH, a PBS affiliate, can hardly be considered Hollywood. While harrsman5 may be confused by seeing it on Masterpiece Theater here in the US, I was very surprised by dad-hunter's comments since s/he is from the UK.
As for critics who chastise it for not being faithful to the novel, I think it's better to rate the movie on its own merits. Many of us have never read the novel, nor plan to. When I finally view it, I will judge it based on the movie alone..
This film adaptation is a real missed opportunity. The cast is good and does its best with the screenplay but the subtlety of Collins's novel is largely lost. It is quite possible to see why the format of the original novel would require some structural changes but quite why the makers of the film felt it necessary to change so much in the plot is frankly a mystery.
It feels like they had decided who they wanted to play the parts and changed the story accordingly. Marian Holcombe is portrayed by Collins as having an ugly and masculine face; Tara Fitzgerald has anything but so they changed the character. Why change her name to Marian Fairlie? Sir Percival Glyde is too young and Fosco too thin.
Ah well, it's entertaining enough but like so many adaptations, you will be disappointed if you know the book. Out of curiosity I must now try to find copies of the other adaptations to see how they fare.
It feels like they had decided who they wanted to play the parts and changed the story accordingly. Marian Holcombe is portrayed by Collins as having an ugly and masculine face; Tara Fitzgerald has anything but so they changed the character. Why change her name to Marian Fairlie? Sir Percival Glyde is too young and Fosco too thin.
Ah well, it's entertaining enough but like so many adaptations, you will be disappointed if you know the book. Out of curiosity I must now try to find copies of the other adaptations to see how they fare.
This is one of those great novels that cannot be corrupted by the screening of it, no matter how much you alter in the book to fit it into a picture, as the plot itself, the skeleton of the story, is unavoidable and carries it all no matter what you cut out of the flesh or add to it. Tara Fitzgerald and Andrew Lincoln as the main characters are convincing enough, although different from the book, while Simon Callow as Count Fosco, although his appearance is brief in comparison with the book, gets the place in the sun as the central hub of intrigue, one of the most classical and irresistible villains in literature.
But the main asset of this TV film version is the quiet mood and the excellent composition of the pictures - many scenes are just like Victorian paintings, and a painting actually is made to play almost like a red thread through the film.
The finale, although completely different from the book, makes the film dramatic enough though, and the only thing you really lack in this film version is the high intensity of the book building up a tension that makes the finale triumphant in its karmic justice.
They say the 1982 version is better. It is to be noted that Ian Richardson plays in both versions. It will be interesting to find it somewhere.
But the main asset of this TV film version is the quiet mood and the excellent composition of the pictures - many scenes are just like Victorian paintings, and a painting actually is made to play almost like a red thread through the film.
The finale, although completely different from the book, makes the film dramatic enough though, and the only thing you really lack in this film version is the high intensity of the book building up a tension that makes the finale triumphant in its karmic justice.
They say the 1982 version is better. It is to be noted that Ian Richardson plays in both versions. It will be interesting to find it somewhere.
Having read, and thoroughly enjoyed the book, I must say that except for a few phrases and scenes borrowed from the book, the plot did not resemble that of the book. I gave it five stars for effort and atmosphere.
Did you know
- TriviaIan Richardson plays the same role in this and an earlier adaptation of the story: The Woman in White (1982).
- ConnectionsReferenced in The Toxic Avenger: The Musical (2018)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- 白衣女郎
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content