Opiniones de usuarios

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.

Wilkie Collins' "The Woman in White" is a great read--a creepy and funny mystery novel with multiple narrators, one of which is one of the strongest female characters I've ever come across in Victorian fiction. Unlike some of the other IMDB critics of this film version, though, I read it only after seeing the BBC production. While I thoroughly enjoyed the film, its plot is almost totally different from the novel. It made me wonder if the writers had read two Wilkie Collins novels and decided to combine them, taking the character names from one and the plot twists from the other.

The look of the production is impeccable--gorgeous costumes, lovely English country houses, and a use of light and shadow that perfectly captures the pervasive disquietude. I especially liked that two of the scariest scenes took place in broad daylight, in light-colored places, instead of such customary gothic locales as dark, cobwebby dungeons. The BBC's recent Victorian productions have all striven for an accuracy of period detail (no more beehive hairdos worn with hoopskirt gowns)--that includes dirt and squalor, along with sumptuous furnishings. The Pre-Raphaelite art angle, though not in the book, is neatly tied in, too.

And the acting is excellent. Tara Fitzgerald and Justine Waddell seem to have cornered the market on these period pieces, and Fitzgerald in particular, is perfect as Marion, the steely but loving sister of the soft and sweet Laura. Ian Richardson (the diabolical MP Francis Urquhart in the "House of Cards" trilogy) is brilliant as the girls' hypochondriac uncle, thrown into paroxysms at the sound of loud noises. Simon Callow is Count Fosco, the villain who kills with a caress. He and Marion are worthy opponents; don't miss the scene in the British Museum, when she glares at him over an Egytian sarcophagus and subtly lets him know that she is onto him.

One flaw in the production is the irrelevant voice-over at the beginning and end of the film, but it is not serious enough to mar one's enjoyment of this film.

A wealthy Victorian bride and her half-sister become the victims of an abusive marriage, and their only salvation lies in uncovering a mystery from the family's past ...

Brave attempt to cover a complex story in a relatively short run time. Some of the adaptations work very well to fold events and characters into a streamlined plot, but others take too many liberties. The main drawback is that the malevolent Count Fosco is reduced to a few scenes of haughty guffawing, and his back-story is completely erased. This does improve in some ways on the 1982 TV series, with some conviction added to the dialogue, but can't really compete.

The writer has beefed up the roles of the half-sister and the lover, and the actress gives a strong performance. Sadly, in spite of all the streamlining, the end has to rely too much on exposition to lead us out of the labyrinth.

Overall: Well produced but bit off more than it could chew.

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

Really enjoyed this film..... Rick (known as Walter better) is very solid but definitely much more subdued than in The Walking Dead (TWD). Keep in mind this is just over 10 years before TWD. But you can definitely see how Andrew Lincoln who plays sheriff Rick Grimes in TWD is honing his craft and later became a major international star as sheriff Rick Grimes. Very cool that he even briefly wears a hat in this film quite similar to the famous hat in TWD that he wears while slaughtering zombies. This is a much slower paced drama but still greatly appreciated and highly recommended. Don't listen to the negative reviews it's well worthwhile I promise you!!

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.

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.

This is supposed to be based on Wilkie Collins' _The_Woman_In_White_, but the only resemblance it bore to that story were the characters' names, the time period, and the settings. If they were going to change the story so thoroughly, I don't understand why they needed to keep up the pretense that it came from Wilkie Collins. Go read the book. It's much better.

Although I still prefer the 1948 film version, which is more satisfyingly developed (in spite of an ending that comes out of nowhere), this newer version of Wilkie Collins's mystery has a lot to offer. Tara Fitzgerald and Justine Waddell are excellent as the two very different heroines, and Simon Callow is, as always, delightful (if not as deliciously repulsive as Sidney Greenstreet in this role). The mystery, romance and suspense begin to take a moody, even depressing turn in the second half, but this is still, overall, a satisfying film for fans of gothics, visually compelling and more than a little haunting.

Having first read the novel, I don't mind,for the purposes of filming, how differently it is scripted, as long as it adheres to, or at least includes, the plot. For reasons known only to Hollywood, important parts of the story are completely ignored, and a different story line added. The reason this novel passed the test of time, is, no doubt, due to the interweaving of both the characters, and plot, as a whole. To interfere with this structure, is to destroy the intricate balance of the story line, and therefore the intension of the story teller. Although a matter of opinion, the casting of this film leaves a lot to be desired. Characters, described as very fat, should, at least, be made to look portly, to allow for the character to have credibility. The days of slavery can't be over, or surely, actors of this calibre would have been in revolt, at such a travesty of the story. The face of Marian Halcolme is described as being manly in appearance,... Tara Fitzgerald's very feminine appearance doesn't ring true. Again Laura Fairly is described as being 'fair', if not 'ethereal', so, with dark hair, she does not quite fit the impression gleaned from the novel. ....Badly done, Hollywood!

J. Hunter

I watched this a few years ago and then again today. I had forgotten quite how badly it butchers Collins' story. Some of the omissions (e.g. some important characters simply fail to appear) might be justified on length grounds but some of the changes seem entirely pointless - why do Laura and Marian (Collins' spelling, by the way) share their father instead of their mother? Why does Walter meet the Woman in White near Limmeridge instead of near London? And many, many more. The reason I watched it today was to compare it with the 1982 TV serialisation which I have just acquired on DVD and which is virtually 100% faithful to the book and much more worth watching. The only enjoyable feature of the 1997 version was seeing Ian Richardsom reprise his role as Mr Fairlie.

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 have seen the 1982,2018 and 1997 version and frankly this is by far the worst and doesn't have many merits. It is too short, it amends (not just abridges) the plot significantly to fit the runtime, and totally lacks the tone and atmosphere of the novel. The acting is also nothing to write home about and production low budget and uninspired. It is a shame because I really like Justine Waddell. And while Andrew Lincoln isn't a great actor I quite enjoy watching him. But this was poor. I can't see any reason why I would recommend it. It is also isn't too easily available. Though though is a low quality upload on YouTube if you must watch it.

The moment Walter Hartright appears at the train station you know that something is wrong with this adaptation of the excellent novel "The woman in white". The actor moves his legs, his shoulders, his whole body unnecessarily. He wants to make sure we noticed him.

The screenplay writers also want to make sure we noticed them. We did, and we realised they have taken too many liberties with the original story. They are not the kind of alterations needed to adapt a complex novel to the TV screen; they are more like the involuntary twitches of a mediocre writer spiralling away from literary achievements because he won't be bothered to acknowledge them. The motivations, actions, key plot twists are simply not that of the novel. The original boldness of alternating between narrators has not found a cinematic, visual, or artistic counterpart. The actors have not been cast with the plot in mind. In short, a disaster.

What a waste of talent! Well acted and would have been a good story if they didn't pretend it's Wilkie Collins's "The Woman in White." They have taken even more liberties with that story than the ghastly 1940s Hollywood version. Characters are completely misrepresented and others created from whole cloth key plot elements are either distorted or eliminated. Even given the need for abbreviation in a two-hour adaptation, these changes are inexcusable. Worse, this version makes it difficult to even follow the story. There are two much longer miniseries by BBC that are excellent, accurate adaptations. Try those & skip this abomination.