CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
7.0/10
1.3 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
La historia gótica de un par de hermanastras cuyas vidas acaban atrapadas en una gran conspiración que gira en torno a una enferma mental vestida de blanco.La historia gótica de un par de hermanastras cuyas vidas acaban atrapadas en una gran conspiración que gira en torno a una enferma mental vestida de blanco.La historia gótica de un par de hermanastras cuyas vidas acaban atrapadas en una gran conspiración que gira en torno a una enferma mental vestida de blanco.
- Ganó 2premios BAFTA
- 3 premios ganados y 3 nominaciones en total
Explorar episodios
Opiniones destacadas
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.
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.
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
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.
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..
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaIan Richardson plays the same role in this and an earlier adaptation of the story: The Woman in White (1982).
- ConexionesReferenced in The Toxic Avenger: The Musical (2018)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- 白衣女郎
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta