Opiniones de usuarios

I thought the introduction by Diana Rigg was fascinating. It's prompted me to read more of the author's works. The film was rather slow moving. The relationship building between Lucy and Robert wasn't there really but it was a delight on the eyes and captured the era in costumes and scenery beautifully. There weren't any real twists but it was an interesting story. Characters (the maid) were brought in, then used and dropped. Needed a bit more fleshing out. Worth watching though.

Hopefully, somebody will actually make a faithful version of this terrific gothic novel. Because this certainly wasn't one. What a big disappointment.

The original novel, Lady Audley's Secret, has much in common with the early detective novels that are also sensation novels by Wilkie Collins (The Woman in White, The Moonstone, etc.). This adaptation reduces the complexity of the plot (probably necessary), but also make so many unwarranted plot changes that it dilutes the intensity of the story. So, for the person who has read and has enjoyed Lady Audley's Secret, this is very disappointing.

From the point of view if production, the lighting and blocking are not as effective as they could be, and the location, while attractive, does not take advantage of the potential for creating tension between the open / superficial truths, and the hidden.

I think that the script could be much more effective with slowly unfolding flashbacks or more emphasis on the scraps of paper, pieces of evidence that are slowly uncovered / encountered by the "slacker" barrister.. and, his transformation from an unmotivated and rather indolent gentleman to a man with a purpose.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, even though it's not something I would generally pick up to watch. I think it is a bit bizarre that Lady Audley was created for "Mystery" -- the mystery portion itself was the least interesting. The challenge both for actors and audience lies in trying to uncover what makes these characters tick. Especially good is Julliette Caton, as the ingenuous Alicia; the best part of the story is watching her grow up. It was also impossible to think badly of Jamie Bamber's George Talboys, who seemed like a genuinely great guy. I plan to check the library for the book, because there are complexities that cannot be explored properly in a television special.

If you are looking for Poirot, pass this by. I would place this more along the lines of a dark Jane Austen novel.

This film has a fine cast but the structure is bewildering. The characters are introduced in a haphazard fashion, and the story progresses in a way which makes it difficult to know what is going on. Either the screenplay was a disaster from the beginning, or any sense of continuity in the story was lost in the editing. I found it unwatchable.

The "secret" is continually thrown in the viewer's face; there is no mystery about it. The production is too mechanical and cranked out; it gets boring. Poor screenplay, followed by poor direction and mediocre acting, followed by choppy editing. Its kind of like a cake baked in a microwave, burned around the edges and still raw in the center. As is unfortunately typical of many period productions, it requires that the viewer already have a general understanding of the social history of the time; in this case that a woman's only protection in life was to be either born into money, or marry it. The author used various details from her own life in the original story.

Having studied this book in my doctoral program, I can tell you that this adaptation of the story is unnecessarily inaccurate. One of the primary "secrets" of Lady Audley's is given away almost at the very beginning, her appearance, which really is important to the meaning of the story, is completely altered. Characters and plot are altered and not for the better. The flow of the film is often very choppy, especially in the last third.

I won't innumerate all of its faults, but will simply end by saying that if you have seen the movie and enjoy it, read the book and everything will make even more sense. If you saw the movie and didn't enjoy it, please don't blame the author. Read the book and see how sensational it is!

Watching the movie on TV, I was surprised that this film could enthrall three members of my family including me. There are many aspects about the film that attracts one's attention.

The story is the most obvious one. If the work were that of an accomplished author, you could perhaps see some reason for appeal. Instead it the work of one Mary Elizabeth Braddon whose literary fame is quite obscure. After watching the movie, I will make it a point to read the book. Not many movies make you do that today--this one strangely does. And when I get to do that, I will know how much liberty was taken by the director or whether the writer wrote a book that was an ideal one to film.

Another strand of brilliance was the casting of the lead character. Neve McIntosh as Lady Audley is a stunning performance and I am convinced this lady will go places if directed by accomplished directors. She has displayed a wide range of emotions in the film without resorting to histrionics.

The art department needs to complimented on the fascinating dresses and hats that adds the mood of the film, though Lady Audley's blue dress appears unusual for sober shades of dresses worn by other characters. Yet again this "flaw" could be deliberate to accentuate a colorful character. The color of hair is so well utilized in the film to further the narrative.

The camerawork is commendable adding to the production values of this small film.

Why did the film appeal to me? The film/story/screenplay is a fascinating study of characters--a duel of wits between a young man and a young woman. The work seesaws between its support for the woman and its disapproval of her actions until the very last frame, where the real winner is revealed.

The story and the film reminds you of several good films that are vaguely similar in treatment the Italian work "Lady of the camelias", Truffaut's "Story of Adele H" and the Julie Christie film of Hardy's "Far from the Madding Crowd."

I am convinced that this film, book and the lead actress need more exposure than they have received. Thank you, Betsan Morris Evans.

Definitely not up to "Mystery"s normal standards. Low production qualities, predictable plot and scenes, and inferior acting. Want better Mystery? Try "Truth or Dare." Want good BBC in general? Try "Goodnight Mr. Tom."

Either way, this one isn't even worth watching in the background while you read a magazine.

TRACE

All in all, a good film. The very predictability of the plot gives it character, the interest being in how it is handled. The atmosphere, apart from the dreadful thunderstorm, is evocative of the story being told. The locations are well chosen and well filmed, and the extras are handled with great skill.

A film to be seen. Good entertainment.

As an adaptation of a pretty good novel, this film sucked. It was related to the novel in only the vaguest sense of the word. There were huge plot changes and one look at Lady Audley is enough to confirm to anyone who's read the book that Lady Audley was woe-fully mis-cast.

As a stand-alone film, it sucked. It was very boring - the structure made it impossible to feel any tension at the plot. It was confusing and slow. The writing was atrocious and laughable - over-the-top speeches and ham-acting.

I implore you - avoid this film at all costs.