User reviews

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.

Heavy handed adventure with Faye (who followed up Mommie Dearest with this) robbing stage coaches in full period costume. The production is pretty decent, as is the cast, but the film is so woefully over-the-top that you just want to slap director Michael Winner sometimes. What could have been. And that nudity thrown in for no apparent reason is absurd. The scene where Faye whips the clothes off the wife of her lover at his funeral is classic camp, however. Best performance is given by Denholm Elliott, who plays Faye's put-upon husband. This is in the same league as the even more preposterous Mata-Hari...which even shares co-star Oliver Tobias! This one is good for a few laughs.

Boorish remake of the Margaret Lockwood stormer, with an admittedly surging Faye Dunaway (who gave up a major role in a respectable film of 'King Lear' to appear!) doing the honours.

It's a Michael Winner film: choppy editing and rushed plot existing purely to veer from one lewd outrage to the next let that drop right quick. Another dead giveaway is the preposterous wealth of acting big-hitters - John Gielgud, Prunella Scales, Derek Francis, Alan Bates, John Savident, Denholm Elliott . . the list goes on - which seem bafflingly common in Winner bombs.

Glynis Barber is set to marry rich lord, Elliott. Her pampered sister, Dunaway, arrives for the splicing but within minutes she and Elliott are frolicking in the fronds and she's snagged him for herself. The wedding is coarse, mansion life a bore, and it's not long before the scowling newlywed has taken to roadside wrongdoing, shacking up with vulgarian highwayman Bates - brash, sweaty, no James Mason - along the way.

What Gielgud thinks of it all you can see in his face : a weary grimace every time he delivers a tawdry line. Scales is another whose deportment painfully demonstrates that she too has realised far too late in the day that she's signed up to a complete bummer.

A particular low, amongst many, is Glynis Barber's body-double and an astonishingly bad Oliver Tobias - slapstick wig, someone else's voice - doing a wretched fireside love scene. Listen to Tony Banks (!) gaudy orchestral swell as they manoeuvre into several unlikely and dull sex positions.

Controversy - a Winner requisite - was raised when British censors objected to Dunaway horsewhipping topless Marina Sirtis - another Winner requisite - at a public hanging and started snipping. A furious Winner engaged a posse of the great and the good to defend his film, only for them to later realise the censors were quite right. As the late, great Derek Malcolm once said of another Winner duffer: "I wouldn't have cut it, I'd've burnt it !"

Sirtis - ripe and sultry, for sure - a shoe-in for Mia Khalifa, does deliver the film's one good line, and Winner should have gone the full comedy route instead of the crass ribaldry, gurning and quasi-Hammer Horror music motifs he did. Fatally, the film doesn't know what it is, and ends up merely a clamorous mess dressed up to the nines in swanky costumes and pulchritudinous photography.

Points for the 'Directed by Michael Winner' legend set over a pair of advancing bare jigglies, which was either Winner puckishly anticipating the predictable critical hostility his film met on release, or actively participating in it.

Back in the day of 1983, I was 22 and really did not care about quality in movies like I do now at 60. There is a place for cheesy movies or drive in movies, but Cannon chose to skip and save on each budget to hoped to fund their next idiot production of knock off movies. I caught Wicked Lady 1983 for the first and final time after doing a Faye Dunaway search. When I saw the other movies were Cannon, I did not expect much. A period movie with customs was nice, but cannot compare to Richard Lester the 3 and 4 Musketeers and see for yourself the difference in quality. In defense of Michael Winner, he was a mans man director, meaning his style worked best with men who were stage actors and needed little or no direction, they could improvise out on rugged locations. Chato's Land a release by United Artist.

The original 1940s version of this film, starring Margaret Lockwood is a really enjoyable campfest. This dire remake is one of the worst films I have had the misfortune to see! Being a fan of the original, I was curious to catch this version which was broadcast on satellite last night (I had not seen it previously). Viewers are expected to believe that the grandfatherly Denholm Elliot would be the object of love/lust for a beautiful young Glynis Barber and then a (totally charmless) Faye Dunaway. At times, the poor old lad has trouble getting around the set let alone keeping two women happy. Faye Dunaway is meant to be Ms. Barber's 'friend' whilst actually looking like her mother. Ms. Dunaway (even then an old broiler with the head stuck out of an aeroplane window pulled-back face look) is lusted after by Alan Bates and Oliver Tobias. The whole premise is ludicrous. Hopelessly miscast, badly acted and directed the film is a total mess and one views it with the horrible fascination of a car crash! Whether or not it is meant to be tongue in cheek I don't know, but it certainly caused a few laughs! I'm afraid that Michael Winner's crime against cinema is far worse than Captain Jerry's highway robbery so in my view it should be MW swinging from the gibbet at Tyburn!!!

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.

Just watched this the other day and, while the film itself was a bit of a mess, Faye Dunaway's performance makes this watchable. From the first moment we see her appear on screen, she owns the screen and you just can't take your eyes off her.

Miss Dunaway was still incredibly gorgeous at this stage and willing to take risks with her performance that few other actresses would. How many legendary actresses would be willing to engage in a whip fight with a topless woman?

While she is let down by the poor dialogue and uninterested/uninteresting supporting performers, she certainly gives it her all. At times she may go a little over the top but she is the only thing that makes the film watchable.

Spoiled Lady Skelton impersonates a notorious highway robber on horseback in the English countryside of the 17th century. It wasn't a bad idea for Michael Winner to stage a remake of Leslie Arliss' rollicking British adventure "The Wicked Lady" from 1945; Arliss' screenplay (credited here, along with Winner and others) was, after all, a tightly-wound and ingenious bit of sinful charade mixed with costume camp. But camp takes over in Winner's version, updated with bare bosoms and humping couples, while his star--the inimitable Faye Dunaway--is appropriately cast but coarse in the lead. Dunaway sports a whopper crop of hair and looks right in the flouncy attire, but she's manic and wild-eyed when all she needs to be is cruelly seductive (perhaps the ghost of "Mommie Dearest" was still dogging her?). Elsewhere, a British cast of elderly veterans and inept newcomers attempt to make the most of a wan situation, but Winner is too hasty in his pacing to allow anyone to carve out a genuine character. Either Winner or his producers (the un-esteemed Golan and Globus) were curiously obsessed with undressed wenches, though not even a whip-snapping catfight (lifted from Leslie Arliss' 1948 film "Idol of Paris") can breathe life into the tired, mangy final act. Cinematographer Jack Cardiff gets some nice shots of the evening sky, but his interiors are dreadful looking. Most of the nighttime heist action was obviously filmed in the daylight with a dark filter, causing even the story's high moments to look shabby. What a waste of an opportunity! * from ****

The movie is very pretty. The production design and art direction are swell, and the filming locations are choice. Set design and decoration are fetching, and the costume design is stunning. Hair and makeup are decidedly a tad overdone, given some of the wigs on hand, but I admire the effort. Especially at its most dramatic, Tony Banks' score is enjoyable. Jack Cardiff's cinematography is sharp; Michael Winner's direction seems competent in building shots and scenes, and his editing in arranging them. From a technical standpoint, and in considering work put into the feature from behind the scenes, 'The wicked lady' is very well made.

Of course, fine as the labor may be, it is the least of what makes a film worth watching. Very importantly, I think the screenplay devised between Winner and Leslie Arliss is, generally, actually very good. A bored noblewoman becoming a highwayman and reveling in the rush of it is a great concept, and there are a lot of terrific ideas herein. While the dialogue and characters mostly just serve their purposes, they do it well, and there are some worthwhile complexities here and there. The core of the narrative is quite strong, though overall it could stand to be more tightly focused. Still, even in those instances that seem a digression, the scene writing is gratifyingly varied and dynamic, and engaging. And in those moments characterized by action, adventure, or genuine comedy, the writers' enthusiasm for sensationalism is a bit tawdrily common, yet these are the moments that are the best strength of 'The wicked lady,' not least of all as they are contrasted with more quiet drama.

Broadly speaking I feel the acting is perfectly suitable. Performances at large aren't terribly remarkable, but nor do I find fault. On the contrary, there are a few faces that stand out to me as noteworthy. Though hers is only a small (and unnamed) supporting part - and, let's face it, not written well - it's a minor joy to see Marina Sirtis take on a role that's surely among the more action-oriented of any we've seen from her, including even in 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' and its feature films. It's always a pleasure to see Denholm Elliott, and if inconsistently, his role as Sir Skelton allows him to demonstrate a different side compared to what we're used to seeing. Above all, John Gielgud is an unlikely surprise in his major supporting role as Hogarth. Presupposing for a moment that all others in the cast were instructed to be very straightforward in their depictions, Gielgud didn't get the memo, for he illustrates welcome nuance and poise defying the scope of this title. Good for him!

More so than not, I think 'The wicked lady' is just what filmmaker Winner had intended from the start - a wild, fun, sometimes violent romp, constructed from a period picture. There's quite a lot to like here. Unfortunately, there's no getting around the fact that it's definitely weighed down by some aspects that just don't make the grade. I spoke of sensationalism in the scene writing, and in that I speak not least of all of a needless bounty of gratuitous nudity, frankly tasteless and crude. The movie mostly keeps a steady pace, but only after the first half hour, which seems to drag on interminably. In addition, there are some points throughout the remainder that still give the nagging feeling of being a little too long, and unnecessary. And while star Faye Dunaway accordingly mentioned in interviews that she enjoyed making this movie, to be blunt it doesn't really show in the performance she's turned in. From the beginning Dunaway would seem to adopt an appropriate air of haughty, self-confident imperiousness in portraying protagonist Barbara, but it comes across as stilted and forced, as though she were on medication at the time that dulled her senses and she had to forge through the stupor. And in the very last scene, where one would think it matters most, her acting is altogether unconvincing. It's possible my assessment is colored by having read ahead of time that Dunaway was nominated for a Golden Raspberry award for her show, and it's also possible that director Winner had a guiding hand in her approach to her scenes. Whatever the case may be, however, the result is the same, and the lead performance is lacking.

I began watching with low expectations, and those expectations were exceeded. On the balance I believe there's more value in 'The wicked lady' than it would seem to be credited with, and I really do think there's a strong foundation here for an excellent period adventure film. Regrettably, sometimes in the moments of utmost daring-do the vigor just isn't shared with the audience, and other distinct shortcomings absolutely hold it back. Why, there are some themes in the writing that deserved more exploration - but, for example, the classism that's rampant in the attitudes of Sir Skelton's fellow lords is of more use in establishing the setting than in propelling the narrative. When all is said and done I think 'The wicked lady' is entertaining, and worth a look if you chance upon it - but there's no need to go out of your way, and a small asterisk should be appended for where it stumbles. Alas.

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.

Micheal Winner and the illustrious cast take the money and phone in the performances of this classic.

The direction is basic. The acting is 'scenery chewing in extremis', every single one bar Glynis Barber is terrible. Gielgud is clearly trading on his name at this point. Dunaway is Crawfordtastic.

The costumes and sets might be acceptable, but the editing, cinematography and direction are at times laughable.

We should expect this to be the subject of the, 'How Did This Get Made' podcast in the near future.

The spontaneous and gratuitous nudity is surely there just to keep some members of the audience awake.

Another film I had the misfortune to pay money to see. Major over acting on the part of Alan Bates, Faye Dunaway, and Faye Dunaway's eyebrows. You also get to see two women, naked from the waste up, whipping each other.

Mrs. Dunaway, you should have known better.

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.

Not the best period movie ever made, but it does have some good qualities: Great music by Tony Banks, great sets, and lavish costumes. The "look" of the movie is rich with detail. The acting is campy, but doesn't take itself too seriously. One thing that really annoys me about this film, however, is the abundance of gratuitous nudity.

being the Tony Banks soundtrack and full frontal nudity from Marina Sirtis. Otherwise absolutely worthless.

And frankly, the soundtrack wasn't even that good, and Marina's nudity didn't last long at all.

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!

I read that Michael Winner saw his chance to direct The Wicked Lady was his chance to get onto the list of respected Directors, it was only the addition of the sex and nudity by the producers that ruined that chance for him.

Really?

I remember renting this film from the local video store and wondering whether it was supposed to be a comedy or a drama. Was Winner trying to make his own version of Tom Jones? I am not sure even he knew. The pace is uneven and the acting is best suited to the bodice ripper made for television nonsense that was common in the eighties.

The cast is very good on paper. I read that the producers offered large back ends to some of the names to encourage them to sign on. Geilgud supposedly harrumphed at the nudity but a few years before he had also been part of the equally titillating Caligula. He had form it seems. One of the more interesting aspects is the listing of Jack Cardiff as DoP. This is a far cry from his heady days in the same role on Black Narcissus and I am not actually sure whether his talent is overly obvious on screen. In fact, the Glynis Barber's love scenes are clearly acted by a double. The framing and camerawork are not good.

Faye Dunaway's performance would have been better suited to a Christmas Pantomime in a UK theatre. Whether it was Winner's direction or her own decision, but her standard approach to being reactionary was to widen her eyes. Dreadful. She also appears to old for the role. Margaret Loxckwood was ten years younger when she played the same role in the 1945 original.

The highlight of the film is Alan Bates as Jerry Jackson the highwayman who becomes Dunaway's lover. The role was originally played by James Mason and Bates gives a Mason type gusto to his performance. He is clearly enjoying the swashbuckling nature of his role and his performance cuts through the other, as well known, performers who seem to be happier hamming through their parts. For Bates this is a dramedy, and the film is better for his contribution.

For fans of sci-fi there is a curiously early role for Marina Sirtis as Jackson's doxy. It is now an overly developed role but Sirtis does take part in the notorious whipping fight scene with Dunaway. Whereas the established female actors keep their clothes on in every scene, those less established are required to expose as much flesh as possible. So, whilst the merest touch of Dunaway's whip on Sirtis's outfit means that it disintegrates Dunaway still never seems to lose even a sequin in return. It is a very mad scene. The censors hated the scene at the time and for those that have encountered the TV friendly version of this film - and this is one - the edited version is no more enlightening.

The film is a mess, but whenever you saw the Canon (Golan-Globus) logo did you, as a viewer, expect high art. Canon made Reeve's fourth Superman film and the origins of that franchise, come to mind here through use of off camera comments, so beloved of Richard Lester (Superman 2 & 3). These moments in Lester films often proved as amusing as the main script and there are moments of off camera work here. I have never been able to determine whether Winner intended these inserts, or they were inserted post production. I would suggest the latter as there is nothing original in the direction.

Turgid.

An almost word-for-word remake of the hugely popular film of 1945, and not a very memorable one. Faye Dunaway was hardly an obvious choice to step into Margaret Lockwood's shoes and, like her co-stars Alan Bates and Denholm Elliott, was just too old. Elliott in fact was sixty and looked it and though he did give one of the better performances, his affair with Glynis Barber who was an excellent choice as Caroline appeared incongruous. Dunaway's pantomime dame performance invited ridicule, but given that Winner insisted on her using dialogue that may have worked in the original but now came over as incredibly arch, she probably couldn't have played it any other way. The camera frequently focuses on John Gielgud, hanging around like a lost soul, whether he's relevant to the scene in question or not. The brief sex scenes might have caused a stir a decade earlier, but by 1983 everyone had seen it all before and the picture was released to widespread public indifference. Ironically, the one scene that captured something of the flavour of the original was the notorious whip-fight between Dunaway and Marina Sirtis, though lifted from another Leslie Arliss film, The Idol Of Paris. (There was usually an undercurrent of sadism in Gainsborough melodramas). Jack Cardiff's ravishing photography and an excellent score from Tony Banks do ensure that the film is not a total travesty. Now that 1983 is as far removed as 1945 was then, perhaps it's time for another portrayal of the life and times of the wicked Lady Skelton. Or perhaps not.

Faye Dunaway plays the part of Barbara, the titular lady who is a lady in title only. Early on, she not only schemes to scuttle the upcoming marriage of a supposed friend, she delights in the treachery. The other woman, Caroline, is played by Glynis Barber. And the story revolves around the fortunes of these two.

Along the way, the story visits subplots about romantic assignations and the criminal activities of highwaymen. What could have been a better film is undermined by its meandering script and the inconsistent portrayal of its main character, Barbara.

Many scenes seem contrived to focus on the sensational: bloody violence and garish carnality. What might have been a morality tale or an interesting period piece loses its focus as a result, which is unfortunate.