IMDb RATING
4.9/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
A noblewoman grows restless with her privileged life and secretly takes to robbing travelers. She partners with a dashing highwayman, but her dangerous double life threatens to expose her tr... Read allA noblewoman grows restless with her privileged life and secretly takes to robbing travelers. She partners with a dashing highwayman, but her dangerous double life threatens to expose her true identity.A noblewoman grows restless with her privileged life and secretly takes to robbing travelers. She partners with a dashing highwayman, but her dangerous double life threatens to expose her true identity.
- Awards
- 1 nomination total
Featured 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaFaye Dunaway turned down a role of Regan in a British television production of King Lear (1983) starring Sir Laurence Olivier to be in this movie.
- GoofsDuring the seduction scene with Kit and Caroline, some of the portraits on the walls are obviously 18th century.
- Crazy creditsMichael Winner's editing credit appears under the name "Arnold Crust."
- Alternate versionsUK censor James Ferman requested cuts for the UK cinema version to the infamous horse-whip fight between Faye Dunaway and Marina Sirtis claiming that shots of whipped breasts should not be passed by the BBFC. However he was overruled following protests by Michael Winner, who was supported by Kingsley Amis and Karel Reisz (among others) after they viewed a private showing of the film. Following the introduction of the 1984 Video Recordings Act Ferman got his wish and the scene was edited by 13 secs for the 1987 VCI video release. Those cuts were waived for the 2016 video release.
- ConnectionsFeatured in X-Rated (2004)
- SoundtracksCuckolds All A Row
(uncredited)
Traditional: Playford's Dancing master, 1651
- How long is The Wicked Lady?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- La mégère
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $8,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $724,912
- Gross worldwide
- $724,912
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content