Lady Audley's Secret

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!