Based upon Wilkie Collins Victorian mystery, the gothic tale tells of a pair of half sisters whose lives end up caught in a grand conspiracy revolving around a mentally ill woman dressed in white. As the story unfolds, murder, love, marriage, and greed stand between the two women and happy lives. Their only hope is the secret the woman in white waits to tell them.
Reviews
Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.
This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.
There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film
Having read, and thoroughly enjoyed the book, I must say that except for a few phrases and scenes borrowed from the book, the plot did not resemble that of the book. I gave it five stars for effort and atmosphere.
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 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
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.