Watch The Woman in White For Free

Very well executed

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Although none of the screenings of this famous thriller novel for television or for film have been too faithful to the novel, which is actually related in different versions by the characters themselves, which makes it very complicated and sophisticated, it's impossible to make a bad screening of it, no matter how much you shorten it. This is the most shortened version of all, while the 1982 version is the most faithful and best. However, none of the other Foscos are so true to the original character as Sidney Greenstreet here, who awesomely dominates the film. Eleanor Parker is excellent in her double role as both Laura and Anne Catherick, but she is a bit too beautiful for Laura, while her rendering of Anne Catherick is better - they actually become like one in the end. Alexis Smith plays with style as usual, and it's impossible for any actress to fail with a character like Marion Halcombe. The Sir Percy Glyde dandy figure is also good but is whisked away in this rather mutilated version. Gig Young as Walter is the only one who does not quite fit in.Other excellent merits of this film is the marvellous score of Max Steiner with harp for the dominating instrument - none of the other versions make a success of the music. The black and white photography also adds to the eerie and moody blues of this horror story of wicked intrigue, and although the finale of the novel is ignored here, Agnes Moorehead as the countess Fosco instead gets something to do - here she is made to combine both the countess and Mrs Catherick in the novel.So although much of the novel, and especially its highlights, are lost in this film, it definitely has deserts enough to vie with the other later versions in colour, which have other advantages over this one.

First, just a few words about the original version of the film. The beautiful, sensitive music by Max Steiner, the all-star cast, and fantastic photography of London locales combined make the film well-worth watching. To all this we have the romance of the story which is quite enlivened by underlying evil of some of the key characters.However, some of the important events are quite different in the novel. If we view the superb adaptation of the 1982 version with Alan Badel and Diana Quick, we will ultimately see the true story in pretty much its entirety. The ending that puzzles us in the 40s version is resolved once we see the newer version or read the novel.We still have a happy ending per see, but it is the one intended by the author and reasonably derived from the story in the film.I think the reason they changed the punch-line and Walter married the wrong girl, is because Laura's half=sister Marian has worked tirelessly to help her sister. Yes, we would love her to get together with Walter. However, it is best to re-unite Walter with Laura, as they had realized their love for each other early in the story. She only marries Sir Percival because her father had wanted her to do so. Soon she discovers that he is cruel and conniving. At the time their house guests, Count and Countess Fosco appear to be friends.Complicating matters further, we see The Count making overtures to Marian Halcomb, and even writing in her diary about his feelings when she is sick with fever.Coincidentally, I have been re-reading the novel by Wilkie Collins and find it very unique. Not only is the book rather lengthy, the story is told by different character's perceptions. It is like a recipe for a cake or a favorite dinner dish. WHen we put together all of the characters and their story of what had taken place, we zoom in on the real events. Ultimately we see revealed the conspiracy that dupes innocent pawn, Ann Catherick, and the innocent heiress, Laura Fairlie. Both girls are treated badly for the purpose of financial gain.Ann had hoped to meet Laura and speak to her of Sir Percival's evil secret. Laura had left home, thinking her half-sister Merian, would be at the Count's home. So both girls believe they will meet with each other.The most evil character, Count Fosco, appears to be kind and chivalrous, while assisting his friend, Sir Percival Glyde, in receiving his wife's 30 thousand pounds at her death. Under his mask of kindness, The Count tricks Ann CAtherick into thinking she will meet with Laura Fairlie on an important matter. She had recently escaped from a mental asylum, having been unfairly committed by Sir Percival Glyde, who fears she knows his secret. At the time his plans begin to fail, as he does not know Ann has a serious heart condition. Concurrently, he switches her identity with Laura Fairlie; returning Laura to the asylum under Ann's name.Having switched both girls, The Count is ready to help his friend, Sir Percival Glyde, to receive the money prematurely. Sir Percival, rude and unkind to his wife Laura, is ready to receive his friend's help, no matter how it works out. The diabolical nobleman dies in a fire in the church which might have revealed in its registers that he should not have the title or the money he presently has.After "Lady Glyde" has died, Walter Hartwright the drawing master who loves her, returns and begins to work out details of the conspiracy. He finds Laura at the cemetery and realized that Ann has been buried mistakenly as Lady Glyde, He and Marian, Laura's half-sister, assist in discovering the true scheme, unaided by Laura's uncle who believes Count Fosco and his wife who assert that she is dead. He is selfish and indolent, staying calm at all costs. Walter realizes that Laura needs to be recognized in her true identity, as Mr. Fairlie will not let her in the house with Marian. Thus, she will not have her status or her money. Walter and Marian work tirelessly to discover the scheme, interview witnesses, and seek legal aid. At the same time, they discover that Laura has memory blocks about her time in the asylum So, with all that said, both versions are well-worth watching, and so is the novel to be read.For anyone who has not seen Alan Badel's fabulous 1982 performance as The Count, it is quite a treat. Also, as was stated in other reviews, the wonderful Sydney Greenstreet as Count Fosco, and Agnes Morehead is also superb as Countess Fosco. A last few words is giving merit to the wonderful Eleanor Parker in the dual role in the film. She is great as the lovely Laura Fairlie and as The Woman in White.My score for the 1982 version is a 10. For the 1947 version, I score a 7, as two very important aspects of the story are changed toward the ending.

The best version of The Woman in White is the outstanding 1982 one with Diana Quick, which is very faithful to the book(not that that has to be important in adaptations), has the ideal pace and length and is superbly acted with not a weak link. The 1997 version does have flaws, with Count Fosco and Sir Percival Glyde being under-characterised, being rushed and too short and some of the changes(namely the reason for Glyde's persecution of Anne) not making as much sense but is much better than it's given credit for because it is atmospheric, very well made and the rest of the cast are fine. This film is not the most faithful to the book either, though closer in spirit to 1997, on its own it's very good. It is let down by the wooden and rather pallid Walter of Gig Young and the very contrived ending. But it is very attractively photographed and the production values generally being hauntingly Gothic. Max Steiner's score is sweeping and has some menace and eeriness to it, while the dialogue is literate with its funny, poignant and foreboding touches and the story moves along with seldom a dull stretch, it is coherent and keeps you interested. It is not as complex or as intricate to the book but it does respectably still. The film is very well directed and the performances are fine. Eleanor Parker is positively luminous in appearance and is a sympathetic Laura and a touching Anne, she is better as the latter, which is a more interesting role to begin with. Alexis Smith brings the strong-willed passion that Marian should do, while John Abbott is most amusing and condescending as Frederick Fairlie. Madame Fosco's decent from madness to murderous insanity is chillingly depicted by Agnes Moorhead and John Emery's Glyde is charming yet oily. Sydney Greenstreet is the one who makes the film, not only is he is the actor that most resembles one of literature's most interesting villains physically but he brings both the charming intelligence and monstrous evil of Count Fosco. Overall, very good, 1982 is the superior adaptation but this is a worthy second best. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Miserable film showcasing 2 excellent acting performances. John Emery, as Percival, a nervous wreck is simply marvelous here. He can't take any noise and I wonder how he could have taken any of this miserably crafted and written film.Sydney Greenstreet is so good here because the part of being so sinister was made to order for him.Eleanor Parker has the pleasure of have a dual role here, as one woman, victimized by a fortune hunter and another, dressed in white, who is absolutely off her mind. Speaking of off, Agnes Moorehead looks like a mannequin here. She is totally off the wall and is a perfect foil for "husband" Greenstreet.The writing is simply awful and dull. The film is a period piece taking place in Victorian England of 1851. The dark, somber mood is befitting here.