mcannady1
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.
GManfred
Creepy and atmospheric chiller with an excellent cast and it works almost all the way through. Set in the 19th century this Wilkie Collins-based story tells of a upper class household that is not as wholesome and upstanding as it appears. Seems there is a ghost, or at least an elusive apparition, of a dead ringer for the heroine of the story, both played by Eleanor Parker. There are hushed up discussions and secret meetings all over the estate, presided over by a sinister Sidney Greenstreet, and to the consternation of our hero, Gig Young. All goes well until about 20 minutes to go in the story, when it seems to fall apart. I often think that filmmakers and screenwriters come up with a great idea for a movie and then can't figure out how to end it. I think that has happened here, although the picture is very entertaining up to that point. I am making special mention of John Abbott, who plays the hypochondriac master of the estate, and is a joy to behold. He gives the film an acceptable rating in my book with a terrifically amusing portrayal, and needed more screen time to ward off the anticlimactic ending.
utgard14
Nice old Warner Bros Gothic mystery, aided by a solid cast. As many other reviewers here point out, Sydney Greenstreet is terrific. He carries the weight of the movie (no pun intended) even during the slow stretches. The rest of the cast is good, although Gig Young is perhaps miscast. Agnes Moorehead has a small but memorable role and John Abbott had me in stitches in all of his scenes.Having not read the novel upon which the movie is based, I cannot comment on how faithful this film is. However, judging the film's story by itself, it's an enjoyable but not terribly surprising mystery. A little stuffy at times, no doubt impacted by Gig Young's somewhat wooden performance. If you're interested in Gothic mysteries, give it a shot.
edwagreen
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.
