Some of you may not have heard of Wilkie Collins. He was a great friend of Charles Dickens. "Women in White" is a novel that was written for Dickens' literary magazine and appeared in serialization about the same time that "A Tale of Two Cities" was also being published.

The novel itself is 720 pages long and has (if memory serves from fifth grade reading) five narrators. This film treatment resolves on a single narrator, Marian Fairlie (Fitzgerald) the half poor sister of Laura, who got all the money.

The story opens with Walter Hartright (Lincoln) coming to the Fairlie estates to be an art tutor for the girls. He falls in love with Laura, but this love cannot be. Laura is engaged to wed another, Sir Percival Glyde.

He also encounters a mysterious woman in white out on the moonlit lawn. Anne Catherick (Vidler) is the daughter of a servant who became insane and was generously hospitalized by Sir Percival.

After Laura is wed, Marian is to come live with them. She arrives after the honeymoon and discovers her sister is badly abused and traumatized. Sir Percival is clearly out to get Laura's money with the help of his Italian cousin, Count Fosco (Callow).

The sisters plan an escape by moonlight. Unfortunately, the escape fails and Marian awakens from a fever to learn her sister Laura jumped from the tower of Glyde's estate.

She doesn't believe in the suicide and vowing vengeance, she contacts Hartright and they search for the truth. They must find the will of their father, which apparently will answer all of their questions.

Most people who read will say they liked the book better than the film. With a few very notable exceptions, this is true in my case as well. In all fairness to the film's creators, it would be very difficult to collapse the original Wilkie novel into a movie length version. Their interpretation is interesting, but yes lacking.

I do like both, actually, though the movie a good deal less than the original Wilkie masterwork (which was his personal favorite of his works as well). My one issue with the film is it didn't create the environment the book did. The book was much stronger and more evocative landscape.

Still, Tara Fitzgerald is to be commended for telling Marian's tale and managing to convey so much of the depth of the story on such a narrow perspective. SHe truly is an amazingly talented actress. The film's well worth watching just for her and Lincoln's performances.

Rebecca Kyle, September 2008

If you are a purist or someone who cannot bear to see a favorite book chopped up when translated onto the big screen, then this movie will offend your sensibilities. However, if it is taken as a movie inspired by Wilkie Collins' The Woman In White, or as a very loose adaptation, then one might perhaps enjoy it, as I certainly did.

The story here [I am not going to compare it to the novel for there are many liberties taken with it in this movie version] centers around a pair of half-sisters who share a very close bond with each other - Marian [Tara Fitzgerald] is poor, and her sister Laura [Justine Waddell] is rich due to an inheritance from her mother. They both live with their decrepit eccentric uncle, Mr Fairlie [Ian Richardson] who has engaged a tutor for the girls, a Mr Walter Hartright [Andrew Lincoln] who immediately forms a close attachment to Laura. However, this attachment doesn't go very far for Laura is engaged to Sir Percival Glyde [James Wilby] who simpers and appears eager to please.

Amidst this setting, enters a mysterious character, a woman in white who appears at first to Mr Hartwright as he is walking to Mr Fairlie's estate at night, and then to the sisters. She turns out to be Anne Catherick [Susan Vilder] an escapee from an insane asylum who seems mentally unstable but passes cryptic comments that pique the interest of the sisters and Mr Hartwright. She alludes to a secret about Sir Glyde, but when confronted, he offers up convincing excuses.

The plot gets more complicated and events turn more sinister when Mr Hartwright is sent off packing by a scandal involving a servant, protesting his innocence all the way. Laura marries Sir Percival, and when Marian goes to the Glyde estate to await them after their honeymoon, she is greeted by a wan and taciturn Laura, who seems fearful of her new husband. Matters get worse when a sinister figure called Count Fosco [Simon Callow] arrives as Sir Percival's guest and after that events take one malignant turn after another. It is left to Marian to put the pieces of the puzzle together and get to the bottom of things, all centred around the woman in white, Anne Catherick and her cryptic remarks.

The story as it unfolds here is riveting - the plot is well-written [if you stop comparing it to the novel, and provide for the time constraint, where the 500+ book is squeezed into a 2 hr movie] and the acting is above average. Though Tara Fitzgerald is a bit too pretty to play the role of Marian, she is very convincing in her role as the determined, and bold sister who attempts to solve the mystery despite all odds. Justine Waddell who has made a career of playing period roles, from the tragic Tess in Tess of the D'urbervilles and also in Wives and Daughters, is also convincing as the naive and trusting Laura. I also thought Susan Vidler's Anne Catherick to be intriguing and well-portrayed, conveying a truly tragic and sad character. Adie Allen's servant turned housekeeper turned mistress of her own home, Margaret Porcher was well-done indeed, convincingly portraying the transformation of her character from servile to malignant.

The men are not altogether memorable, and I feel that here it was a bit of a letdown for the character of the Count especially. He was a truly malignant character in the book, yet here we don't really see that development all that clearly, and Simon Callow seems to be a bit insipid in his portrayal of the ruthless Count. James Wilby is oily enough as Sir Percival Glyde and Ian Richardson is actually quite a scene stealer in his portrayal of the decrepit, fussy uncle. But on the whole, it is the female actors who bring depth to the story.

The sets are wonderful, and the cinematography is well-done. The lighting and other technical elements serve to heighten the atmosphere, providing a lush and suitably sinister backdrop to a gothic story of suspense and evil.

I liked this retelling of the classic and though it does not do justice to Wilkie Collin's masterpiece, this is definitely a movie that can be enjoyed on its own merits and taken as an inspired take on the classic tale.

No, this is not a faithful adaptation, but it is a very good adaptation. As this is a Masterpiece Theatre production, there is an introduction and a conclusion that is included, but not part of the actual film. The conclusion explains why so much of the novel was left out and explains some important plot points of the novel that were excluded from the film. This includes the the "Paris scene" as one reviewer distressingly noted--which ties up the loose ends concerning Count Fosco.

Noting that they wanted to make a 2 hour film, they did a superb job. And, really, this film would be more fun if you haven't read the book so please don't let that deter you if you haven't read the book. Actually, if you haven't read the book, I'd suggest you see the film first. That will make you go out and want to read the book immediately-- and you won't be disappointed with either!

The first two-thirds of this movie was very good; the last, superb. I thought the casting was good although, admittedly, Count Fosco was an odd choice. Still, it worked-- he had an immense amount of charm, and and immense amount of evil-- the only thing that he lacked was his immense weight.

I thought the script and the casting were perfect. Maybe the only thing that faltered a bit was the direction and I'm not certain as to what could have been better. After the climactic moment at the asylum (which completely caused chills), however, I found no fault at all in the director's work. I usually enjoy these productions a bit more than my husband and he found this film to be a five-star.

"The bad dreams always come back again like unwanted friends," says Marion Fairlie, who with her half-sister, Laura, lives in a vast mid-Victorian country estate. "And last night I found myself in Limmeridge churchyard. Normally, people who are dead stay dead, just as normally it is the criminals who are locked up rather than the victims. But then, there was nothing normal about what happened to us..." And we're off on a first-class gothic story of madness, deception and villainy, based on Wilkie Collins' great novel of Victorian mystery. It's a good idea to pay close attention, because there are plots within plots, yet they all center on a cunning and ruthless scheme which involves, what else, money, lots of money.

Marion Fairlie (Tara Fitzgerald) and her sister, Laura Fairlie (Justine Wadell) are devoted to each other. Marion is fierce and protective; Laura is softer and much more romantic. Marion has no money of her own; Laura will inherit riches when she comes of age. Marion has no marriage prospects that we know of; Laura has been pledged sometime ago to Sir Percival Glyde (James Wilby), an altogether too charming aristocrat. They are the wards of their uncle, a fussy, condescending, immensely self-centered hypochondriac (Ian Richardson). All seems to be quite routine, but then a young artist, Walter Hartright (Andrew Lincoln), is engaged to teach them drawing and artistic appreciation. And when he arrives at night to the local train station, there is no carriage, so off he sets out on foot to the estate. In the dark woods he encounters a strange woman, dressed all in white, wandering about and speaking of things he does not understand, who then disappears. Are we uneasy? Yes, and so is he and the sisters when they come to realize the strange woman looks much like Laura. Later, does love emerge between Walter and Laura? Does a bud bloom? Is there a misunderstanding that sends Walter away and results in Laura marrying Sir Percival? Does a canker gnaw? And do secrets slowly come to light about the relationships among Laura, Marian and the woman in white...do we learn to be deeply suspicious of Sir Percival's intentions...do we come to enjoy the style and manners of Sir Percival's close friend, Count Fosco (Simon Callow)...and do we eventually realize the foul depths of depravity, as well as the power of honor and true love, that humanity is capable of? Do we visit Victorian insane asylums, see falls from high towers, dig open graves in the middle of the night and watch retribution arrive amidst the roaring flames of a locked church?

Well, of course, and it's a grand journey for us.

This BBC/Masterpiece Theater program features fine acting and outstanding production values. To fit Collins' 500-plus-page novel into a television show of less than 120 minutes means a good deal had to be cut or abridged, and some changes were made most likely to achieve greater impact in the little time available. Still, taken on its own terms, the production of The Woman in White in my opinion works very well as a moody, romantic, dark television tale. Tara Fitzgerald as Marion gives a commanding performance as a woman determined to protect and then save her sister. James Wilby as Sir Percival manages the clever feat of slowly letting us see the depraved slime beneath the skin, who still has charm amidst the villainy. Ian Richardson as the young women's uncle almost steals the show. He gives such a bossy and pungent performance it almost unbalances the story every time he appears. Perhaps the weakest of the main parts is Simon Callow as Count Fosco. The Count is simply a monster, yet a supremely civilized and charming one. Collins described him as being of immense girth. Callow does a fine, mannered job of it, but to me he lacks a little of the monstrosity of evil.

At one point, Marian tells us, "My sister and I are so fond of Gothic novels, we sometimes act as if we were in them." Little did she know what was in store for herself and Laura.

The DVD transfer is fine although a little soft. There are no extras of any importance.

This is an excellent former Masterpiece Theatre presentation. At only two hours it takes on only the main plot thread of the lengthy original novel, which has been called the first English mystery novel. This two-hour version is fast-paced, suspenseful, atmospheric, and engrossing, but it is the "Cliffs Notes" version at best.The performances are convincing, the production seems high-budget, with many outdoor scenes and lovely costumes and sets. Go to the original novel for wonderful subplots and fascinating, intricate, pungent, detail.