User reviews

The reviews for this have really baffled me. I have watched the 1982, 1997, and 2018 version of the woman in white. The 1982 has lots of merits though it is very much an early 80s low budget bbc tv adaptation. The 1997 is total rubbish - amends the plot, too short, no atmosphere, and poor acting. But this 2018 version was very impressive I thought. It is extremely faithful to the novel save for a few streamlined plot elements. And at 5 hours long everything gets covered the way it should. I watch a lot of period adaptations, Dickens, Austen, as well as a lot of theatre, Shakespeare etc. So I am very used to seeing the best of the best in the British acting pantheon take on many of the classic roles. There is no classic actor here in the main characters but nevertheless it is a rare case of a smaller profile adaptation being very good despite the lack of high profile cast and crew. What really impressed me is how you really got a sense in this version of how the many elements of the novel - detective, mystery, crime, drama, gothic - all play a part and mesh together to make a really great story. Plot wise the novel is quite difficult to follow as well because a lot of pivotal events take place before the novel begins and are gradually unveiled throughout the course of the story, so you have to keep a lot of detail in your mind as it is told rather than seen. This adaptation did a really good job with the script in making this really easy to follow the plot. Ok it was not life changing and not hugely emotionally affecting. But I don't think either is the novel. It is a classic novel which pioneered a number of features of modern storytelling we now take for granted, and I think this adaptation did as good as job as could be imagined in conveying the novel, it's tone, plot, and messages, to screen.

It's faithful enough to the book in so far as it has a series of narrators, some may be self serving ... It does start off a bit into the tale before returning to the beginning. Jessie Buckley makes a much more assertive Marian. I enjoyed the melodrama of this Gothic horror tale.

BBC I applaud you for having the courage to produce and put out something that can hardly be classed as mainstream. Wilkie Collins classic tale is known by many, how good though that this masterpiece of storytelling will be given to a brand new audience. The production team have done a fabulous job in creating the creepy, gothic, almost sinister atmosphere. I'm struck by the closeness to the text, although I'm sure in the current climate, with constant reinterpretations and changes that there'll be some tampering, however, the core story is delivered. Very well acted with all performing well, Dougray Scott and Jessie Buckley both showing their natural presence. Superb production values, great costumes etc. I enjoyed it, I'm so glad the BBC still has the confidence to produce something like this for a prime time Sunday slot.

Dear BBC I really enjoyed it, and I'm glad you updated it, but please remember there are plenty of other works that could do with a re-telling, Frances Durbridge's Melissa would be a great one, and a little different.

Enjoyed. 8/10

Having never read the book I approached this adaptation with fresh eyes. The series started well building the characters, a little obvious but acceptable. Around mid point I could see where the story was going and almost gave up but I'm glad I kept with it. The ending made it worth while. Great acting, sets, costumes in fact a lovely production. Stick with it, it's worth it.

The first episode (of 5, I believe) was excellent. Clever, absorbing, twisted, dark, entertaining. Well acted. I am completely pulled in, and will look forward to finding out what's going on!

UPDATE AFTER FOUR EPISODES: Ugh. Like many of these 8-hour adaptations, it would have made a great 2-hour movie, but in order to fill out 8 hours, they have to pad and pad and pad, and stretch and stretch and stretch. Every scene is too long. Every event happens three or four times. "Same stuff, different day." Why do they do that? Cut it down to a great 2-hour movie.

If you watch this, watch it with the remote in your hand. Fast-forward is your friend.

As this five-part series opens we are told that Laura Glyde, nee Fairlie, is dead and that there are suspicions about the cause. Over the course of the series we are shown what happened. Young London artist Walter Hartright is employed to go to Cumberland to catalogue Frederick Fairlie's art collection; while there he is also to tutor his nieces Laura and her half-sister Marian Halcombe. Shortly before heading north he meets a timid woman dressed all in white... when he gets to Cumberland he is surprised to discover that Laura is the spitting image of the woman. It soon emerges that the 'Woman in White' is Anne, a local girl who had been sent to a London asylum for reasons unstated at this point. Walter gets on well with the girls, in particular Laura, so her uncle sends him away. Shortly afterwards she is married to Sir Percival Glyde and moves to his remote house along with Marian, Sir Percival's friend Count Fosco and his wife, who is also Laura's aunt. It soon becomes obvious that Sir Percival only married her for her money and the sisters' situation becomes precarious.

I really enjoyed this adaption of Wilkie Collins classic novel; the introduction may tell us that Laura is doomed but that only serves to raise tension; especially following her marriage. Sir Percival is fairly menacing from the moment we see him but gets worse after the marriage; Fosco and his wife are perhaps more frightening as we see them apparently helping the sisters while also scheming against them. There are some impressive twists that should surprise some viewers. As well as solid mystery the series has a lot to say about women's rights, or lack thereof, at the time... something that was obviously more radical at the time the original book was written. The cast does a fine job; most notably Olivia Vinall, in the dual roles of Laura and Anne; Jessie Buckley as Marian; Dougray Scott, as Sir Percival and Riccardo Scamarcio, as Fosco. There is also a fine performance from Art Malik as Erasmus Nash, the man employed to help discover the truth about what happened to Laura. While not essential to the story there is some impressive scenery to be admired during the series. Overall I thought this was a great drama; the central mystery is intriguing and there is a good sense of threat for much of the time.

The Woman in White was very entertaining and having read the book I was prepared to be either amazed or disappointed. It was the former. I had only seen one previous adaptation from 1982 but this one was every bit as good. Fosco was coprulent in the novel but in this adaptation they slimmed him down. That aside, it kept very much to the book and yes some things were tweaked here and there, it was still something that I would recommend. 5 episodes was enough. All in all, a brilliant effort and well done to all.

So atmospheric and creepy. Great cast and acting. Hoorah for the BBC!

Although fairly predictable, I enjoyed this series which was recently on PBS. Being a fan of books and movies from the 1800s, I was glad to find one that I hadn't seen yet and which wasn't written by the Bronte sisters or Jane Austen. The most creepy character had to be Countess Fosco. Solid performances and gorgeous settings in the huge English countryside manors we love.

I will keep this brief for the sake of anyone coming upon this classic gem of a mystery for the first time. Completely disregard any review of this mini-series that's been rated lower than a 4. The people giving it super low ratings will bang on about it being an unworthy adaption or that the spirit of Willie Collins is completely lost on the writers and directors of this series. Ok I lied, not so brief of a review... but anyways these sour puss pretentious wanna be thespian mentioned above are people that have their minds made up before watching any literary classic adapted for the small screen. To them the book is always better no matter what. But guess what no duh... the books always better but that doesn't mean adapting a classic is a crime. I read the book. And having such I can tell you the makers of this show did a good job. The characters and sets were on point and the mystery delivered. I couldn't ask for more in an adaptation, much better than "the moonstone" another recently adapted Willie Collins story brought to the small screen. Sorry for the rant but I hate snobs. Watch and decide for yourself. The acting was great.

Great production values & a fine cast but too drawn out & tedious.

I had read the novel but never actually seen an adaptation but this one blew my breath away. Well acted and scripted. The only thing I found strange was how Fosco was portrayed-slim-as opposed to the novel where he is corpulent. That aside I would recommend this adaptation.

We're a massive fan period dramas especially British ones but wow eee this was unwatchable. So dreary and it takes 2 episodes before you understand what kind of story's it's even going to be. And then when that happens the whole of the rest of the story is transparent (no spoilers) also the title woman in white is kinda misleading, makes it sound a little supernatural when it's not, just a bleak bore fest.

It's difficult to understand the negative reviews especially when they complain about the pacing of the series. This was near perfect. Told with patience and always a rewarding watch. The acting was excellent, the sets and locations wonderful and the storytelling magnificent. It's not an easy story to tell without slipping into full Victorian melodrama mode but it was done thoughtfully throughout with due consideration to the novel. The characters were real enough, with Count Fosco especially being beautifully portrayed , eliciting sympathy and understanding for some and a feeling of horror for others.

For years the BBC produced the very best period dramas bar none. However over the last I have found their productions to be of a very mediocre standard. Troy-Fall of a City for instance a drama I was really looking forward to, great story but the production left me cold, not up to BBC's normal high standard and imo The Woman in White also falls short, it did not hold my attention and felt very slow and dare I say it boring, as one reviewer put it, Dreary. What bothers me is Why, is it money, does not appear so as the costumes in TWIW are really good and well done and the actors are equally fine actors so is it the adaptation, I suspect so.

Watched the first episode. A classic tale ruined by modernising with constant unnecessary background noises (not even music) presumably to create a creepy atmosphere whereas it just served to distract. With the character of Miss Halcombe being addressed as "Ms". it seemed to me that the only classic aspect of ths production was the use of 1850's costumes. The irritating background noises is enough to prevent me from watching any further episodes.

Seriously, it's like watching a school play. It's a shame, it had so much potential. Charles is worth watching, but not featured enough.

I have see many versions of The Woman in White - none as irritating as this one. The two female leads are so naive and their expressions are irritating. They constantly seem muted/silenced by the odd and strange occurrences around them and too "weak" to do anything.

Not worth the watch it drags on for absolutely no reason.

Someone here commented on what has happened to BBC drama. I think the main problem is the medium being used. Today everything is on film. That means some choppy editing sometimes and distracting jerky camera movement, and then too much background underscore music. But the main problem with film for the Brits is that the actors can't seem to do the scenes in full. In film, there are lot of takes, re-takes, cuts to move the cameras around, lots of time in between takes for the actors to lose their momentum. In the heydey of BBC period dramas, most of the scenes were in studios where the directors could use multi video cameras and the actors could do their whole scenes uninterrupted in one take, thus giving the scene more immediacy and almost like a stage play. Yes, there are downsides to that. But IMHO that is what has changed over the years in terms of the acting. The jarring switch from interior studio scenes to outdoor scenes shot on film upsets a lot of viewers today. But at the time (1970s-1980s) it was easier to shoot as much on studio videotape, than on film. Look at I,Claudius for example, totally shot on interior sets on video...no film shots at all. Look at the acting in that series!