rimjak Heavy handed adventure with Faye (who followed up Mommie Dearest with this) robbing stage coaches in full period costume. The production is pretty decent, as is the cast, but the film is so woefully over-the-top that you just want to slap director Michael Winner sometimes. What could have been. And that nudity thrown in for no apparent reason is absurd. The scene where Faye whips the clothes off the wife of her lover at his funeral is classic camp, however. Best performance is given by Denholm Elliott, who plays Faye's put-upon husband. This is in the same league as the even more preposterous Mata-Hari...which even shares co-star Oliver Tobias! This one is good for a few laughs.

L. Denis Brown This film is another example of why perspicacious cinema-goers have always needed to be very wary when major studios decide to remake a well known classic. Perhaps IMDb should create a list of such remakes and give viewers the chance to vote on them as better or worse than the original, possibly adding comments when appropriate. Hopefully these comments might make the studios concerned much more wary about following this rather dubious practice. This 1983 film is a remake in colour of the classic black and white film of the same name starring Margaret Lockwood, which was released in 1945, and it can still be readily found on videotape. Unfortunately the original 1945 film is not and is becoming very hard to find outside the U.K. where Margaret Lockwood's name still commands enormous respect in the entertainment world.Although this remake was able to obtain an R rating in the U.S.A. (by report only with considerable difficulty) it is in my opinion straight pornography- not because it realistically portrays the cruelty and violence of an eighteenth century execution at Tyburn, shows two women fighting with horsewhips, and includes a little more nudity than was generally regarded as acceptable at the time of its release, but because all these scenes were only peripherally necessary to the story line and were clearly only featured and prolonged in the way that they were for the purpose of audience titillation. If you want to be titillated in this way then by all means watch this remake which will probably provide exactly what you expect; but if you want to view a work of art which is in fact infinitely more sexy than this remake, join the demand for a DVD of the 1945 film (which is already available in PAL format for the European market) to be released for the North American market as well. This 1945 film has never been released in its original form in the U.S.A. because the meticulously recreated seventeenth century costumes were too low cut to be acceptable to the American censors of the period, so the original version had to be re-filmed before it could find its way into North American cinemas. A North American DVD of this original release would therefore be a fitting tribute to a great work in this its diamond anniversary year.

BMBGAT Having viewed the original version several times, I thought it was great to have a modern up-dated 'Wicked Lady'. I had seen several other of Michael Winner's films, and though not a great fan of his, I found them entertaining. I was even more interested in the production when I was accepted as an extra for the filming of the sequences filmed on White Edge Moor in Derbyshire. It was an experience to say the least, but I did think the completion of the film would be much better, and even though I witnessed the nudity 'first hand', I wondered what all the publicity at the time was about! I viewed it on video just about a year after it was released, and again two weeks ago. I wish now that I had refused to accept my £40 payment, because it lacked everything, except me!

dhosek being the Tony Banks soundtrack and full frontal nudity from Marina Sirtis. Otherwise absolutely worthless.And frankly, the soundtrack wasn't even that good, and Marina's nudity didn't last long at all.