Literally one of the worst films Ive ever seen - Lady in White (1988) Discussion

[–] jessicaatorres 15 years ago

I think the appeal of this movie is more sentimental than anything. I just watched it last night and though I'd never seen it before, it definitely reminded me of my childhood in the 80s in its style. If I'd seen it when i was little I am sure it would have scared me to death. That said, it was not at all scary, but tension definitely builds towards the end, and I thought the scariest part was when the kid had to confront the actual, living threat to him. I enjoyed it overall, but I definitely would not have called it "scary."

reply

[–] CartmanRocks 15 years ago

There are only a few creepy elements to the movie, one of the most notable ones being when the Lady In White is slowly descending the stairs.

However, at least in my opinion, this movie isn't supposed to be your typical scare-the-pants off you horror story. It's in the horror category, because it deals with ghosts, but the horror element is only a small fraction of the story. It's essentially a mystery movie, because the town is trying to accuse an innocent man of murder, and the protagonist is not only trying to find the killer himself, but is also trying to reunite the first victim with her mother and therefore be at peace.

It's a tragic story with a happy ending. Even though death cannot be undone, a child's lonely soul is reunited with her mother so that they can ascend to heaven together.

"Is this a cat...in a hat?"
"No, it's a turtle...in a shell."

reply

[–] unicornpeg2003 15 years ago

I love this movie not as a ghost story really but because of the story itself. It is like a supernatural mystery with some nostalgia thrown in. Maybe not the best movie in the world but definitely a sentimental favorite.

reply

[–] Trish- 15 years ago

Were you disappointed that people weren't gutted while still screaming or their limbs torn off one at a time? Or maybe you wanted some psycho to set up elaborate tableaux where one person had to kill another in a grusome way in order to "escape"? The torture porn that passes for "horror" in the last 10 years makes me sad. The horror movies that are psychological in nature, with very little blood or violence, are now considered too tame, although they actually have something that torture porn lacks, like...a plot, for example. Movies like The Others and several episodes of Supernatural have managed to convey this type of horror without resorting to turning live humans into hamburger meat.

I thought the acting was well done in Lady in White. The children weren't jaded and all had a lovely innocence about them. The townspeople were like everyday folks, struggling to make it in a rapidly changing world. And the killer...well, he turned out to be the guy next door--as so often happens in real life.

I won't presume to argue with you about your opinion, you're entitled to it. But I do hope you'll stop and think about what I've said here because I honestly feel sorry for you and feel like you're missing out on a fantastic genre of film that is sadly, dying away.

~sic transit gloria mundi~

reply

[–] shub789 15 years ago

Trish, I think you've missed the original poster's point. He said he likes Ghost Movies, not "horror', "slasher" or "gore".

He also said it "needed oscar-worthy performances" - in other words, he can see it's a character-based story, but it didn't work for him cos the acting was weak - and let's be honest, the grandparents are two of the worst actors in history and the humour is mostly way, way off. So he has a fair point.

I would rate this movie far above that crapfest The Others btw, or any of the terrible one-liners in Supernatural (unless I'm thinking of something else there...). However, I'd rate it a long way below The Innocents, Spirit of the Beehive, Curse of the Cat People, Ringu, or The Silence. It has its place, but it's hardly as good as you're implying.

But I also won't hear a word against "torture porn" -
it doesn't mean anything,
many of the films tarred with this brush are better than you think,
and even unwatchable rubbish like Hostel is not a new type of movie. "torture porn" is at least as old as Shakespeare's time, and quite possibly an inevitable part of the human psyche.

Getting back to the point, click on the original poster's profile before you accuse him of liking or disliking things.

reply

[–] skiop 15 years ago

You seem to have a lot of assumptions there. A horror movie doesn't need gore; it needs something interesting to happen. Nothing interesting happens in this movie until the kid locks himself in the car.

reply

[–] fiatlux-1 15 years ago

*spoilers below*

The film has a few creepy moments, but I must say re-watching it as an adult I found it exceedingly boring! The film DRAGGED and DRAGGED, I kept glancing at the clock to see if the end time was coming up for it soon.
And I forgot how unnecessarily bloody and violent it was! The death scene for The Lady in White's mother was horrific and just sadistic...even for a horror film. And the bloody shooting of the black couple wasn't necessary either.

Lukas Haas did quite well in the role, but some of the other acting was too campy.

"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."

reply

[–] beckeis 15 years ago

I enjoyed it the first time I watched it and I recently watched it again and still enjoyed it. There was a feeling about the movie that was charming in one sense -- but I thought the death of the janitor was unnecessary. Why couldn't he have survived his ordeal? His death didn't add to the story one way or the other. It was just sad. -- but also spooky. A good Halloween movie.

reply

[–] cjs1976 15 years ago

The death of the janitor may not have been 'necessary,' as you put it, but a lot of deaths in this world are not 'necessary,' yet they happen every day. I think that the writer of the original story was 'keeping it real' so to speak in putting in events and situations that COULD and MIGHT really happen in the real world. In 1962, in a situation such as Frankie finds himself in the cloak room, if a black person were to be found anywhere near the area of the crime, it would be all too easy for them to find themselves accused, tried, and convicted of said crime with little or no evidence. That is unfortunate, and so is the fact that it would also easily have happened that in case of acquittal, SOMEONE would likely take matters into their own hands as the grieving mother did.

I think the original poster, as well as a few responders, (possibly due to youth and a naive sense of entertainment value) are missing the point of 'ghost movies.'
This was filmed in the 80s. There were no green screens of today, nor high tech CGI computers, etc. to achieve the supernatural. Once upon a time, not SO long ago, people didn't need all the fancy gizmos and high-tech equipment to get wrapped up in a story. See, there used to be these things called BOOKS, where there are words on a page, and sometimes pictures...and you are supposed to use your BRAIN and your IMAGINATION to fill in the finer details of each 'scene.' I'm sure if any of these terms are unfamiliar to you, you can use the INTERNET and G**gle their definitions.

Yeah, I guess you can say that I think today's younger crowd is spoiled by all the high tech crap in films today. When you take away all that expensive high tech wizardry in most of modern films, you're left with a shriveled up excuse for a plot stretched out for marketing action figures and posters.

Hooray for 'intellectual' horror films. But they should come with the following warning: Must possess a 60 IQ to enjoy.

reply

[–] MistressLola 14 years ago

@cjs1976 Here! Here! Thank you!

Glad to see somebody still has a brain cell left!

I'll admit that some of the effects in the movie are dated (eg. the cliff scenes), but this doesn't take away from the movie at all if you just use a little imagination. Does anyone even remember what that is anymore?

This is a GREAT movie, with a smart and layered plot, and some sophisticated and creepy twists!

And to me, anyone who doesn't "get the film", or feels the need to bash it needlessly, just proves my point - The film is simply TOO INTELLIGENT FOR YOU.

So go watch The Grudge again or something, and leave the complicated, psychological films to the big boys and girls.

R.I.P. Corey Haim

reply

[–] doctorcrimedog 12 years ago

Oh please, enough of the "go and watch [insert name of film the poster doesn't like but assumes the original poster does like, even though he's never mentioned it or any other preferred title] and leave this the smart people" BS. If you are so blasted brilliant, maybe you can explain how disliking the film "proves" it's a smart movie, which is not proof by any definition. If you're one of "the big boys and girls", learn how to construct an argument. This is just you getting your back up because someone said they didn't like something you do. Well, boo-hoo. This film had no idea what tone it wanted to go with, the janitor subplot feels totally tacked-on and ultimately goes nowhere-what happens after the real killer is revealed? Does that mom who shot the wrong guy feel bad about it? Did she go to jail? Did the film just abandon that whole thread and move on? And why did the killer actually murder all of those kids? We never learn. Why did it start with him as an adult and tell the story as a flashback if we were never going to rejoin the adult character? I never really felt that the film was even trying to be scary. The closest to creepy it ever got was the one shot of the woman looking in the little boy's bedroom while he slept. The soundtrack composer seemed to think he was scoring a comedy. There's a big difference between being complicated and having too many incompatible ideas stuffed awkwardly together. Liking this film doesn't make you intelligent. Even if the film was genius, that would still be true.

-There is no such word as "alot."

reply

[–] arthuryanthar 8 years ago

Omg. Calling this an intelligent horror film is one of the funniest things I've ever read.

reply

[–] angel32 15 years ago

Fiatlux, I will give you that the Lady in White's Mothers' death scene was horrific and sadistic, but this is where those "scary and creepy" terms come in as well. It is supposed to bother you, because this man was sadistic and ruthless. As far as it being bloody, it wasn't that bloody at all, i've watched this movie several times and there was not much blood. One other thing, the janitor's wife doesn't get killed in the scene in which her husband does.

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 14 years ago

I saw this film shortly after it was released on video because I liked the cover, and I was very disappointed. I decided to give it another chance today, and ... well, I was ever more disappointed.

It's awkward to criticize child actors, but Lukas Haas, performance just drags this film down, and the rest of the cast is disappointing as well (except for Len Cariou, who is always good). This film has no atmosphere, no drama and no chills. I don't mind when thrillers are not scary, but this one was just laughable at times. It's like a bad episode of "The Wonder Years."

I'm shocked – SHOCKED – by all the praise for this film. 4 stars out of 10.

reply

[–] ejenki20 14 years ago

I agree with thatsarapp. This movie is garbage in more ways than one. Forget about ghost stories and nostalgia, let's discuss the other elements...

- Was it suppose to be aimed towards children with it's steven spielbergish flow and it's over the top childish and scenes musical score? If so, cool. But that throws people off, when the adult themes come into play. For example the Godfather-esq. scene with the black dude gettin a whole blasted to his brain in front of his wife when leaving the court room. I can't let my little nephew see that *beep*

- Is this a movie about race or a children's ghost story? I'm an african american and when I saw the racial conflict speckled into the movie I took interest in it, but it led to no where, except an innocent brotha getting shot. Plus, did little buddy have a black girlfriend? If so, what's the significance of bringing it up, if it's not gonna be a factor in the story. To me, it seemed like the kid had no concern with blacks when he did nothing to help the innocent janitor, which was covered in the paper. Then, the black dude was charged and convicted with no problem, and then let off with no problem. Why even have it in the story in the first place if it's like that?

- Why were the character's so passive? The two boys should've been charged for withodling evidence and information. The lil buddy made little attempt to tell anyone anything (writers do this just to stretch out a story that's lacking material to cover 2 hours). He tried saying something to his dad at home but (which really pissed me off) was interupted by his brother with nonsense. Then he let's MONTHS GO BY, before trying to tell his dad again, this time at work. And again, his annoying brother comes through talking about dinner's ready. So our main character figures instead of telling someone about the details of what went on when he was attacked, it was more important for him to go eat dinner and then forget about it all together. All of this while a black man is rotting in jail. Also, no body asks little buddy about what went on moment by moment while he was in the cloak room. All they got was, it was dark and he didn't see his face. That's great, but was he raped? Was he malested in any way? Did the guy say anything? What was he doing walking in there in the first place? Nobody asks any of this. And, instead of the cops searching the CRIME SCENE for clues and evidence, they leave the CRIME SCENE and grab the closest man? Again, it's cool if this was a children's movie, these type of plot wholes don't have to be filled. But if it's taken some adult themes, this is stuff that needs to be fixed before being financed to be made.

- The ghost stuff was simply annoying.

In summary, the movie obviously didn't have enough ghost story conflict so they drug out the scenes and stories mixing it with childish elements, adult elements, and racial elements to sustain a two hour movie. I don't even know how the hell this movie was marketed. An adult can't take the childish stuff, and the kids will be both bored and horrified by the adult stuff. If anyone says this movie is great, I hate to see there dvd collection.

P.S. Nostalgia shouldn't be any reason for a rich nut case to finance a few hundred-thousand or millions of dollars behind this story.

reply

[–] MistressLola 14 years ago

Okay... For those of you who feel the need to question EVERYTHING -

I.e. Why was the black janitor arrested? Why didn't the police investigate more? Why didn't Frankie tell his Dad about what he saw in the cloakroom? Why????Why???Why???? Blah...Blah...Blah... Etc...Etc...Etc...

- instead of actually taking the time to watch the movie, or because you simply don't have the braincells to understand the plot (which, as similarly stated in a previous post, just proves to me that this is indeed a smart and sophisticated film); the answers to these questions are quite simple and in reality make perfect sense:

1) THE MOVIE TOOK PLACE IN 1962! Racism was rampant at the time, and if you had even paid attention to the film at all you would know that the cop himself says that the janitor is being used as a "scapegoat" because he is black and the case had gone unsolved for years, making the police look stupid, so they needed to arrest someone. And no, Frankie did not have a black girlfriend. Jeeze, I almost didn't even want to dignify that with a response.

2) HE WAS A KID AND HE SAW A GHOST FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! Need I say more?

And as for whether this movie is for children or for adults, I say it's for both! I loved it as a kid, and I love it just as much now @ 29. My mom loved it, in fact she was the one who originally showed it to me as a kid, and she still loves it @ 65. Actually, she just bought it for me on DVD this past Christmas, remembering how much I loved it, and we spent Christmas morning watching it together. It was the best!

For those who want to argue that my love for this movie is due solely to the effects of nostalgia - after receiving this movie for Christmas I held a screening for a group of friends (all in their 20's), none of whom had ever seen it, and they all loved it! The only complaints I got were for the cheesy cliff scenes at the end, which garnered a few laughs, but that I understand as even I find them to be dated.

Oh and one more thing, to whomever made a comment about the Lady In White's mother being killed - What the hell are you talking about? The Lady in White IS the mother! Do you mean her sister??? Is that what you mean? @#*I#@Y$@##%#^$&#Q**@ << Frustration = Watch the movie for real and then come back and make an intelligent comment. Please.

The movie is not bloody (at all) and/or sadistic either. I don't even understand where that notion came from.

Every element of this film has important significance to the plot, (including the janitor and the sister being killed, and the dynamics of the family), if you're too dumb to see that or too lazy to bother trying, then unfortunately your comments are rendered insignificant.

Now it's almost 7:30am and I need to go to sleep, I haven't even been to bed yet! I apologize if this post is overly aggressive, but I'm tired, and everything I was reading, save a couple of posts, I found to be EXTREMELY frustrating. So much so that I really wish I could somehow electronically smack some sense into some of these people :o) *kidding*

Wow I can't even believe I'm still awake right now. I'll be surprised if any of this even makes sense later lol.

Anywho, thanks for listening to my rant. I hope I didn't offend anyone TOO much ;o}

P.S. To ejenki20 - I actually have quite an extensive DVD AND VHS collection and have been collecting movies since I was really young (I've always been a bit of a movie geek and even worked in a video store in high school). For as long as I can remember I have kind of been the "go to girl" for movie questions, recommendations, etc. (maybe more so when I was younger, as I have somewhat grown out of it) to all of my friends, particularly for the horror genre. I have been complimented EXTENSIVELY on my movie collection by basically anyone who sees it and frequently write intelligent blogs and posts for popular film-based websites, again, particularly of the horror genre. All in all, I am quite confident that I not only have a first rate movie collection, but also that, when it comes to movies, I damn well know what I'm talking about.

Cheers!

See ya on the flip side!

*R.I.P. Corey Haim*

reply

[–] doctorcrimedog 12 years ago

1) THE MOVIE TOOK PLACE IN 1962! Racism was rampant at the time, and if you had even paid attention to the film at all you would know that the cop himself says that the janitor is being used as a "scapegoat" because he is black and the case had gone unsolved for years, making the police look stupid,

Everybody knows this. The issue is that this whole side story was poorly integrated into the overall film. Heck, we don't even know if the wife survived the incident. The story drops the whole plotline after that. As the poster to whom you are replying indictaed that he was himself a black man, I'm pretty sure he bloody well knows full well about America's racist history.

Please stop pretending that liking this movie makes you intelligent. Your arguments can't even prove that. Ending an unfunny sentence with "lol" certainly doesn't, and neither does screaming in caps-lock, unless being a total cliche is your definition of genius.

-There is no such word as "alot."

reply

[–] BHt88 8 years ago

They played it on tv, I saw about 25 mins it's NOT scary
it's garbage (and by watching I mean it was on tv
And I "watched" it NOT I sat down and watched it

People who think this is good/scary Probably think crummy movies like the ring Blair witch and
The grudge are scary/ good

BHT RISES myspace.com/blackheart60

reply

[–] bgray21 14 years ago

This is one of those "if you didn't see as a kid, then don't bother now" kind of movies.

Yes, I'm one of those who thought it was particularly frightening- when I was 9. I only saw parts of it- the scene in the cloakroom where you first see the little girl. Then I turned it off.

I watched it again as an adult, and it just does not hold up. The film is way too long, and a bit sloppy.

The story of this film is not terrible, but some disturbing points do come up:

So Frankie and his brother follow the girl's ghost to the school. Then, the killer carries her lifeless body in his arms (pretty bold) all the way through town. He takes her to the cliff right in front of her house (what?!!) and is about to throw her off the cliff. Then she is shown to be still alive, and calls for her mom.
The killer still throws her over, and THEN her mom comes out to find her?!

I just find it incredibly hard to believe that a first time killer would carry a child through public streets like that, and then throw her off a cliff right in front of somebody's home (never mind that it WAS her home).

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CCsito 13 years ago

I just saw this movie for the first time the other night and it was not scary at all. This movie was too predictable and the ending was so stupid. The only part of the movie that could be considered scary was when the boy was looking at his dead mother in her coffin. Lukas Haas who played the Amish boy in "Witness" goes through this movie with the same facial expression from the other movie. The movie did not look suspenseful and you knew from the beginning that the child murderer was someone who was probably close to the boy. The ending of the movie was ridiculous.

**SPOILER ALERT**

Why would someone who is trying to kill you "rescue" you out of a burning house and then carry you over to a cliff to throw you over it? It looked like a bad screenwriter's attempt to introduce more suspense and prolong the movie.

reply