The first two parts of this movie work well. The third part, the resolution of the plot, falls on its face. Chief among its faults is the veil/corset/ transvestite underplot--preposterous ideas all, but the veil especially so because, as the first poster said, no one could confuse the sex of the person beneath it. The device is made all the more unbelievable by the presentation of an eyewitness of the veiled personage who has, supposedly, a near-faultless memory. Another misstep, no less egregious, is the identity of the killer. One should not create an unlikable individual and then make him/her the murderer. Your unlikable individual is the red herring, the person you would like to be the murderer, but who seldom is. I must admit to disgust at the writer's choice of perpetrator.
I also found unbelievable the attitude of our heroine, Isabel, to the clergy. No Victorian lady, though there is some doubt about Isabel's fitness for that term, would have talked to a clergyman as she did in the jail. To tell the truth, I disliked Isabel a good deal and _wanted_ her to be the killer. I generally don't care for turning adulterers into heroines or heroes.
I hated Paul, our lovelorn young son, or maybe it was just the actor who played him.
I also found unbelievable the attitude of our heroine, Isabel, to the clergy. No Victorian lady, though there is some doubt about Isabel's fitness for that term, would have talked to a clergyman as she did in the jail. To tell the truth, I disliked Isabel a good deal and _wanted_ her to be the killer. I generally don't care for turning adulterers into heroines or heroes.
I hated Paul, our lovelorn young son, or maybe it was just the actor who played him.