In a Dark Place (2006) User Reviews

Unsuccessful Attempt to Update Henry James' Classic Novella

[gradyharp · 3/10 · 18 August 2007]

Hollywood is fond of updating classic tales: Shakespeare is the author most often reconfigured, at times with great success, at times not. The intellectually stimulating works of Henry James have been brought to the screen and making visual the inherently cerebral stories come to life. Such, sadly, is not the case for IN A DARK PLACE, a warping and distorted 'update' of one of the finest ghost stories ever written - James' 1898 TURN OF THE SCREW. Screenwriter Peter Waddington adapted the story to place in our faces fully realized interpretations of what James used as suggestion: James realized that the reader's mind could infuse his story with personal demons that would replace the need for detailed description.

Cases in point: the Governess is here an art teacher given a name, Anna Veigh; the occult sexual overtones of the story are played out in full view leaving little to the frightening aspects of James' intentions; the concentration of the story on the governess' mental fragility is forced into clichés and placed in the hands of an actress unable to be subtle; the 'interiority' of the mansion is replaced by equal time outside on the snowy grounds (opening up the story, so they say), etc.

The story is well known, having been adapted successfully before by television, movies, and opera (Benjamin Britten's immensely well written opera TURN OF THE SCREW). Anna Veigh (Leelee Sobieski) is the art therapist turned governess who upon losing her job is hired to care for the children Flora (Gabrielle Adam) and Miles (Christian Olson) in a now deserted mansion whose only other occupant is the secretary/estate manager Ms. Grose (Tara Fitzgerald). Soon enough Anna discovers that the previous governess Miss Jessel (another art therapist who was three months pregnant) was found dead in the lake, and that the prior male butler Peter Quint hanged himself. Anna alone begins to see the ghosts of these newly departed servants, and when she explores the reasons with Ms. Grose we discover the Ms. Grose was in love with Miss Jessel and hated Peter Quint. Anna is frequently visited by nightmares of her own sexual abuse as a young girl and transfers these fears onto Flora and Miles, feeling that they were similarly abused - an explanation for their bizarre behavior patterns. Ms. Grose acts out her sexuality with Anna, confusing Anna even more, and stressing her vulnerable psyche into thinking she can exorcise the demons of the house. And the ending will surprise us all! Director Donato Rotunno needs to re-read the James novella and rely on the audience's intelligence more than to alter the story to become faddist and frank instead of subtle and suspenseful. A major problem with the casting is the far too frequently physically exposed Leelee Sobieski: it feels as though she is reading her rather pedestrian lines from a cue card off camera. It is a sad imitation of the governess. Tara Fitzgerald's Ms. Grose is not the obese, matronly of the original, but instead a very svelte and seductive woman: she succeeds in creating a credible alternative figure very well. The setting and photography are fine, but the musical score by Adam Pendse is a pedestrian mix of incongruous styles. In short, if you are a fan of Henry James, avoid this sloppy work. But then, if Leelee Sobieski is a favorite, then you see more of her as a grown woman than you probably will ever see again! Not Recommended. Grady Harp

Poor Screenplay, Poor Direction, Poor Effects!

[KillerLord · 4/10 · 19 May 2009]

I have absolutely no idea about the original novel based on which the movie has been produced. But I can assure you that this movie independent of the work on which it has been based is a pathetically directed and scripted one. The topic under consideration is a complicated one and requires the primary cast and crew to be matured and precise about psychological responses of people under varied circumstances. The movie is a horror movie and yet there are psychological elements involved in it. The biggest failure of the movie is that it fails to do a good job in both the elements.

When I am seeing a horror movie, I am ready to fore go some elements that make good cinema provided that I do really enjoy the goosebumps the movie has to throw at me. Do I really get scared when I see this movie? The answer is a plain and a simple "no". Because the visual effects are simply too lame. One does not really need a great animation studio to get the effects right. It takes sheer brilliance on part of the director to get things done right. A simple evidence of this is that we have really scary movies when there was nothing called computer animation! And that brilliance is completely lacking on part of the crew of the movie and we do not get goosebumps at all except maybe on one or two occasions.

The movie is to end without any proper conclusion. It is one of those kind of movies which tell you two parallel possibilities and then leave you to decide for yourself what you want to think about the conclusion of the movie. Such movies are not bad provided that both the parallels are strongly motivating. This movie does not really do a good job in this department and at the end all we are left with is an ending that just does not excite you, enthrall you and to make matters worse, it leaves you completely dejected and heartbroken for having wasted your time on it.

The central character of the movie is a disturbed character. She has been sexually assaulted back in childhood and one of the explorations of the movie is how such a person can pass on the pain to others. But the overall lack of skill on the part of the actress, the script and the failure of the director to hold it all together destroy this element of the movie and we find nothing convincing at the end of the movie. A movie can always end with a twist but it should be so strong that people are left with a feeling of "Wow" at the end of it. Nothing like that happens in this movie. It is disappointing right from the very beginning.

I'm not sure about this befuddled effort

[darkangel_5 · 4/10 · 26 January 2007]

On one hand, In a Dark Place provides an interesting, if turgid, psychological drama. I hesitate to call it either horror or a thriller, because it really is neither.

Additionally, the story is terrifically delicate; its tendrils are woven through events with such skill that it is easy to miss the significance of what's going on. The watcher is also pelted with a hundred herrings and MacGuffins until the drama becomes indistinct.

Also, the role of Anna Veigh was miscast with Leelee Sobieski. The part called for someone really talented, delicate, and passionate. Her look was right (exotic), except for her height. It was weird to see her clopping around towering over everyone else. She just seemed blurry and clumsy, like she was constantly confused about what was going on.

Tara Fitzgerald, however, was perfek! She smoldered and sizzled her way through every frame. It really is a pity that the screen chemistry between Leelee and Tara was a wreck. That alone could've carried the script.

The sexual tension between Tara & Leelee's character builds for what seems an excessive amount of time. We wait. We want it. Tara boots us back into line several times. Then, when we've been teased long enough…they kiss…and Leelee blows it by looking like she's either going to blow up a balloon or hurl. (You could "hear" her going "EEEEK!" by her body movements.) That moment stuck a dagger through the heart of the movie. It drifted slowly below the icy water after that.

As for the children, I normally dislike really young actors and actresses as they are usually wooden as an oak post or overact like Shatner or Montalban on crystal meth. Christian Olson stumbles a little, but Gabrielle Adam is flawless. She has great screen presence and she should keep acting, 'cause she's a natural.

Moving on, the scenery and colors are absolutely gorgeous contrasts of warm creams and browns of the manor contrasted with cold snowy fields, forests, and an icy lake. Eye popping.

It's a pity, then, that the cinematography falls down. It is shot with a slightly eerie mood, to the point that the light is almost green/blue at times, while the camera work is shaky with odd and unpleasant camera angles. It doesn't work.

Ultimately, I think audiences will be disappointed when they think they're seeing a horror movie or ghost story which is in fact an excruciatingly slow psychological thriller with two disappointments waiting…failed sensuality and an aggravatingly fuzzy ending. It's a shame too, this movie could've been *so* much better. 4/10.

Another Unnecessary Remake

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 2 November 2007]

The disturbed arts teacher Anna Veigh (Leelee Sobieski) is hired by the busy Mr. Laing (Jonathan Fox), the tutor of the orphan siblings Flora (Gabrielle Adam) and her brother Miles (Christian Olson), to work as governess and raise the children in their huge mansion in Bly with the support of his secretary Ms. Grose (Tara Fitzgerald). Sooner, Anna believes that the ghosts of the former governess Miss Jessel and housekeeper Peter Quint are in the property haunting the children, and she decides to help them to face the spirits and get their souls free.

"In a Dark Place" is an unsuccessful update and unnecessary remake of the classic ghost story "The Innocents". In the original movie, Debora Kerr magnificently performed an ambiguous character while in this remake Leelee Sobieski visibly performs a deranged woman, spoiling the fantastic ambiguity of the original screenplay. If the viewer has not seen "The Innocents", he or she may like "In the Dark Place"; but for those like me that saw the other film, "In a Dark Place" ruins the mysterious atmosphere of the story. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Lugares Escuros" ("Dark Places")

Leelee Sobieski, how could you?

[Dragoneyed363 · 4/10 · 20 May 2008]

I was walking past In A Dark Place one day at a rental store and I saw Leelee Sobieski on the cover of the film. It looked something similar to recent movies such as The Return and The Grudge, which I thought both of those films were very satisfying, even though this ended up being nothing like them really, so I decided to give this movie a try.

At first, it looked really cool, when I put it in that is. The first near hour or so were fine, just fine, nothing special, but I was enjoying the build up and performances to an extent. Then, it took a turn for the worst. Everything started going horribly wrong and as the film dragged on I became more depressed, and more depressed with how the outcome of the film was turning out. The storyline just gets so ridiculously poor and overrated, and everything they had built up with mildly entertaining values were thrown out the window near the end of the film.

Why, how, Leelee, I thought you were great! What made you take part in this movie when you saw how the character development is demolished in the last half hour, or did you even notice? Sure, there was some stuff I found in the movie that was entertaining, I have already stated that, but I felt as if my insides were going to explode from how horrible the last half hour of the film was and how horrifically boring and inane Sobieski and everyone elses' character became.

If you love Leelee Sobieski enough, avoid this movie, because I really was expecting more from her and the movie itself seeing as how I enjoy her as an actress. I'm sure her heart will thank you if you don't watch this, for now every time she hears about her role in this film, as often as that probably isn't, I bet she falls to the ground and bursts into tears. . .

Bad execution of a good idea...

[mgurbada909 · 4/10 · 7 January 2009]

The idea behind this movie wasn't terrible-a retelling of the classic psychological horror story "The Turn of the Screw", only, let's remove all of the ambiguity from the the character of the Governess, and make her an overt nutter suffering from childhood trauma. There are no ghosts- Little Miles and Flora are threatened by their crazy delusional governess. BUT, the movie falls flat on its face- bad acting, bad direction, bad script, bad editing...Leelee is particularly disappointing- has she given a good performance as an adult? The four points are for LeeLee's breasts (they are easily worth two a piece!) Want a good "haunted house" scare? See instead- "The Innocents", "The Haunting" (the original, not the remake), "The Uninvited" (best séance scene in history), and, most recently, "The Orphanage".

A Ghostly thriller - Alledgedly

[rosierose37 · 1/10 · 1 February 2009]

A diabolically poor attempt at creating a ghostly thriller. A somewhat psychologically abused and fragile teacher finds work as the nanny for 2 troubled children in a huge creepy mansion house in the country. She is then confronted with hearing strange noises and other events that elude to the ghosts of previous employees haunting the house. Sounds good so far? Potentially yes, sadly in reality no. It slithered along at the pace of an arthritic snail on salt leaving the viewer (well this one anyway) wanting a refund for 90 minutes of life.

The trailer and movie poster/box cover suggested the presence of suspense and gripping drama. Unfortunately there were neither. Not one scare or single moment of 'edge of seat' thrill. Isn't that why we watch these particular type of movies? You do not need blood and guts to create fear, suspense or even subtlety - look at 'The Others' or 'The ring' or 'The woman in black' or 'The Haunted' to name a few. In fact the only mystery was why the hell I sat for 90 minutes waiting for any redeeming feature. I have no idea what point this film was trying to make as any connection with the characters was lost in confusion and the point of the story unclear. The only meagre spec of salvation was a scene of mild lesbian eroticism which to be honest was irrelevant to anything in the plot and possibly designed to prevent the watcher from falling asleep!!!

Ultimately, In a dark place is exactly where this film should be left......... to remain for ever!

In a Dark Place

[Ryanm128 · 1/10 · 9 August 2009]

I have to say probably the worst film i have watched in years. The story was viable but the editing,production and watch ability were nothing short of Diabolical. I was really shocked by the quality of actors like Tara Fitzgerald would even consider being in this failed experiment of a movie but times are hard i suppose. If anyone has considered watching this please don't waist 90 minutes of your life because you will never get them back. Overall a disaster of a movie which if made correctly and the right editing could have been enjoyable,but this was nothing more than a washout. I advise not to waste your time.

The Princess And The Toad Revised

[TheAnimalMother · 7/10 · 2 February 2010]

I've heard that the book this film is based on is quite good, although you'd never know it from this screen translation. The movie itself is quite terrible in the way it's delivered. It is the type of film that doesn't tell you everything, and wants the viewer to decide what really happened. However this isn't directed with the skill of a Kubrick or a Bergman, nor is this version written well for the screen, so really the film just leaves you going, "What the ****?". Not even really caring much what happened, nor leaving you with interesting ideas of what may have happened. It's just crap really. The story here is an ugly toad covered in warts, as for the princess. Enter Leelee Sobieski who is the one and only reason to watch this confused effort. If you are a lesbian or a male who likes Leelee, then this will satisfy. Otherwise run from this dark place. To me, Leelee was well worth the watch. In fact I couldn't stop watching her, despite the ridiculousness of the story. Leelee's voluptuous body in itself is a feature presentation well worth the price of admission. Cleavage and curves galore, this is the only film in existence that I can think of where a woman's body completely steals the film, and alone makes it worth while. That is truly the way I felt though. The film's story is laughably stupid, however Leelee's body is nothing short of a masterpiece. And so...the princess saves an ugly toad.

7/10

Spoiled rotten.

[rmax304823 · 2/10 · 4 October 2008]

I don't know why they had to tap Henry James' novel, "The Turn of the Screw", to get this plot together. The writers could have knocked off a one- or two-sentence treatment: "Mad woman hires out as nanny and harasses her two young charges to death." James' story, and Jack Clayton's adaptation of it in 1963, are full of ambiguity. This version isn't.

Leelee Sobieski is okay, as are the other performers. Sobieksi has the advantage of not being a star in the Hollywood sense, but an actress instead. Her figure is a little shapeless and her eyes, with all that black liner, too close together, and in this wintry English setting, her pallor against the snow gives her face the appearance of a charcoal sketch. She's the kind of woman a discerning man might find himself staring idly at, while standing next to her in the supermarket checkout line, and slowly realizing -- "Gee, she ain't too homely." Her beauty is insinuating, and she's quite good in the role. The problem isn't with her, it's with the script.

Tara Fitzgerald as Mrs. Grose has a tough job -- projecting sensuality undercut by a touch of the sinister. The two kids are alright, but they are, after all, kids.

But never mind all that. The screenplay and direction bungle the task. Where to begin. The direction has a lot of arty touches, none of them original. Three figures in black silhouette skip along the top of a snowbank against a washed-out winter sky. Lots of cross-cutting during critical scenes. Intrusive flashbacks to Sobieski's youth, incomprehensible much of the time. (Okay, she's suddenly a little girl oscillating on a park swing and she looks back over her shoulder and smiles at the camera and -- wham -- we're back in the present.) These arty effects -- done with accomplished camera work, though -- deteriorate quickly into every cliché from the horror movie script guide. Guttural, animal sounds in the middle of the night, coming from nowhere. An intense electrical storm in the midst of winter, straight out of a B horror movie. Shock cuts accompanied by stings on the sound track. Before the movie is half over, Sobieski is already creeping around holding a butcher knife. Child abuse is hinted at. Lesbianism is shown. Graphic but brief nudity. (Too brief. A little gratuitous sex might have helped.) The monster's POV shots, where there be no monster.

My attitude may be warped because Clayton's "The Innocents" was superb. It stuck pretty close to Henry James. James' Mrs. Grose was not the dominatrix she is here; she was an unimaginative old housekeeper. There is absolutely nothing in this version to compare with the scene in the garden in Clayton's movie, in which Deborah Kerr and the child watch a repugnant black beetle crawl out of the mouth of a marble cherub. Out of the mouths of babes! But not here. If Deborah Kerr as the governess may have been slightly delusional, perhaps prompted by her attraction to her dismissive employer, Leelee Sobieski is frankly loco. In the earlier movie Kerr first merely senses the two ghosts -- Quint and Miss Jessel -- and then glimpses them from afar. The closest Kerr comes is when she enters an elongated empty classroom and thinks she sees Miss Jessel weeping over the desk at the other end. Miss Jessel disappears as Kerr approaches, but Kerr finds a fresh teardrop on the desk. The "evil" that the ghosts represent is never made clear. Here, it's the sexual abuse of children. Ho hum.

I don't know why they bother to remake films that were so good in their original form. I really don't. How about a remake of "Citizen Kane" with Tom Cruise? No? "Gone With the Wind" with Keanu Reeves and Brittany Spears? I've got it -- "On the Waterfront" with Rob Lowe and Paris Hilton.

Not your conventional ghost story - an interesting update of the Henry James

[tatra-man · 8/10 · 31 October 2006]

This film sticks quite close the original "Turn of the Screw" tale, but is set in the present day, and makes the sexual themes of the Henry James story much more overt. It has good cinematography, and it's snowy location creates quite an atmosphere. You never know quite where it is going, which is good, but you also feel there is something very wrong with Leelee Sobieski's character - something you can't really put your finger on - it's revealed as the film progresses. The way she turns from victim to savior to abuser is really intriguing and by the end really quite disturbing.... The film has many of the conventions of the standard ghost story, but there is something more interesting going on under the surface. A different type of scariness...

Bland, boring and features very little good moments

[slayrrr666 · 6/10 · 23 August 2008]

"In A Dark Place" is a somewhat slow and boring horror drama with a few good moments.

**SPOILERS**

Fired from a teaching job, Anna Veigh, (Leelee Sobieski) is offered a babysitting gig and eventually takes the position. Brought by assistant Mrs. Grose, (Tara Fitzgerald) to the house, she meets her charges Miles, (Christian Olson) and Flora, (Gabrielle Adam) and is soon tending to their problems as a full-time nanny. When she starts to suspect that something is amiss with them, she decides to learn about the history of the position, and realizes that there's a violent history involving the ghosts of previous residents of the house haunting the grounds and targeting the children. Taking matters into her own hands, she tries to prevent the same thing which happened to them from repeating itself with the children.

The Good News: This one didn't have a whole lot to really get excited about. One of the most memorable aspects of the film is it's lesbian relationship, even though there isn't much of that going on. The one sequence where one of them writes in agony in a flowery shirt is nice, and the one sequence where they give in to the temptation and it goes for a mild sex scene is the real highlight, offering up a lot of good points to really serve it well. Some of the haunting scenes are actually good, mainly the ones coming at the end. The fact that they all occur in the frosty winter-land is a little chilling, giving it a nice atmosphere due to the stripped, dead trees reaching out to their victims. It's quite impressive and eerie altogether. The other plus is that they're used in conjunction with the ghostly hauntings, all of in the distance and making them seem even creepier. The last good point is the really nice chase at the end. The stalking in the house is pure gold, lasting much longer than normal and going out to really get a lot going for it. Then it moves out into the wintery forest, which is always great and it's combined into a spectacular conclusion. These here are all that really work for the film.

The Bad News: This was an all-together huge missed opportunity for something decent. One of the biggest problems is that the supernatural hauntings are nowhere near center-stage in this, making the drama the real focus of the action. There's very little, if anything at all, in the beginning which is all that great, or even entertaining, centering around the efforts to understand the children. That's not a wholly entertaining avenue to explore in this, especially once it starts dominating and nothing at all really happens, and when they do happen, it's usually a quick-cut sequence that isn't followed up on, rendering it of no importance other than a cheap-jump gag or is written off as hallucinations, which is really a shame since the hide-and-seek game played is rather cheapened of a great, genuine thrill by it's lame revelation. Other scenes are also hurt by this, and it really hurts the film altogether. Another missed opportunity comes from the weakened lesbian angle. Not enough nudity is really shown outside of one sequence, and with a coupler bathing scenes, a make-out fondling and a couple dressing scenes all offering up nothing, all coming off as teasing rather than anything else and coming up as plain irritating. The main missed opportunity with the ghostly haunting also manages to slow the film's momentum down, really making the beginning quite boring, especially with the fact that it's more or less an unnamed remake of a classic in the genre, only with a few minor changes. It's quite easy to pick up on the references, to the manner of job acquisition to the antics between the two to the school problems and much, much more, really taking a large piece with it. The last flaw is the film's rather misused house. This could've been a really creepy, old-style house with modern twists that really could've been a creepy and unsettling place, but is shot all the wrong way and really does the film a huge disservice. These here are the film's flaws.

The Final Verdict: With a couple of good parts and some really big flaws, this one is a really big disappointment when it could've been worthwhile. Really only give this a chance if you're a huge fan of the style or those who like the creative side, while those who want some action in their films should heed caution.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence, Nudity and a mild sex scene

Isn't this a continuance of The Nightcomers?

[lizette-13 · 2/10 · 8 September 2009]

Recently I saw the movie The Nightcomers from 1979 with Marlon Brando as Peter Quint and Stephanie Beacham as Miss Jessel. So when I started watching the movie In a dark Place all the names and the children's characters seemed very familiar to me. The nightcomers is the story of miss Jessel, Peter Quint (who in In a dark place appears as ghosts) and the children and their relationship until the death of Jessel and Quint. So this movie must be continuing story of the children and their life with a new nanny. This movie is not very thrilling, at times i even got bored. I will not recommend the movie and my vote for this movie is 2.

In a Dark Place: Falls flat on its face from the outset

[Platypuschow · 2/10 · 6 October 2017]

In A Dark Place would be classed as a psychological horror/thriller. It stars the underrated Leelee Sobieski or as I like to call her Helen Hunts mini-me.

Telling the story of a girl hired as a nanny of two less than usual children at a wealthy estate and her dwindling mental health.

Also starring long forgotten English actress Tara Fitzgerald from the likes of Brassed Off (1996) this is an utter mess of a film from opening credits to closing.

Immensely boring, poorly written and incredibly crappily made In A Dark Place is an instantly forgettable film with practically nothing going for it at all.

The Good:

Leelee Sobieski

The Bad:

Weak writing

Terrible plot

Bad finale

Awful child actors

roadkill

[shaunmahaffey · 1/10 · 18 March 2009]

this movie is an absolute stinker.It has absolutely nothing to commend it.

The acting is uninvolved and incapable of involving the audience.It feels as if the actors were going through the motions and didn't care one jot about the script or characters.

There is no suspense, excitement or drama in the film.I was completely bored and frankly confused at times.

I learned from reading other user comments that the movie was inspired by a book. Perhaps if I had read the book I would have cared more about what was happening on screen. I don't think its worth the effort of finding out.

Watch it for Tara Fitzgerald if Nothing Else

[atomic_age57 · 5/10 · 22 June 2007]

Yes, the storyline is something we've all seen before. But what makes the film worth watching is Tara Fitzgerald's performance as the cold, domineering headmistress of the house. Fitzgerald chews through every piece of scenery she's in, and creates a very believable three-dimensional character. Unfortunately her role is wasted on being paired with Leelee Sobieski, who just doesn't seem to grasp what's going on. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, seems to know just the right moves to make Miss Grose unlikable, while at the same time making us care for her. Sadly, there are very few actress today who can do this. I hope to see more of her!

What a waste of time watching this!

[mismerize · 1/10 · 5 July 2008]

What a waste of time watching this. Who directed this, no wait was there a director...............And who edited it...... Just when you think it couldn't go any slower, oh but it can, oh it can. Um, it never picked up.......................... It was all over the place. Reaction to certain situations were slow as well......................... This movie was just awful........................................... A huge waste of my time. .................. So many mistakes in this movie....................................... There was NOTHING worth while to even mention...................... Why they released this crap is beyond me.

Don't waste your time

[Geff-L · 1/10 · 4 October 2008]

This is one of the top 10 worst films off all time. If you value your time, don't bother with this movie. If you have lots of free time, still don't bother with this movie. I sure wish I could get 90 minutes of my life back.

The movie was a train wreck. Slower than molasses, but worse yet the story line is all over the map. Not to mention it just plain doesn't make any sense.

Trust me when I say... spend 90 minutes doing dishes or cleaning the house instead. At least there will be something to show for it in the end.

The scariest places are in the dark

[windypoplar · 7/10 · 24 July 2007]

"in a Dark Place" with Leelee Sobieski and Tara Fitzgerald is a retelling of the classic Henry James story, "the Turn of the Screw" There have been many incarnations, "The Innocents" with Deborah Kerr being the best. This is very good though.

Leelee plays young Anna Veigh, a nanny assigned to look after two young children, a boy Miles and a girl, Flora, on a remote country estate. It soon becomes apparent that they were abused, as was Anna herself, Mrs. Grose the caretaker, is distant and remote, adding to Anna's misgivings.

The film is stark and sensual. Leelee gives probably her best performance to date, possibly because, as Leelee herself tells us, there is little of her in Anna. Tara Fitzgerald is also a fine actress and really seems to bring everyone's level up in whatever she appears. There is increasing dread to the proceedings that are more psychological than supernatural and the film never loses its edge or its air of creepy self-pleasure.

There is a lesbian subtext that was missing in earlier versions and a good twist as to who the children are really afraid of. The film is moody and subversive but not so obtuse that the viewer is left in the dark too. Due to its subject and certain scenes this isn't really the most comfortable film, but for those who care, both Leelee and Tara give the devil his due with flashes of nudity. All in all I wasn't expecting much from this and so was pleasantly surprised and entertained.

Stay Away .... Unless to FF to LeeLee's nude scene

[darcy_owens · 5/10 · 19 July 2007]

Stay far far away from this movie unless for the nude scene and then all she really shows is her butt ..... bad bad bad movie with terrible terrible terrible script and even worse direction. This movie might appeal to you if you enjoy films that try very hard to be intelligent but just can't make it past mediocrity. Leelee gives a decent portrayal of the character but she had nothing to work with. If you look up 1-deminsional in the dictionary you will see a picture of the character of Anna Vey. The lesbian scenes in this movie were added only for the sake having lesbian scenes in a sad attempt to make the film cutting edge. Everything failed miserably.

Remake of a movie? No. A story.

[etjaipleure · 23 August 2008]

Complete remake, even uses the same names, as Henry James' most popular story, "Turning of the Screw". This movie was not very good, IMO. It doesn't really follow the storyline well, there's no real "ending" or meaning, there's no resolution. It's unsatisfying.I saw Lee Lee on the cover and thought it would at least be decent. It's very odd and there were strange sexual themes, which are in James' story, but I guess seeing them play out like that, it was a little more disturbing. Lee Lee seems so blase about everything. Like she is just drifting along and she could really care less about what happens to the children. Although, she does seem to feign some interest, it's not enough to make you care when one of the children dies. I would recommend reading the story. You get pulled in and the characters are more in depth.

One of the Best Psycho Drama in recent years

[mindcat · 9/10 · 3 September 2008]

After reading many of the comments and poor ratings of this flick, by some here, I conclude a mature motion picture as this wasted upon you. A pearl before swines.

First the director himself states in the DVD release this is NOT a remake of the Turning of The Screw, and further he is not a fan of horror flicks, as he says, disturbing things happen everyday in real life.

And so it is Anna Veigh, a sexually molested and tortured child attempts to help other children so molested by becoming an art therapist. However, she is pawed over and fired by an old school master who in attempt to keep her quiet, finds her a new position as a Nanny with a boy and girl who have been orphaned and now are the charges of their wealthy uncle. The uncle would rather be totally free of the responsibility.

The drama unfolds quietly and with a smoldering subtlety that only true drama and mystery lover could appreciate. Sorry kids no bug eyed monsters, disappointed? And no this isn't a female sex flesh flick as some lechers had hoped.

It concerns a metaphor and secrets. Each character has a secret and slowly the viewer pieces the parts together.

It is assumed Miss Veigh is in fact, losing her mind and imagining dangers and ghosts.

She in fact confronts her own molestation and rape as a child, time and again. She like the children is haunted.

It appears the previous Nanny, a Miss Jessel and her lover Peter Quint (names borrowed from the James novel), were lovers. It also appears they included the children in their sexual games and haunted them as Miss Veigh is haunted by her childhood molestations.

I very much enjoyed the frank and tasteful nudity, the lesbian scenes.

The property manager Miss Gross, portrayed elegantly by Tara Fitzgerald, had been in love with Miss Jessel and also courts Miss Veigh.

The words, " its not working out" precede each sexual exploitation of the Anna Veigh. Indeed, Miles and Floras seem possessed by the old perverted team, Miss Jessel and Peter Quint.

Both Flora and Miles have symptoms very often associated with children who have been sexually abused.

The end is very sad and unless your understand what is going on you'll miss it. Why is Miles running from Miss Veigh? Could it be when he blows the candle out he again is sexually exploited?

Flora sleeps with her new Nanny and cryptically says, " Do anything YOU like."

The last scenes are metaphors for sexually abused children who want to die and feel dirty, responsible for the abuse they received.

This is a misunderstood masterpiece. I hope the child actors, didn't quite grasp what it was really all about.

See it and try to understand what the director is attempting to put across. Most here are clueless about this flick.

Worthwhile Modern-Day Adaptation Of A Classic Ghost Story.

[drownsoda90 · 7/10 · 23 June 2007]

"In A Dark Place" follows Anna Veigh (Leelee Sobieski, of "Joy Ride" and "The Wicker Man" remake), a young art teacher who loses her job and becomes the new nanny for two young siblings, Miles and Flora, along with the caretaker, Ms. Grose (Tara Fitzgerald). The house is grand, remote, and located in the countryside. But Anna begins having bizarre experiences - hearing voices, and seeing the ghosts of the previous nanny and her lover on the ground. And Miles and Flora seem to be odd children as well. Is Anna losing her mind, or are there really ghosts stalking the property?

A modern-day take on Henry James' classic horror story, "The Turn Of The Screw", which the 1961 film "The Innocents" was based upon, "In A Dark Place" is a decent horror movie. The unconventional plot line, adapted from James' novel, is a unique ghost story and really unlike any you could probably think of. At first, things may seem familiar, but the twists & turns and utter ambiguity of the story make it a very odd ghost story. The script here shares it's similarities with "The Innocents" (which makes sense because they're both based on the same book), although it is it's own complete film as well, with quite a few differences too. Some of the differences are for the better, some not. But overall the story flowed well and the descent into the Anna character's madness (or perhaps not...?) is an intriguing basis for the story. There were some nice chills along the way (but this is a slow-moving story), and there are a nice handful of some creepy scenes.

The atmosphere found in this film is much different though, it takes place in modern times and the old-time feel that the 1961 version of the story had is lost, which is a bit unfortunate, but I do admire the writers for taking the story and placing it in a different time, because they were able to take the story and make it work for a modern audience, and I respect that. It wouldn't make as much sense to retell the story in the same era, so I don't know if this is necessarily a bad thing. Good acting here from Sobieski as usual, she's good in most of the films I've seen her in, and this one was no exception. She conveys a very confused woman who may or may not be going off the deep end. Tara Fitzgerald is fitting as the eccentric Ms. Grose, and the children were played nicely as well. As for the ending, it still rests along the lines of the original (ambiguous, but not quite as much so). This film does go deeper into the themes of child molestation and homosexuality, which Jack Clayton's "The Innocents" shed hardly a sliver of light on - then again this is a different time, and these subjects aren't quite as much of a taboo as they were during the time that film was made.

Overall, "In A Dark Place" is a worthwhile adaptation of a genuinely spooky ghost story. I still do prefer "The Innocents" over this adaptation, mainly because of the classic, old-fashioned feel that film has, and while this film isn't quite as good, it's a creepy modern-day retelling. And for those who despised this film so much, I'm assuming the majority of them never saw "The Innocents" (or read the book), because the films are much alike aside from the time setting and a few other differences. If you enjoyed the novel "The Turn Of The Screw" or the film "The Innocents" (or perhaps another film adaptation of the story, apparently there's quite a few), you may want to look into this. 7/10.

Interesting take.. but falls flat on it's face in the end.

[shalimar-4 · 4/10 · 21 March 2007]

While this is a slightly "unconventional" take on a ghost story.. sadly this telling of it is disjointed and lacks many necessary elements to make it any sort of success. I'm sorry to say in this case you're better off reading the book so to speak. Leelee Sobieski tries but is not a perfect fit for this role... she can act but this I think was simply beyond her ability to be truly convincing (Unlike Nicole Kidman in The Others).

The director in this case I would suggest lessons from Takashi Shimizu (The Grudge)... the Japanese have truly mastered the art of this sort of story... and Donato Rotunno gives it a half ass'd at best effort. Then tosses in some nudity from Leelee... and even in that effort he fails miserably since if you are going to have her flash her goodies to draw your attention she should at least shave/trim before hand.

It's sad that a nude shot of Leelee is the highlight of a ghost story.... and it's not even a proper porno or even "teenage tit movie".

While I do appreciate the effort... I have to give this a miserable 4 rating.. and suggest most others skip it especially if you do not appreciate the subtle telling of a ghost story without flashy effects.. (or more accurately in this case a lame attempt at such.)

Everyone connected to this movie should be slapped repeatedly by the ghost of Henry James

[cynkat · 1/10 · 24 September 2009]

I caught this movie at first in the middle, when Anna was looking for the children at the pond. I recognized the scene immediately and when she called the child "Flora", I knew it was a remake of The Innocents, one of my all time favorite movies. So I found when it was on again and recorded it to watch later, what a mistake! Why do people who make remakes feel obliged to include an obligatory lesbian scene? The aura of suspense was completely obliterated by Anna's wacky behavior, supposedly attributed to her childhood abuse. The tension between Anna and the children regarding Jessel and Quint was non-existent - this is at the core of the story. What a waste of film.