The Turn of the Screw (2009 TV Movie) User Reviews

A turn for the worse

[Lejink · 5/10 · 27 March 2010]

I first read Henry James' chilling ghost story at a young age and have seen different versions of it both on stage and film and so was very keen to see this latest version put forward by the BBC in their winter season.

The key to the story, in my opinion, is the doubt on whose truth here is real. Indeed when I first read the novella in my youth, it never occurred to me that the ghosts weren't "real" and not possibly a figment of an over-emotional young woman's imagination. Re-reads and re-viewings of the piece have brought me round to this, I think, intended more ambivalent (and ultimately satisfying) interpretation so that I was disappointed that that this high-production-value version seemed to cleave so much to the former viewpoint, i.e. that the malevolent spirits were real - this evidenced by the ghosts "appearing" in the imagination, for example of the young doctor who attempts to understand and salve the troubled mind of the disturbed young governess.

Another source of confusion and disappointment was the transposition of events to post-First World War England. If the lead character had been a young man, just back from and possibly their mind affected by the war, then a case for this change of context, could be argued. In every other respect though, the film plays as if in a 19th Century time-line thus throwing the narrative off-kilter. I could also have done without the sub-Lady Chatterley cavortings of both the governess in her imagination with her new employer (who, good looks apart and a self-confessed seducer of previous servants and governesses), hardly seems able to be responsible for her graphic fantasising, as well as the crudely physical liaison that the phantoms Quint and Jessell portray.

The film takes this shock-Gothic outlook to extremes with scenes suggesting the actual possession of the children by their malefactors but it's all done in a very sub-"The Exorcist" way and in the end I felt it wrong to come down so conclusively on the side of the demons.

The acting was mixed in quality, the children unable to portray the duality of their personalities convincingly and the actor playing Quint lacking menace entirely. However, Michelle Dockery, as the stricken governess, was convincing in both appearance and conviction, with the omnipresent Sue Johnston a sympathetic foil as the bemused house-matron.

There were some scares deftly inserted along the way, punctuated effectively by well-crafted background music, but as I said earlier, the modernising of the story to include the nudity and violence depicted here, overpowered, to me anyway, the thin line between fantasy and reality that served the original book so well.

A great story, lost somewhat in this particular re-telling.

Needed more fleshing out...but not bad...

[AndyVanScoyoc · 5/10 · 2 June 2020]

Dark, gothic and impendingly grim, while I wouldn't watch this again, I enjoyed it the first time around.

Could have used more fleshing out and some tighter editing, but all in all, decent film with a beautiful cast.

Era change killed it

[Conspirator_Slash · 4/10 · 20 August 2010]

I hated the 20's costumes, this just NEEDS the fancy Victorian clothing! Also, automobiles? Stupid frame story? And using Voice Of The Legion, one of the worst horror tropes? No match to The Innocents - that was perfectly creepy and beautiful (Miles could have been prettier, but otherwise everything as it should be).

Here? Meh. Adding random new characters was unnecessary.

Music - can't even recall it. Go for the opera if you want the REAL music of this, also, Britten understood a lot more than this movie's director. It was not just about *possessing* children. It was more, at least in the case of Quint/Miles.

Abandon hope all ye who enter this....

[PippinInOz · 2/10 · 1 January 2011]

I agree with all of the previous four reviews here. Like another reviewer, I have been looking forwards to seeing this - absolutely LOVE 'The Innocents' and was curious as to how a contemporary film maker would interpret this. It aired as part of Christmas / New Year viewing in Australia on Foxtel's UK Channel.

Where to begin??

Thought there was trouble brewing when it began in the asylum. Straight away the audience is given 'markers' as to how we are to interpret or 'read' this television film. To me, the story's power is it's AMBIGUITY! Immediately, this is undercut.

Okay, they have decided to swap the setting to 1922 rather than Victorian England. Was willing to play along and give the film makers the benefit of the doubt, but alarm bells are going off. After all, Gothic and 19th Century England just go so beautifully don't they?! Quite apart from the fact that this is the historical period in which the novel is set. I have no problem with films and television programmes providing viewers with fresh contexts, but swapping the historical period was always going to be difficult.

But no matter, I persevered. What really REALLY annoyed me - in no particular order:

SPELLING EVERYTHING OUT. You know those B grade made for television (often Hallmark) films where the characters are given ridiculous lines of dialogue telling you everything - in case you might get to use your imagination and try to work something out for yourself? Well, you will recognise this modus operandi here.

The sinister mysterious figure of the male that the governess 'sees' - transformed into a panto villain who keeps doing the 'HA HA HA!!!!' laugh. Spare us. Not scary, just irritating.

The 'oh look at ye governess, she be havin' sexual fantasies about Master' scenes. What makes the original story so effective is the general repression of the Victorian era. The style of Gothic in literature has been interpreted as a way to express that which was repressed in the Victorian era. For example: see 'Wuthering Heights' amongst others. All feature violent, sexual, usually dark haired men - (Heathcliffe is a classic). The viewer should never be completely sure of how the governess is feeling about the male characters. This is about repression, not telling.

That ancient gravestone when the Governess and the Housekeeper (Oh Sue Johnston - I love your work, but how in God's name did you get involved in this?) are supposed to be looking at the previous Governesses gravestone. She is only meant to have died recently and this gravestone looks like it's been there for centuries. A small goof perhaps, but this nicely sums up the general sloppiness.

The poor child actors - pity them. They have no idea what is going on here at all. Suspect they were turning up for work in Studio 1 for a new version of 'Village of the Damned' but walked into Studio 2 by mistake, ending up in this.

If you want to see an evocative version of this story, go and find a copy of 'The Innocents' - watch it a couple of times and see how your idea of just what happened in this house continually changes. It opens up interpretation rather than shut it down and spell it out. It will make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. This dogs dinner on the other hand will make you wonder why you bothered.

Not perfect, but still a solid seasonal ghost story in the BBC's occasional tradition

[dr_clarke_2 · 7/10 · 8 September 2020]

The BBC's The Turn of the Screw is an adaptation of Henry James' celebrated novel written by Sandy Welch and broadcast in December 2009; whilst not produced under the umbrella title A Ghost Story for Christmas, it is virtually an instalment of that program by default. And whilst some critics lambasted Welch for the film's differences from the source material, it makes a suitably chilling seasonal supernatural tale.

Like James' novel, The Turn of the Screw opens with Ann, a young woman who has been admitted to a lunatic asylum, telling the story of how she came to be there to psychiatrist Dr Fisher. She recounts being hired by an otherwise named Master to act as a governess to his children at the country estate at Bly, where she starts to believe that the house is haunted not just by memories of a dark past, but by something more dangerous. Welch's screenplay was criticised for removing the ambiguity of the novel, but literary adaptations often take liberties with the source material and the result certainly captures the sinister atmosphere of James' story. The framing sequence makes it immediately obvious that Ann faces disbelief when she realises that the evil Peter Quint and his lover Miss Jessel - the previous governess - have returned from beyond the grave to possess the Master's children Miles and Flora; with the audience privy to everything that she sees and learns, the futility of her attempts to stop them takes on a dreadful inevitability. Additionally, anyone unfamiliar with the novel may not be expecting the tragic climax, which has an impact even for those who are. And whilst Ann ultimately convinces Dr Fisher of the truth, there is of course a sting in the tale...

The Turn of the Screw is directed by Tim Fywell, who slowly ramps up the atmosphere, and provides chills such as when Ann mistakes Mrs Grose for a ghost in the churchyard and when she sees Quint at the window. He also assembles a strong cast led by Michelle Dockery, who gives a fine performance as Ann, initially fearful, then resolute, and ultimately determined to convince Fisher of the truth. Sue Johnston is extremely convincing as housekeeper Mrs Grose, whilst as Quint Edward MacLiam makes an art form out of being silently terrifying. Crucially, the two child actors also give believable performances, and Josef Lindsay is particularly good as Miles, notably during the disturbing scene when he tries to drown Flora.

If I have one criticism of The Turn of the Screw it is that the setting is changed from the 1840s to the 1920s, which serves no dramatic purpose; it doesn't harm the story per se, but given the BBC's pedigree when it comes to costume drama, either period setting could have been convincingly realised and therefore the change feels redundant and clumsy. That said, the 1920s sets and costumes are as impressive as one would expect and the location filming benefits the production enormously (another trait shared with A Ghost Story for Christmas). The Turn of the Screw isn't perfect, but it is a solid seasonal ghost story in the BBC's occasional tradition.

A major disappointment for Christmas 2009

[srm-1 · 2/10 · 11 January 2010]

Of all the programmes in this year's Christmas TV schedule, 'A Turn of the Screw' was the one that I was looking forward to most of all. Although not explicitly advertised as a "BBC Ghost Story for Christmas" that is exactly what it was: a BBC - ghost story - at Christmas. And with top director Tim Fywell at the helm, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, it did.

Others might like to list all of the myriad small problems with this production but, for me, there were two major faults which rendered it almost unwatchable: firstly, the two child protagonists were neither enchanting nor engaging which made it impossible to sympathise, or care, about their situation. Secondly, the way that the governess either thought that she heard things, or thought that she saw things, almost every second of every scene of her time on screen meant that there was absolutely no build-up of tension or foreboding throughout the whole production. Ultimately, and disappointingly, it ended up being just a very boring and completely unsatisfying ninety minutes.

Once again the true winter chills were to be found on BBC Four this year, with a re-run of the excellent 'Crooked House' and welcome screenings from the real master ghost storyteller - the other Mr. James.

Great adaptation and fabulous setting with great actors

[eddie_younis · 15 February 2015]

It is a great adaptation. It was the best of the two versions I have seen. It is very simple to understand and truly well made with a beautiful setting. I highly recommend it if you like a good and scary tale. Surprised why the other ratings were so low. I watched it at 6 a.m. in the morning, and it made my day. The actors are great. The ending was cool. The piano pieces in that movie were nice. The most attractive thing about this movie is simply the setting. The scary scenes were exciting and dark. I soundtrack is also great. It is a suspenseful movie which keeps you at the edge of your seat. I was very excited for the ending, and it did not disappoint me. I liked so much that I might read the book too. I think it would have been the best Christmas present in 2009.

Very Good, In Comparison

[SeamusMacDuff · 7/10 · 26 October 2021]

To the latest version of this "The Haunting of Bly Manor". I turned to this more faithful adaptation after getting bored to death half way through season 1 of said series.

Perhaps it's not fair to compare versions, although many other reviews are doing the same to yet other adaptations. How many times has this been done? I guess it did establish the now almost stereotypical Gothic story of a young governess at a rambling old estate in the English countryside.

Dockery did a much better job of conveying a young woman trying to do her best and advance herself, although the obsession with "impressing the Master" detracted a bit. Compared to THOBM this was much more crisp, concise, believable, and even scary. That it was set in the 1920 instead of the 1880s? Who cares?

Check this out when you to become bored with a bloviated version.

Degrading

[srioux-42-436239 · 1/10 · 30 April 2011]

This filmed version of James' novella is a travesty. It begins with the conceit of the insane asylum, in which the Governess is an inmate, as if this were an acceptable or even clever way to evoke the issue of her questionable sanity.

The shots and cuts seem to be meant to reinforce this simplistic kind of ambiguity, certainly with none of the subtlety of James' work, and sometimes even to opposite effects, and often garishly. For example, when the Governess first arrives at Bly, she is greeted by the staff. The camera pans over their faces and cuts to close-ups of especially sour-looking expressions in order to make us wonder whether this is really such a nice place, or perhaps that some of these unhappy people may wish her harm.

To get at the latent sexuality of the text, this filmed version relies on a piece of lingerie, flashbacks of Quint atop Jessel in bed, and the Governess' fantasies of her and the uncle in various hackneyed romantic gestures.

Mrs. Grose's rosy, innocent, and reliable sympathy with the Governess in the novel has been eradicated here and replaced with her somewhat cold rejection of the Governess' claims to have seen Quint and Jessel.

There's more. The music has been expediently installed to cue the intended emotional responses. The dialogue and characterizations, with their overwrought emotion, are both anachronistic and unconvincing, and get worse as the film wears on, ending with the children's swearing at the Governess, a device that's just plain tacky, and Miles' pummeling Flora, slapping her face and calling her the b-word before he dunks her head into the water of the lake. This is how the filmmakers attempt to answer the question, What harm might Quint and Jessel intend for the children? Why, to make the children into likenesses of themselves of course! Hence, at the end, Miles kisses the Governess passionately, while the image of the actor who plays Quint is superimposed over him.

It's not clear to me why so much of what's produced for television is so poorly done. If the producers and directors are dumbing their work down for wider audiences, then they ought to give us more credit. If they themselves are such poor interpreters of literature, then they should be given other projects, or discharged. Or haunted by Peter Quint and Miss Jessel, and Henry James himself!

Innocence and cruelty

[libelefs · 6/10 · 13 November 2021]

The intentionally ambiguous plot of the film (based Henry Jame's book) is well-known. However, the script and the director of the film leave room for one more interpretation: to what extent did the two children contribute to driving the governess to the end of her wits? We are informed that all the previous governesses had left them, with the exception of the tragic miss Jessel, who committed suicide as an act of despair owning to her unfortunate love affair with the ruthless Quint. We come to witness that the children sometimes form a "clique" of some kind, against Ann: they secretly whisper to one another, laughing behind her back, rejecting her, occasionally seeing ghosts and misbehaving. The corrupt Quint-Jessel couple had indeed exerted an influence upon the orphans. They acted as wicked substitutes for their deceased parents (the boy actually blames his parents for dying!). The evil influence takes the form of ghosts to point out how crucial it was to shaping the childrens' psyche, ghosts that only Ann and the children can see (the maid's testimony is refuted due to her aberration). Their angelic innocence alternates with cruelty and an absence of limits in their upbringing. Freud's theories had already started to gain ground when the book was written disproving the notion of "childlike innocence". Proof in relation to this version is to be found in the film, which aligns with Herny Jame's style leaving scope for other interpretations.

Hugely disappointing

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 18 January 2011]

I like ghost stories as much as the next person. Turn of the Screw had all the components for at least a watchable 90 minutes, as its source material is so good, so suspenseful and so delightfully ambiguous. What a disappointment. Even on its own terms, Turn of the Screw was close to disastrous. In fact, the only redeeming quality was the excellent Sue Johnston, she is very believable as the sympathetic foil.

If you want a great adaptation or film of the story/book, look no further than The Innocents with Deborah Kerr, a terrifying and unforgettable film that succeeds on its own merits too. This version of Turn of the Screw is a poor adaptation of the story, the atmosphere was empty and dull, also the ambiguity that made the story so unnerving is dumbed down. The dialogue is also very stilted, and doesn't flow very well from one scene to the next, while the story starts off well but becomes a series of disconnected scenes. The pace is another problem too, like the atmosphere it is uninteresting and profoundly empty.

The production values didn't do much for me either. The photography was good, as was the scenery and house, but the costumes felt like they came from another period. The music is nothing memorable, probably the most memorable moment of sitting through this was my dad saying "somebody crucify those violins!" Though amusing at the time, I see his point, they were very shrill and overbearing. The acting was poor. Johnston was very good though, but Michelle Dockery no matter how hard she tries looks too modern and any genuine fright she tries to convey feels forced. The children fare no better, the characters are written so poorly that I had trouble engaging with them and their situation.

So all in all, a big disappointment. Back in 2009, like the other reviewers here(all of whom I agree with completely), I was looking forward to this more than any other programme(even more so than Cranford and Poirot actually, to be honest both were much better too), but like 2010's Whistle and I'll Come to You it was the biggest disappointment of the festive season. 2/10 for Sue Johnston. Bethany Cox

Well crafted film

[mmillington554 · 8/10 · 31 December 2019]

I watched this film without knowing much about it in advance. I'm glad I did, otherwise I might have been influenced by the very negative reviews on this site.

I thought it well written, acted and filmed. Focussing on the ambiguity of the story - is it a film about ghosts and demonic possession or is it a film about female hysteria - made it, I think, very interesting.

I have not read Henry James's original novel so have no opinion about its adherence or not to the novel. Given that all dramatisations of novels are likely to change the original to some extent, I see no problem with that. What really matters is producing a watchable, engaging film. That is exactly what I saw here.

Nothing like this ever happened at Downton.

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 13 October 2021]

The year before Michelle Dockery and Dan Stevens were cast as the star crossed lovers Mary and Matthew on the popular BBC TV series, they played patient and doctor in one of the many versions of Henry James' novelette which is better than I expected. Dockery is the innocent governess sent to take care of the two ghostly looking blonde children, the subject of obsession by two real ghosts, and product of a haunted past. Dockery becomes consumed by the mystery of a late groundskeeper and the previous nanny, and it's through the secret keeping housekeeper that the truth will be revealed.

The story of the previous governess and the groundskeeper was the subject of a well meaning Gothic horror flop, "The Nightcomers", and I have counted at least three other versions besides this one, the best known of which is the 1961 Deborah Kerr film. A 1992 version turned out to be a pretentious bore, and what I read about this one didn't give me high hopes. But there's a coldness to this version and the constant presence of the feeling that ghosts are always around that made me enjoy this all the more.

Dockery, whose uppity character on "Downton" got on my nerves, is solemn but kind, not too sickeningly sweet, and thus easy to like. Stevens is a minor part with the housekeeper, children and the two main ghosts more important to the story. With the period changed to the 1920's, this often has a feeling that it was more influenced by "Jane Eyre" and "Rebecca" with several elements straight out of the Hitchcock film. It perfectly captures the ghost story, especially since the home where this takes place is very similar to the haunted mansions of "Rebecca" and TV's "Dark Shadows" in addition to "Downton Abbey".

Disappointing in the extreme

[Good-Will · 3/10 · 1 February 2010]

I can only add to the only other review here (with which I completely agree), that this is a sad waste of time, talent and money.

How so much effort resulted in a trivial and virtually inept outcome is beyond me. Didn't the writer read the book?

Having read the novel when I was 7 or so (I was quite quick to pick up on great literature), then this fiasco of an adaptation was a massive disappointment.

My major gripes are as follows: 1. The music is great, but completely out of context. Shut those violins up, please! 2. The acting on the whole is wooden, stilted and annoying. The housekeeper gave the only performance of note.

3. Don't mess with Henry James's whole point of the novel, changing it (I assume) to target a younger audience who have the attention span of a goldfish.

Ach. It was simply rubbish.

Cheers, Will

Errors

[r_hewitt · 5/10 · 31 December 2019]

The book was written in 1898. I cannot confirm whether the motor vehicles in the programme would have been about in that year, but they would certainly not have had reg plates.

Bob Hewitt

More drama than horror

[Stevieboy666 · 6/10 · 23 December 2020]

I have watched several MR James adaptations, both film and TV, and admit that I have found some difficult to follow. Thankfully at 90 minutes long no such problem here. This TV movie has good acting and the bulk of it takes place at a magnificent looking, old British country estate. With sex scenes and male violence against women it isn't really suitable for kids, what lets it down for me is that sadly it simply is not scary. Michelle Dockery plays the 20 year old governess but she was about 30 at the time, either they should've found somebody younger or up her age to say 25. I do enjoy watching classic ghost stories over the Xmas period and much as I felt this to be reasonably entertaining I won't be watching it again in Christmases to come.

Earlier version

[mary-25239 · 1/10 · 5 August 2018]

Has everyone forgotten the adaptation of Turn of the Screw starring Ingrid Bergman and filmed for television in 1959? It was shown in the USA and on BBC in Britain. Bergman was brilliant ,of course!and the two children were also excellent. I have forgotten who played Quint or any of the other parts and shall search for it. My point here is: don't assume the most recent adaptation of anything is the best. Usually it is not - for example Far from the Madding Crowd 1967 is 100% better than the recent version.

Pretty Good adaptation

[openminded1313 · 7/10 · 17 April 2022]

Probably the best adaptation of this was done in 1961 with Deborah Kerr as the governess. The time frame presented there was turn of the 20th century (1896~1901); in keeping with the date of publication of this novella (1898) . The time frame for this version is instead the immediate post "Great War"; the father of the children being killed in the war, (the mother's death seems to have been just after childbirth of the younger child-the girl). The shortage of men in the United Kingdom, at that time, is emphasized in the beginning with the insinuation that a lot of young women, such as the governess, are lonely. This theme echos through the story. The new governess meets the guardian of the children before she departs for the estate where the little girl stays with the staff (all of whom are women due to the shortage of men). The guardian is the children's uncle; a handsome, young bachelor whom she is immediately infatuated with; but he does not return the interest. Nor is he particularly interested in visiting the estate anytime soon. Michelle. Dockery, as the governess, is presented as very plain young woman in this version; in order to enhance the frustration her character is feeling. Later, in the story, the older (though still a kid) brother of the girl arrives at the estate. All during this time disturbing things are occurring there, but what is actually happening? Can such things actually occur? Is her sexual frustration a part of this?

This story is told by the governess, confined to a mental institute recounting this to a psychiatrist; who happens to be another handsome young man. Though she initially is in a catatonic state in the institute she does respond eventually to his questioning. The story we see is her story; what we see happening and how it happened is presented through her recollection. And, this recollection is by a person who is definitely mentally ill. Or, is she? This departs from the original story somewhat which implied the possibility of mental illness by the governess but not was not explicitly as this version does.

A good adaptation though a little "too modern" (early 20th century versus late 19th century setting) IMHO.

One of the lamest BBC ghost stories out there

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 23 November 2016]

The BBC have a long tradition of adapting literary ghost stories at Christmas time and THE TURN OF THE SCREW is their effort for 2009, yet another adaptation of the Henry James chiller condensed into a TV film running time. I wonder why they bothered? This is flimsy, light weight stuff, neither scary nor sufficiently interesting to capture the attention, and probably the worst ghost story they've ever made (at least until the much-tinkered O WHISTLE AND I'LL COME TO YOU featuring John Hurt came out).

Perhaps fearing that the story has been done to death in the past, the scriptwriter updates the events to WWI, but for no reason – it alters the story in no way. Sadly, for a ghost story, there's no spookiness either, unless some lame flash cutting to supposedly frightening faces and figures is your idea of the utmost in terror. The mostly theatrical cast seem ill at east in front of the cameras, with the lead, Michelle Dockery, particularly unappealing as the fragile governess caught up in the sinister events. This feels low budget and lacking in the extreme, as if they got half a dozen cast members into an old house and filmed it quickly without much effort. To be frank, it's a real chore to sit through. Stick with THE INNOCENTS!

The Turn of the Screw

[Prismark10 · 4/10 · 3 January 2020]

Ann (Michelle Dockery) is hired to act as a governess to two orphaned children, a boy and a girl. She travels to a country house and an all female household.

Although everything seems find. Ann learns of an abusive man in the household who used to take advantage of the staff. Although the man has long gone, something about him affected the boy.

The film is framed in flashbacks with Ann talking to Dr Fisher (Dan Stevens) a psychiatrist.

This adaptation of The Turn of the Screw is less a ghost story and more a psychological chiller. We question whether it is all in Ann's head and if she is going mad.

Henry James's story has been updated, some of the psychosexual elements have been fleshed out. It is very nice to look at but it never becomes anything more than mildly disturbing.

Better than these reviews say!

[psp1119 · 8/10 · 31 May 2020]

I thought this was quite effective and scary, despite what many reviewers here say. An excellent ghost story.

But where's the Tall Man?

[wyldemusick · 2/10 · 22 December 2021]

I got tossed right out of this early on, and never recovered - John Lunn's spare score has a theme running through it, used as much for Ann as anything, that sounds like a direct lift from the score for PHANTASM, progressions and all (though it's missing the bass counter line, I think.) Given the story, I can't help but think this is deliberate, an attempt at homage to a spooky, weird classic.

A re telling and not an improvement

[Janet1612 · 1/10 · 25 December 2019]

Why do writers of classics TV adaptations feel the need to change the story. There's no mental institution, no psychiatrist and the story should start with a ghost story telling group. But hey ho I needed to get over that. Then we have some over the top cheap scares, some horrible weird children- not at all likeable as in the book. A very scary faced house keeper and a jumpy governess who is like that from arrival, so no build up to any tension.

I also dislike that things cannot be left to the viewers' imagination. The housekeeper tells the new governess that the previous governess killed herself because she was pregnant. Now we all understand this clearly, but no, we have to be SHOWN the previous governess leaving the house with a full rounded belly. We then see the governess floating on the water where she's killed a self. Oh dear we don't need it spelled out!

We then have explicit and unnecessary sex scenes. So no viewing as a family. The writers just can't help themselves; they can't leave anything to our imagination.

Poor acting and some poor script, the scariest thing was the housekeeper's face!!

Nope

[kkmgirl-448-111988 · 1/10 · 22 November 2021]

I couldn't even finish this, so I'll review what I barely choked down. First off, as other reviews mentioned, the "updated" era change to post-WWI totally ruined the atmosphere for me. Secondly, while I enjoyed Dockery in Downton Abbey, I thought she was awful in this role. The acting all around was wooden, feigned, and uncomfortable- especially from the children. The constant fake laughter/giggles and poor dialogue had me almost ready to turn it off. What ultimately drove me away were the creepy sex scenes (totally unnecessary and not even tantalizing) and the villain parody/cheap ghost scares that made this feel like a low budget B movie on Lifetime. The high praise and reviews are shocking to me. It's unfortunate classics (which are "classics" for a reason) get twisted and ruined just to make a buck.

Watch "The Innocents" (1961) instead. This version is extremely boring.

[joachimokeefe · 1/10 · 24 December 2021]

A governess of two orphaned children starts seeing the dead gardener and his lover, her dead predecessor, around the country house. Do the children know something?

An excruciatingly slow 'adaptation' of Henry James' superb ghost novella. Jack Clayton and John Mortimer's 1961 'The Innocents' is the same story, except that it succeeds in preserving the mystery of whether the ghosts might be real or not. You share the governess's doubt of her own perceptions. It's scary. This isn't, unless you wonder how good money got wasted on it.

This colour version sledgehammers its opinion that the governess is sexually repressed and that she's going mad - especially as she is shown in a mental hospital (which isn't in the book) at the beginning. Any mystery killed from frame one.

Sue Johnston does her usual bemused Brookside turn. Michelle Dockery is probably closer to the age James intended than Deborah Kerr was, but so what. And is Miles meant to look like Boris Johnson?