This 1992 adaptation of "The Turn of the Screw" is a strange experience indeed. Taking the Henry James Psychological ghost story masterpiece as a starting point, writer/director Rusty Lemorande makes a film that is ultimately a failure, but a very intriguing failure nonetheless. The director takes the central premise of the well known story about a governess coming to doubt the innocence of the children under her care and realizing slowly that they may be haunted by the ghosts of her malevolent and sick predecessors, and produces a film that is much more modern (and by modern I mean graphic) which turns the story into a much more perverted psycho-sexual story about child abuse, the occult and of course repression (all themes that were addressed in Henry James' novella but in a much more subdued manner). But despite achieving moments of true dread and an overall ominous and doom-laden atmosphere (aided tremendously by the beautifully Gothic locations and the occasionally brilliant cinematography), the director errs by making the story lose all the subtlety that was imbued in the original novella and instead relying too much on graphic sex scenes and overt violence (although these only appear in dream sequences which are somewhat brief) and ultimately as many filmmakers do when adapting a classic story, reading too much into the story in terms of sexual repression and perversion. Although James' novella mainly dealt with issues of sanity, perspective and depravity, the main strength of the story was the ambiguity that James imbued the story with, something which made the story much more frightening and disturbing even a century after it was published. But director Lemorande throws all subtlety out the window by using ear-shattering musical cues, gratuitous blood and sex and by portraying the apparitions as some sort of demonic beings, which are all things that do not correspond with the original tone or intention of the original story. But in the end the film has its merits as Lemorands succeeds in creating some moments of visual ingenuity as well as the aforementioned atmosphere which is truly haunting and unnerving, things which many other adaptations of the same story failed to achieve.
13 Reviews
Dull as dishwater supernatural drama.
poolandrews16 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The Turn of the Screw is set in 60's London where a young woman named Jenny Gooding (Patsy Kensit) has an interview with Mr. Cooper (Julian Sands) about becoming a Governess for two young children in a big house. Mr. Cooper is their legal guardian as both their parents were killed & he needs someone to look after them, Jenny accepts the position. Once there Jenny discovers a huge stately house isolated in the middle of the English countryside where she meets Mrs. Grose (Stephane Audran) the housekeeper & Flora (Claire Szekeres) the young girl she is meant to be looking after. Jenny receives a letter in the post informing her that the second child Miles (Joseph England) has been expelled from his school & coming back. Things go well at first but Miles & Flora are a couple of creepy kids, especially Miles. Jenny also learns that the previous Governess mysteriously died, Jenny's stay starts to become a nightmare as she suffers bad dreams, visions of supposedly dead people & there is definitely something very wrong with Flora & Miles...
This British French co-production was written & directed by Rusty Lemorande & is a film that I found far too pedestrian & dull for my liking. The script by Lemorande takes itself 100% seriously, is somewhat sedately paced & was based on the short story by Henry James & I think that the word 'short' is crucial here as this filmed adaptation feels very drawn out & in my opinion has very little substance. I have never read the novel so I cannot compare the two but the fact that the film is narrated feels like it was added to increase the duration & as a whole very little actually happens. Jenny is the only central character with the two children & housekeeper the only other character's with any sort of significant screen time. The film didn't flow properly & the narrative didn't work for me, why does Jenny become so afraid of Miles? Did I miss something, she almost convinces herself without him actually doing anything that I can remember apart from being a bit naughty. Jenny ends up having a breakdown which just didn't seem plausible or convincing in context at all. The ending puzzled me as well, why did the kid die? What were those ghost's at the window doing? What happened to them? Was it Jenny's imagination? The things a mess & ends up being very frustrating as I felt there was a good film trying to break out, if only a bit more time had been spent on the pacing as it's very slow & the story which is loose to say the least. As a whole it's not very engaging or interesting & I found it became quite dull well before the end credits started to roll.
Director Lemorande does a terrific job & The Turn of the Screw has a wonderful visual style to it, the locations, the interesting props & set dressing, the creepy toys, the colour schemes, there's some really cool angles & camera shots & I think a lot of time & effort was put into the look of the film. If only as much time had been spent on the script as on the visuals, a shame. Forget about any gore as there isn't any, there is also a distinct lack of scares.
Technically the film is great & I have no complaints here, it was shot in Surrey, England. I have to say Patsy Kensit is hot in this, she's very cute. Julian Sands fans will be very disappointed to learn despite his top billing in the credits he has nothing more than a cameo that amounts to about three minutes of screen time.
The Turn of the Screw (isn't that a great title for a film?) is a bit of a bore, there's nothing particularly exciting or memorable about it & it doesn't seem to know what sort of film it wants to be. I can't say I'd recommend it unless you like slow, dull pointless films.
This British French co-production was written & directed by Rusty Lemorande & is a film that I found far too pedestrian & dull for my liking. The script by Lemorande takes itself 100% seriously, is somewhat sedately paced & was based on the short story by Henry James & I think that the word 'short' is crucial here as this filmed adaptation feels very drawn out & in my opinion has very little substance. I have never read the novel so I cannot compare the two but the fact that the film is narrated feels like it was added to increase the duration & as a whole very little actually happens. Jenny is the only central character with the two children & housekeeper the only other character's with any sort of significant screen time. The film didn't flow properly & the narrative didn't work for me, why does Jenny become so afraid of Miles? Did I miss something, she almost convinces herself without him actually doing anything that I can remember apart from being a bit naughty. Jenny ends up having a breakdown which just didn't seem plausible or convincing in context at all. The ending puzzled me as well, why did the kid die? What were those ghost's at the window doing? What happened to them? Was it Jenny's imagination? The things a mess & ends up being very frustrating as I felt there was a good film trying to break out, if only a bit more time had been spent on the pacing as it's very slow & the story which is loose to say the least. As a whole it's not very engaging or interesting & I found it became quite dull well before the end credits started to roll.
Director Lemorande does a terrific job & The Turn of the Screw has a wonderful visual style to it, the locations, the interesting props & set dressing, the creepy toys, the colour schemes, there's some really cool angles & camera shots & I think a lot of time & effort was put into the look of the film. If only as much time had been spent on the script as on the visuals, a shame. Forget about any gore as there isn't any, there is also a distinct lack of scares.
Technically the film is great & I have no complaints here, it was shot in Surrey, England. I have to say Patsy Kensit is hot in this, she's very cute. Julian Sands fans will be very disappointed to learn despite his top billing in the credits he has nothing more than a cameo that amounts to about three minutes of screen time.
The Turn of the Screw (isn't that a great title for a film?) is a bit of a bore, there's nothing particularly exciting or memorable about it & it doesn't seem to know what sort of film it wants to be. I can't say I'd recommend it unless you like slow, dull pointless films.
Nail the coffin shut on this one.
mark.waltz13 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Patsy Kensit is as sweet as Creamery butter in this very altered adaption of the Henry James short story. Unfortunately, that results in this version of the classic tale becoming a shell of itself especially with overplayed musical score which seems to never leave the screen and is often appropriate. It takes a while for the film to get to the gothic elements, giving us a brief glimpse of Julius Sands as the uncle of the two charges thar Kensit will take care of, given the instructions by him that he really doesn't want to hear anything about what's going on as he is constantly away and genuinely doesn't care.
French movie star Stefanie Audran plays the very friendly housekeeper who is in denial of the history because she doesn't really reveal much about the past of the children's association with previous nannies, and when we get to see a ghostly apparition of someone who looks exactly like Kensit, it becomes all the more complex and convoluted. Then the weird things start to happen and it's just a bizarre series of visuals that really seem to just stall the story and leave the audience in lurch desperate to get back to some sort of narrative.
Seemingly told by the special billed Marianne Faithful as a part of a book of the Month Club, the film doesn't seem to have a genuine time frame in which it takes place, and it becomes very perplexing to keep your interest piqued. The characterizations become very inconsistent and the performances rather one-note, the angelic Kensit the most of all. The original version with Deborah Kerr directed by Jack Clayton is far better, and there are also prequels to the novel which are more interesting than this. The later remake with "Downton Abbey's" Michelle Dockery has got to be an improvement on this version which is all style and little substance. If you are not a fan of screechy child actors, that's another reason to avoid this one.
French movie star Stefanie Audran plays the very friendly housekeeper who is in denial of the history because she doesn't really reveal much about the past of the children's association with previous nannies, and when we get to see a ghostly apparition of someone who looks exactly like Kensit, it becomes all the more complex and convoluted. Then the weird things start to happen and it's just a bizarre series of visuals that really seem to just stall the story and leave the audience in lurch desperate to get back to some sort of narrative.
Seemingly told by the special billed Marianne Faithful as a part of a book of the Month Club, the film doesn't seem to have a genuine time frame in which it takes place, and it becomes very perplexing to keep your interest piqued. The characterizations become very inconsistent and the performances rather one-note, the angelic Kensit the most of all. The original version with Deborah Kerr directed by Jack Clayton is far better, and there are also prequels to the novel which are more interesting than this. The later remake with "Downton Abbey's" Michelle Dockery has got to be an improvement on this version which is all style and little substance. If you are not a fan of screechy child actors, that's another reason to avoid this one.
* * * out of 4.
brandonsites198112 September 2002
I have never had the pleasure of reading the story or seeing the previous film adaptions from which this movie is based on which probably explains why I liked this film so much. Anyway, the story is about a nanny (Patsy Kensit) who takes charge of a household for a strange man (Julian Sands- in a brief cameo appearance) and his even stranger children who seem troubled by some unknown terror. This is a frightening film with a slow pace that actually works in favor of the film. As a result of the slow pace the terror is allowed to slowly build up to a terrifying climax. Kensit does a respectable job in the lead role.
Rated R; Nudity & Sexual Situations.
Rated R; Nudity & Sexual Situations.
Beware this shame
gardner-26 December 1998
If you know Henry James' novel and if you know Jack Clayton's first-rate adaptation of this subtle psychological subject, beware this poor adaptation from Rusty Lemorande. No tension at all and Patsy Kensit really is no Deborah Kerr.
Atmospheric Tragedy
the_ache9 August 2005
Some people who have read James' novella might be off-put by the changes made here: the change of setting, the change of narrator. However, I find that this adaptation is the most faithful to the source of any I have seen. It conveys the mood, the nature of the spectres, and the bewilderment of the novella extremely well.
If you want a grey, word-perfect recitation of the story, you can find it elsewhere, but this captures the nature of the torment better than any other.
I do not recommend it for everyone, however, since you have to leave your expectations at the door.
If you want a grey, word-perfect recitation of the story, you can find it elsewhere, but this captures the nature of the torment better than any other.
I do not recommend it for everyone, however, since you have to leave your expectations at the door.
poor adaptation
JWP14 October 1998
If you are thinking of seeing this movie because you liked the story by Henry James, don't bother. The film-makers took every iota of subtlety out of the story and ended up with an overly obvious portrayal of a sexually repressed naive catholic governess' descent into madness. The spirit of the short novel has been abandoned and only a general adherence to the plot is left. Follow the link to external reviews for a more detailed analysis.
Not too bad...
hershiser216 November 2002
...but not too good. The story starts with a weak narration in present times, telling a story... Then we flash back to the 1960s and some crazy scenery. The acting in this film is not the best; in fact, the best performances are by the children, who are the most believable characters in the film.
This certainly isn't the best adaptation of the novel, but also not the worst.
This certainly isn't the best adaptation of the novel, but also not the worst.
Gothic erotic masterwork
Falconeer19 December 2006
It is difficult to describe the visual beauty of Rusty Lemorande's version of the Henry James novel, 'Turn of the Screw'. Here is a film for people who can appreciate the aesthetic beauty of Gothic cinema. The lovely Patsy Kensit is Jenny, a sexually repressed young woman, who travels to Blye House to care for two very strange, sinister young children. The setting is gorgeous, with almost fetishistic attention being paid to every tiny detail. The clothes, the furnishings, the cars, even the beautiful antique toys are constantly on display here, in a dizzying display of hypnotic beauty. Jenny is tormented by the spirits of the dead, the children's former Nanny, and her mysterious lover. It seems like the children, especially the boy, Miles, have been somehow corrupted by these two. And this version of the story makes it obvious that the 'corruption' is of a sexual nature. Whenever children are sexualized, it adds a truly disturbing level to the goings on. Here we have an utterly bizarre, Gothic/erotic film that has been underrated by critics. Perhaps the subject matter makes some uncomfortable, but true horror should make one feel a bit uneasy. Filled with heavy handed sexual imagery, this is the only film version I know of where the child actors they used were the correct age. And the kids who played little Flora and Miles are superbly pale and haunted looking. Patsy Kensit is fine as the deeply religious Nanny battling her own inner demons as well as the demons of Blye House. Her delicate beauty makes her more of a sympathetic character. Even the music works for this one, haunting music box melodies to compliment the surreal and sometimes breathtaking imagery. The film possesses an undeniable elegance, moving along at a leisurely pace, drawing the viewer in with hypnotic visuals and a classic ghost story. While watching 'Turn of the Screw' I was repeatedly reminded of Mario Bava's masterpiece, "Lisa and the Devil". There is also a bit of "Suspiria" here, but it's similarities to "Lisa" are extreme. The setting; the beautiful house filled with erotic perversion and doomed, illicit romance, the camera angles, the gorgeous attention to detail. I highly recommend 'Turn of the Screw' to fans of Argento and Bava, and other prolific Italian horror directors of the 1970's. I hope someday that this bizarre masterpiece will find it's audience, and get the recognition it deserves.
Excellent
tomchick25 December 1998
To me "The Turn of the Screw" is a very good movie. Patsy Kensit played the role of "Jenny" marvelously. The story is very entertaining and leaves you hungry for more. The ending was very unexpectedly, but that makes it very fascinating. The setting is very beautiful and right for the kind of story it tells. It may have gotten bad reviews but to me this is one of the best movies I've ever seen!
Beautiful nightmare.
HumanoidOfFlesh12 November 2001
I was very pleasantly surprised with this adaptation of Henry James novel.It reminds me a little bit Dario Argento's "Suspiria"(1977).Why? Because it's full of wonderful visuals and creepy atmosphere.Some scenes are really chilling without relaying on gore.The acting is pretty good,and Patsy Kensit is really keen on eyes.She is such a beautiful woman!Kudos go also to Rusty Lemonrade-great directing job Rusty,I'm your fan!So if you're in the mood for creepy ghost story don't hesitate to watch it.Recommended!
Excellent
tomchick26 November 1998
I think the movie is really awesome!! The setting is wicked and Pasty Kensit can really act. At first I didn't like her 'cos she's married to Liam Gallagher (WHAT A HOTTIE!!) I think she's a really good actress. The story was very interesting. It was very entertaining. It got some really bad reviews, but I really liked it 'cos the whole concept of the movie was very Sherlock Holmes/Alfred Hitchkock like. Also my fav movies are Horrors and Thrillers. I also like comedy. But I really enjoyed this movie.
Very good
GeoSlv23 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
A very well made mystery. Fine locations and a good sense of foreboding.
Such a variety of opinions about it. They say that the novella was purposely ambiguous. What was the purpose of the ghosts and what were they trying to do to the children? It's not clear and this really weakens the story for me. Real ghosts have an unconscious wish for others to die around them so they can have company, but they have no power over humans. Was it their purpose for the boy to die?
I don't recall any revealing nudity in it as some say. You don't rate for Nudity because of nude STATUES.
Some say Patsy Kensit was lovely, while some say she was dull. I agree with neither. She was basically fine.
The vaunted past filming with Deborah Kerr, The Innocents, was perfectly flat and uninteresting. It's queer that Martin Scorcese puts it in his top 10. How do you explain the thinking?
Such a variety of opinions about it. They say that the novella was purposely ambiguous. What was the purpose of the ghosts and what were they trying to do to the children? It's not clear and this really weakens the story for me. Real ghosts have an unconscious wish for others to die around them so they can have company, but they have no power over humans. Was it their purpose for the boy to die?
I don't recall any revealing nudity in it as some say. You don't rate for Nudity because of nude STATUES.
Some say Patsy Kensit was lovely, while some say she was dull. I agree with neither. She was basically fine.
The vaunted past filming with Deborah Kerr, The Innocents, was perfectly flat and uninteresting. It's queer that Martin Scorcese puts it in his top 10. How do you explain the thinking?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
