eddie_younis 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.

srioux-42-436239 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!

TheLittleSongbird 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

jc-osms 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.