Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Click Here Shop Kindle Amazon Music Unlimited for Family Shop now Shop Women's Shop Men's



on 10 October 2002
I must say, having read and enjoyed the novel on which this film is based, I was a little sceptical about going in to see the movie, as I felt no film could really do justice to the book.
This was one of the few times I was proven wrong, as I enjoyed the film greatly, and would recommend it to anyone who is a fan of more cerebral horror films, and not teen flicks such as "Scary Movie" (starring James Van Der Beek).
I wouldn't be doing the right thing by revealing too much about the plot, but the atmosphere created by director Tom McLoughlin is fantastic: it is menacing in many places, and there are quite a few images that will stick in your memory long after you watch the film.
I only have one criticism about the movie, and that is regarding the child who plays Miles (Aled Roberts), who was absolutely dreadful in his role. His voice got irritating after he had delivered only a handful of lines, and he had a habit of squinting throughout the film, which did not seem entirely appropriate, and put me off during some of the scenes. However, vitriolic diatribes about the young boy aside, I would definitely mention this film to genuine horror fans. I give it 4/5.
0Comment| 7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 28 May 2005
Genuinely chilling adaptation. Valerie Bertellini's British accent may waver occasionally, but she is extremely sympathetic in the lead role.
Well worth watching, particularly late at night.
Recommended for those who like a good ghost story.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 17 July 2002
My wife loves James' novels so we ordered this video.
The video is really great but really really scary. Watching it alone - perhaps before going to bed - it will give you goose bumps. They took a bit of liberty on some of the Jamesian dialogue but if you like ghost stories this is you movie and you have to have it!
0Comment| 17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 16 July 2001
I ordered the video because it had Colin Firth in it ... well don't blink because you'll miss him. Despite that the story is absolutely brilliant. I was gripped and the scary bits made me jump ... and even now 24 hours after watching the film, I still can't believe the ending. If you enjoy pschological thrillers get this, it really is very good.
0Comment| 29 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 August 2016
This adaptation is very faithful indeed with the characters, the setting, the various moments of the story, apparitions of the ghosts included. The film is also clear about the parents of the kids, the mother died of yellow fever, we assume in India, and the father died on duty in India too one year late. But the film, like Henry James’ novella, does not capture the tremendous trauma the children must have gone through and then – the film is clear about that – Miss Jessel got pregnant which made her have to go, to be let go by the Master. Pregnant from whom? The situation implies from Peter Quint. But the first double trauma of the children is now amplified by a second double trauma with Mis Jessel going away and dying, by suicide as the opening scene shows, closely followed by Peter Quint dying in some kind of accident, fake or not does not matter. And strangely enough only the nameless governess is traumatized by these facts and she is led into seeing ghosts that no one else sees.

The film insists on this aspect of the character. She is getting little by little haunted – but in her sole mind – by her two predecessors. The kids are at an age – and their having gone through these two double traumas helps – when they can capture the fears of adults and they can get motivated to play on these fears, for fun or in this case for liberation.

The governess becomes a power and control freak and she transforms teaching into taming wild animals if not beasts. She sees them perverted while she is the one who is perverted. The film is discreet on this side of things though Henry James insisted on the governess’s hugging, kissing, holding hands, embracing, etc., with Miles particularly. She was obviously falling in love with Miles and wanted to possess him so strongly that he would became part of her own self. She was cannibalistic in her unjustified love for Miles. To love a child is a lot more challenging than to love an adult because the child cannot answer, cannot say no, cannot run away and when Miles tries the governess does not understand. The film insists on that but not on the sentimental, emotional and physical love of the governess towards Miles that is definitely desire and this desire is somewhere felt as wrong, evil is her word, so she has to repress it and the ghosts are her tools to transfer her repressive desire against her perverse impulse onto the object of this pedophile lust, hence onto Miles, and accidentally Flora.

She literally tortures the kids with the ghosts, till the very end, though Benjamin Britten does a far better job with that last scene about being alone and how the governess is understanding the ambiguity of the situation on which Miles is playing full blast, and it works. That’s what the two kids show us in the film very clearly: they are playing with the governess like two cats and one mouse. She falls in the trap every single time and she ends up being a fool. But that fool is criminal.

The film here centers this last scene on the last breath of Miles. He is more or less dragged by the governess into her arms and into an embrace and here the films innovates because the call for “Quint, you devil, Where are you, where are you?” is a call for help when Miles sees his end is close, the praying manta has captured him. But Quint won’t be able to come because he is no where, near or far, he is no longer one of them. And the film is clear when it shows the governess embraces Miles to death, till death parts him from his life, and Miles is just plainly choked to death. No ambiguity, no fuzziness. She is a criminal and she was brought there by the size of the responsibility she was entrusted with and she could not cope with and up to.

Well done, well directed, well performed, the film is impressive, though in no way frightening. We are horrified by the governess’s fall into crime because of her repressed and unaccepted feelings and desires for a boy under her own educational responsibility. She is depicted as a closet pedophile who ends up killing the child she wants to possess, including physically. I am afraid though this takes a lot of mystery from the story without modernizing the vision. Such facts are rare in the concerned world of education, and in fact I just wonder if they are in proportion more important in this world than in the wide society around.

Note there is a mistake on the back sleeve of the DVD: the children are not those of the “charming bachelor” because he is only the guardian and they are his nephew and niece. But, well, a child is a child, though exiling one’s own “children” to a country house with not contact with their “father” would be more than unnatural – which it is here – but definitely inhumane and even barbaric.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 24 March 2005
When a young woman (played by Jodhi May) begins her job as governess, everything seems to be perfect. However, there are secrets in her new house, and when she begins to see the ghosts of recently deceased servants, it becomes clear that there is evil afoot. However, no one else can see the ghosts, and her actions begin to seem more and more deranged. How can she protect her two charges, and what must she do? [Color, released in 1999, with a running time of 1:40 (2 hours with the Masterpiece Theatre introduction and so forth).]
Overall, I found this to be a disturbing and rather chilling movie. The original Henry James' story is considered a classic ghost story, but in this movie, things are much less clear. Is the governess a sensitive young woman, who is struggling to overcome the machinations of a pair of evil ghosts who are establishing a grip on the previously angelic children? Or, is she a sexually repressed young woman whose psyche is moving her towards madness? It's up to you to decide...if you can!
Yes, this is an excellent movie, one that is certain to scare and disquiet you. I enjoyed this movie, and highly recommend it to you.
11 Comment| 10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 26 December 2004
Okay, I suppose I can't deny that the film at least follows the PLOT of the novella on which it is based; that, however, is practically the only respect in which it remains true to the original work. It manages, quite spectacularly, to iron out all of the subtlety, ambiguity and eerie suggestiveness of James's writing, replace his complex yet endearing governess with a sort of wimpy irresolute teenager character, and destroy would should be genuinely chilling appearances of the ghosts with distracting camera work and a distinct lack of tact (the governess at one stage actually chases Miss Jessel down the stairs). The characters of the guardian, Mrs. Grose and Flora are played with a degree of sensitivity, but Miles becomes here not so much brilliant and charming, rather just precocious and annoying. I would urge anyone who enjoyed the book to steer clear of this production, lest it ruin your visual memory of what is an unforgettably haunting tale.
0Comment| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 March 2014
It was good but it was well written but we hardly saw Colin firth only at the beginning but Pam Ferris was very good as housekeeper
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)