Who payed the critics

Instant Favorite.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

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.

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.

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.

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.