Commentaires des utilisateurs

Hollywood is fond of updating classic tales: Shakespeare is the author most often reconfigured, at times with great success, at times not. The intellectually stimulating works of Henry James have been brought to the screen and making visual the inherently cerebral stories come to life. Such, sadly, is not the case for IN A DARK PLACE, a warping and distorted 'update' of one of the finest ghost stories ever written - James' 1898 TURN OF THE SCREW. Screenwriter Peter Waddington adapted the story to place in our faces fully realized interpretations of what James used as suggestion: James realized that the reader's mind could infuse his story with personal demons that would replace the need for detailed description.

Cases in point: the Governess is here an art teacher given a name, Anna Veigh; the occult sexual overtones of the story are played out in full view leaving little to the frightening aspects of James' intentions; the concentration of the story on the governess' mental fragility is forced into clichés and placed in the hands of an actress unable to be subtle; the 'interiority' of the mansion is replaced by equal time outside on the snowy grounds (opening up the story, so they say), etc.

The story is well known, having been adapted successfully before by television, movies, and opera (Benjamin Britten's immensely well written opera TURN OF THE SCREW). Anna Veigh (Leelee Sobieski) is the art therapist turned governess who upon losing her job is hired to care for the children Flora (Gabrielle Adam) and Miles (Christian Olson) in a now deserted mansion whose only other occupant is the secretary/estate manager Ms. Grose (Tara Fitzgerald). Soon enough Anna discovers that the previous governess Miss Jessel (another art therapist who was three months pregnant) was found dead in the lake, and that the prior male butler Peter Quint hanged himself. Anna alone begins to see the ghosts of these newly departed servants, and when she explores the reasons with Ms. Grose we discover the Ms. Grose was in love with Miss Jessel and hated Peter Quint. Anna is frequently visited by nightmares of her own sexual abuse as a young girl and transfers these fears onto Flora and Miles, feeling that they were similarly abused - an explanation for their bizarre behavior patterns. Ms. Grose acts out her sexuality with Anna, confusing Anna even more, and stressing her vulnerable psyche into thinking she can exorcise the demons of the house. And the ending will surprise us all! Director Donato Rotunno needs to re-read the James novella and rely on the audience's intelligence more than to alter the story to become faddist and frank instead of subtle and suspenseful. A major problem with the casting is the far too frequently physically exposed Leelee Sobieski: it feels as though she is reading her rather pedestrian lines from a cue card off camera. It is a sad imitation of the governess. Tara Fitzgerald's Ms. Grose is not the obese, matronly of the original, but instead a very svelte and seductive woman: she succeeds in creating a credible alternative figure very well. The setting and photography are fine, but the musical score by Adam Pendse is a pedestrian mix of incongruous styles. In short, if you are a fan of Henry James, avoid this sloppy work. But then, if Leelee Sobieski is a favorite, then you see more of her as a grown woman than you probably will ever see again! Not Recommended. Grady Harp

The disturbed arts teacher Anna Veigh (Leelee Sobieski) is hired by the busy Mr. Laing (Jonathan Fox), the tutor of the orphan siblings Flora (Gabrielle Adam) and her brother Miles (Christian Olson), to work as governess and raise the children in their huge mansion in Bly with the support of his secretary Ms. Grose (Tara Fitzgerald). Sooner, Anna believes that the ghosts of the former governess Miss Jessel and housekeeper Peter Quint are in the property haunting the children, and she decides to help them to face the spirits and get their souls free.

"In a Dark Place" is an unsuccessful update and unnecessary remake of the classic ghost story "The Innocents". In the original movie, Debora Kerr magnificently performed an ambiguous character while in this remake Leelee Sobieski visibly performs a deranged woman, spoiling the fantastic ambiguity of the original screenplay. If the viewer has not seen "The Innocents", he or she may like "In the Dark Place"; but for those like me that saw the other film, "In a Dark Place" ruins the mysterious atmosphere of the story. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Lugares Escuros" ("Dark Places")

I was walking past In A Dark Place one day at a rental store and I saw Leelee Sobieski on the cover of the film. It looked something similar to recent movies such as The Return and The Grudge, which I thought both of those films were very satisfying, even though this ended up being nothing like them really, so I decided to give this movie a try.

At first, it looked really cool, when I put it in that is. The first near hour or so were fine, just fine, nothing special, but I was enjoying the build up and performances to an extent. Then, it took a turn for the worst. Everything started going horribly wrong and as the film dragged on I became more depressed, and more depressed with how the outcome of the film was turning out. The storyline just gets so ridiculously poor and overrated, and everything they had built up with mildly entertaining values were thrown out the window near the end of the film.

Why, how, Leelee, I thought you were great! What made you take part in this movie when you saw how the character development is demolished in the last half hour, or did you even notice? Sure, there was some stuff I found in the movie that was entertaining, I have already stated that, but I felt as if my insides were going to explode from how horrible the last half hour of the film was and how horrifically boring and inane Sobieski and everyone elses' character became.

If you love Leelee Sobieski enough, avoid this movie, because I really was expecting more from her and the movie itself seeing as how I enjoy her as an actress. I'm sure her heart will thank you if you don't watch this, for now every time she hears about her role in this film, as often as that probably isn't, I bet she falls to the ground and bursts into tears. . .

I have to say probably the worst film i have watched in years. The story was viable but the editing,production and watch ability were nothing short of Diabolical. I was really shocked by the quality of actors like Tara Fitzgerald would even consider being in this failed experiment of a movie but times are hard i suppose. If anyone has considered watching this please don't waist 90 minutes of your life because you will never get them back. Overall a disaster of a movie which if made correctly and the right editing could have been enjoyable,but this was nothing more than a washout. I advise not to waste your time.

I've heard that the book this film is based on is quite good, although you'd never know it from this screen translation. The movie itself is quite terrible in the way it's delivered. It is the type of film that doesn't tell you everything, and wants the viewer to decide what really happened. However this isn't directed with the skill of a Kubrick or a Bergman, nor is this version written well for the screen, so really the film just leaves you going, "What the ****?". Not even really caring much what happened, nor leaving you with interesting ideas of what may have happened. It's just crap really. The story here is an ugly toad covered in warts, as for the princess. Enter Leelee Sobieski who is the one and only reason to watch this confused effort. If you are a lesbian or a male who likes Leelee, then this will satisfy. Otherwise run from this dark place. To me, Leelee was well worth the watch. In fact I couldn't stop watching her, despite the ridiculousness of the story. Leelee's voluptuous body in itself is a feature presentation well worth the price of admission. Cleavage and curves galore, this is the only film in existence that I can think of where a woman's body completely steals the film, and alone makes it worth while. That is truly the way I felt though. The film's story is laughably stupid, however Leelee's body is nothing short of a masterpiece. And so...the princess saves an ugly toad.

7/10

Yes, the storyline is something we've all seen before. But what makes the film worth watching is Tara Fitzgerald's performance as the cold, domineering headmistress of the house. Fitzgerald chews through every piece of scenery she's in, and creates a very believable three-dimensional character. Unfortunately her role is wasted on being paired with Leelee Sobieski, who just doesn't seem to grasp what's going on. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, seems to know just the right moves to make Miss Grose unlikable, while at the same time making us care for her. Sadly, there are very few actress today who can do this. I hope to see more of her!

In A Dark Place would be classed as a psychological horror/thriller. It stars the underrated Leelee Sobieski or as I like to call her Helen Hunts mini-me.

Telling the story of a girl hired as a nanny of two less than usual children at a wealthy estate and her dwindling mental health.

Also starring long forgotten English actress Tara Fitzgerald from the likes of Brassed Off (1996) this is an utter mess of a film from opening credits to closing.

Immensely boring, poorly written and incredibly crappily made In A Dark Place is an instantly forgettable film with practically nothing going for it at all.

The Good:

Leelee Sobieski

The Bad:

Weak writing

Terrible plot

Bad finale

Awful child actors

this movie is an absolute stinker.It has absolutely nothing to commend it.

The acting is uninvolved and incapable of involving the audience.It feels as if the actors were going through the motions and didn't care one jot about the script or characters.

There is no suspense, excitement or drama in the film.I was completely bored and frankly confused at times.

I learned from reading other user comments that the movie was inspired by a book. Perhaps if I had read the book I would have cared more about what was happening on screen. I don't think its worth the effort of finding out.

What a waste of time watching this. Who directed this, no wait was there a director...............And who edited it...... Just when you think it couldn't go any slower, oh but it can, oh it can. Um, it never picked up.......................... It was all over the place. Reaction to certain situations were slow as well......................... This movie was just awful........................................... A huge waste of my time. .................. So many mistakes in this movie....................................... There was NOTHING worth while to even mention...................... Why they released this crap is beyond me.

"in a Dark Place" with Leelee Sobieski and Tara Fitzgerald is a retelling of the classic Henry James story, "the Turn of the Screw" There have been many incarnations, "The Innocents" with Deborah Kerr being the best. This is very good though.

Leelee plays young Anna Veigh, a nanny assigned to look after two young children, a boy Miles and a girl, Flora, on a remote country estate. It soon becomes apparent that they were abused, as was Anna herself, Mrs. Grose the caretaker, is distant and remote, adding to Anna's misgivings.

The film is stark and sensual. Leelee gives probably her best performance to date, possibly because, as Leelee herself tells us, there is little of her in Anna. Tara Fitzgerald is also a fine actress and really seems to bring everyone's level up in whatever she appears. There is increasing dread to the proceedings that are more psychological than supernatural and the film never loses its edge or its air of creepy self-pleasure.

There is a lesbian subtext that was missing in earlier versions and a good twist as to who the children are really afraid of. The film is moody and subversive but not so obtuse that the viewer is left in the dark too. Due to its subject and certain scenes this isn't really the most comfortable film, but for those who care, both Leelee and Tara give the devil his due with flashes of nudity. All in all I wasn't expecting much from this and so was pleasantly surprised and entertained.

While this is a slightly "unconventional" take on a ghost story.. sadly this telling of it is disjointed and lacks many necessary elements to make it any sort of success. I'm sorry to say in this case you're better off reading the book so to speak. Leelee Sobieski tries but is not a perfect fit for this role... she can act but this I think was simply beyond her ability to be truly convincing (Unlike Nicole Kidman in The Others).

The director in this case I would suggest lessons from Takashi Shimizu (The Grudge)... the Japanese have truly mastered the art of this sort of story... and Donato Rotunno gives it a half ass'd at best effort. Then tosses in some nudity from Leelee... and even in that effort he fails miserably since if you are going to have her flash her goodies to draw your attention she should at least shave/trim before hand.

It's sad that a nude shot of Leelee is the highlight of a ghost story.... and it's not even a proper porno or even "teenage tit movie".

While I do appreciate the effort... I have to give this a miserable 4 rating.. and suggest most others skip it especially if you do not appreciate the subtle telling of a ghost story without flashy effects.. (or more accurately in this case a lame attempt at such.)

After reading many of the comments and poor ratings of this flick, by some here, I conclude a mature motion picture as this wasted upon you. A pearl before swines.

First the director himself states in the DVD release this is NOT a remake of the Turning of The Screw, and further he is not a fan of horror flicks, as he says, disturbing things happen everyday in real life.

And so it is Anna Veigh, a sexually molested and tortured child attempts to help other children so molested by becoming an art therapist. However, she is pawed over and fired by an old school master who in attempt to keep her quiet, finds her a new position as a Nanny with a boy and girl who have been orphaned and now are the charges of their wealthy uncle. The uncle would rather be totally free of the responsibility.

The drama unfolds quietly and with a smoldering subtlety that only true drama and mystery lover could appreciate. Sorry kids no bug eyed monsters, disappointed? And no this isn't a female sex flesh flick as some lechers had hoped.

It concerns a metaphor and secrets. Each character has a secret and slowly the viewer pieces the parts together.

It is assumed Miss Veigh is in fact, losing her mind and imagining dangers and ghosts.

She in fact confronts her own molestation and rape as a child, time and again. She like the children is haunted.

It appears the previous Nanny, a Miss Jessel and her lover Peter Quint (names borrowed from the James novel), were lovers. It also appears they included the children in their sexual games and haunted them as Miss Veigh is haunted by her childhood molestations.

I very much enjoyed the frank and tasteful nudity, the lesbian scenes.

The property manager Miss Gross, portrayed elegantly by Tara Fitzgerald, had been in love with Miss Jessel and also courts Miss Veigh.

The words, " its not working out" precede each sexual exploitation of the Anna Veigh. Indeed, Miles and Floras seem possessed by the old perverted team, Miss Jessel and Peter Quint.

Both Flora and Miles have symptoms very often associated with children who have been sexually abused.

The end is very sad and unless your understand what is going on you'll miss it. Why is Miles running from Miss Veigh? Could it be when he blows the candle out he again is sexually exploited?

Flora sleeps with her new Nanny and cryptically says, " Do anything YOU like."

The last scenes are metaphors for sexually abused children who want to die and feel dirty, responsible for the abuse they received.

This is a misunderstood masterpiece. I hope the child actors, didn't quite grasp what it was really all about.

See it and try to understand what the director is attempting to put across. Most here are clueless about this flick.

This is one of the top 10 worst films off all time. If you value your time, don't bother with this movie. If you have lots of free time, still don't bother with this movie. I sure wish I could get 90 minutes of my life back.

The movie was a train wreck. Slower than molasses, but worse yet the story line is all over the map. Not to mention it just plain doesn't make any sense.

Trust me when I say... spend 90 minutes doing dishes or cleaning the house instead. At least there will be something to show for it in the end.

I caught this movie at first in the middle, when Anna was looking for the children at the pond. I recognized the scene immediately and when she called the child "Flora", I knew it was a remake of The Innocents, one of my all time favorite movies. So I found when it was on again and recorded it to watch later, what a mistake! Why do people who make remakes feel obliged to include an obligatory lesbian scene? The aura of suspense was completely obliterated by Anna's wacky behavior, supposedly attributed to her childhood abuse. The tension between Anna and the children regarding Jessel and Quint was non-existent - this is at the core of the story. What a waste of film.