The Turn of the Screw

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 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

All the television adaptations of M. R. Jame books have been extremely poor. Nothing scary about any of them. However reading his short stories is the only way to enjoy him, and his stories are far more frightening depicted in the written word.

Probably the best adaptation of this was done in 1961 with Deborah Kerr as the governess. The time frame presented there was turn of the 20th century (1896~1901); in keeping with the date of publication of this novella (1898) . The time frame for this version is instead the immediate post "Great War"; the father of the children being killed in the war, (the mother's death seems to have been just after childbirth of the younger child-the girl). The shortage of men in the United Kingdom, at that time, is emphasized in the beginning with the insinuation that a lot of young women, such as the governess, are lonely. This theme echos through the story. The new governess meets the guardian of the children before she departs for the estate where the little girl stays with the staff (all of whom are women due to the shortage of men). The guardian is the children's uncle; a handsome, young bachelor whom she is immediately infatuated with; but he does not return the interest. Nor is he particularly interested in visiting the estate anytime soon. Michelle. Dockery, as the governess, is presented as very plain young woman in this version; in order to enhance the frustration her character is feeling. Later, in the story, the older (though still a kid) brother of the girl arrives at the estate. All during this time disturbing things are occurring there, but what is actually happening? Can such things actually occur? Is her sexual frustration a part of this?

This story is told by the governess, confined to a mental institute recounting this to a psychiatrist; who happens to be another handsome young man. Though she initially is in a catatonic state in the institute she does respond eventually to his questioning. The story we see is her story; what we see happening and how it happened is presented through her recollection. And, this recollection is by a person who is definitely mentally ill. Or, is she? This departs from the original story somewhat which implied the possibility of mental illness by the governess but not was not explicitly as this version does.

A good adaptation though a little "too modern" (early 20th century versus late 19th century setting) IMHO.

I have watched several MR James adaptations, both film and TV, and admit that I have found some difficult to follow. Thankfully at 90 minutes long no such problem here. This TV movie has good acting and the bulk of it takes place at a magnificent looking, old British country estate. With sex scenes and male violence against women it isn't really suitable for kids, what lets it down for me is that sadly it simply is not scary. Michelle Dockery plays the 20 year old governess but she was about 30 at the time, either they should've found somebody younger or up her age to say 25. I do enjoy watching classic ghost stories over the Xmas period and much as I felt this to be reasonably entertaining I won't be watching it again in Christmases to come.