The Haunting of Helen Walker

This film doesn't deserve a "10," but for only one reason. The ending is absurd and meaningless. Valerie Bertinelli's, and her director's, brilliant feminist interpretation of Henry James' misogynist story deserved a denouement. Without spoiling the five seconds or so of film that pass for an ending, it can be said those five seconds undo all the freshness of the movie. The Haunting of Helen Walker has three adult female characters: governess, estate manager (played by Diana Rigg), and housekeeper, none of whom hate one another, distrust one another, or-a typical Jamesian conceit-tolerate one another. Helen's increasing identification with children clearly victims of abuse and neglect doesn't cause the manager, for example, to demand her dismissal. Helen's American-ness isn't regarded as a mild form of illness. And unlike The Turn of the Screw, which questions a lonely protagonist's sanity, The Haunting of Helen Walker shows how a real governess living in isolated splendor might react when she is forsaken by two very rich children's sadistic uncle. I review older, generally unknown, sometimes ridiculed, films when I see they don't deserve the scores they receive on IMDB. The Haunting of Helen Walker inexplicably turns Walker into a victim at the end without letting us know how much time has passed, the circumstances of her losing her mind, or whether the other child who can be saved is saved. But that is the writer's (or writers') fault, not Bertinelli's or Rigg's. I don't think I've ever seen another production where Valerie Bertinelli's acting talent is put to better use.

I'm a big fan of Valerie Bertinelli; she's a very lovely and under-rated actress, and she does very well in this movie. The problem is that "A Turn of the Screw" by Henry James has been done too many times with little variations or deviations from the original novel. Done best as "The Innocents" (1961), the plot was only really done differently and interestingly on "Dark Shadows" with David Selby and Terry Crawford. The Bertinelli movie is very scary and has great convincing special effects, but some problem does rest in the direction and execution. She finds all these clues that something is wrong at the estate she works on, but it is hard to tell just how all these clues relate to each other once you realize that the children are under the thrall of two ghosts who hate each other. The movie on its own is a very top-notch ghost story, but you have to be totally unaware of the original novel to appreciate it.

In agreement with the other comments, I too was skeptical with Valerie Bertinelli in the part of the governess in basically an all British film. But she was surprisingly very good. I also agree that this was a very scary movie. The effects were great, not overboard. The actor portraying Peter Quint was diabolical looking. Think about how difficult it is to act without being able to speak....very interesting. Diana Rigg, as always was great in her role. The children were okay, the boy had a tendency to squint, but when his eyes were open, he was a very handsome child. The film location was perfect for this type of movie, kind of pseudo-gothic. If you like horror, I would definitely recommend this movie.

I am a huge horror fan and this film is up there with the best of them. I might even go so far as to compare the shocks in this film to those found in 'Don't Look Now'. It starts quite slowly and seems to be just an ordinary period drama to begin with, but soon your heart will start beating.

The first shock is totally unexpected and will still scare you when you think about it later. I won't give it away, but you'll notice it! Although the film does have some slower bits, there are enough twists, turns and shocks throughout to keep you interested. One of the only bad parts of this film is the children that Helen Walker looks after. I wanted to give them (especially the boy) a good slap, but this does not decrease the power and shock of the images that'll keep you thinking about this film long after you've seen it.

Is it just me or is this almost a scene-for-scene remake of The Innocents? I know that they're both based on the same story. But dialog is similar, scenes are similar. Only thing that's not similar is that The Innocents is a high-class, beautifully shot, well-acted production. I found this one to be cheap and poorly played. Valerie Bertinelli doesn't really belong in period pieces. She doesn't have a period look. She doesn't have a period voice. Diana Rigg, however, is pretty great (as usual). She always turns in amazing performances and her Mrs. Gross is no exception. Everyone else though is lackluster and kind of boring. And, adding to the pile, it really drags. It just kind of lays there like a dead fish.