The Canterville Ghost

While there are still many variances from the original story, this version hewed much more closely to it than the 1944 film, which bore little more resemblance to the original than the name. I think this one was well served by the greater similarity.

I thought all the actors did a great job, though I was a bit put off by the peevishness of the father character during most of the movie. In the original story he was also a non-believer, but with much more good humor and sympathy.

I don't know if anyone has ever tried enacting the story as written but I'd be interested in seeing it if they did.

Do you remember those charming, touching, romantic movies from the 40s or 50s? Can you imagine one of those transformed into a teenie film without loosing a bit of its charm? Well, it can be done, as this film proves.

It's the perfect film for an autumn evening with a fire crackling in the fireplace and the lights turned low.

This is a little gem of a movie, with lush sets and surprisingly good special effects, in a truly English (as opposed to a Disney/Mary Poppins British) setting and an attractive cast. Patrick Stewart brings the full weight of his Shakespearian background to bear, and creates a tragic and tender ghost, never lapsing into bathos or slapstick. Neve Campbell as the heroine is convincing as a brave, warm-hearted girl embarking on a gentle romance with the well-cast Daniel Betts. Kids will love the ghostly capers, teenagers and older family members will enjoy Ginny and Francis getting closer together, and empathise with the father-daughter conflict, and more mature watchers will be moved by the sad history of Sir Simon. A three-hanky movie. The only fly in the ointment was the entirely wasted presence of Joan Sims and Donald Sinden - "ham" really should have been off the menu in their case, but at least we don't have to see much of them.

I liked this version okay, but my favorite "Canterville Ghost" is the one 10 years before this one-- the 1986 version with Alyssa Milano and Sir John Gielgud. The 1986 movie was much better and more exciting than this one... More scary and funny things happened in it. I also thought they bothered to do better "ghostly" special effects. But the 1996 one is definitely worth seeing, none the less... It's a nice story and I thought that Patrick Stewart and Neve Campbell did a good job. The little brothers were annoying though in this one, and completely un-necessary to the movie. But the castles and the english scenery are so pretty in both. The music was much better in the 1986 version though.. even the opening scene was nicer of them going up to the castle in the horse drawn carriage, rather than in a car. So it's those little details that make the one a decade earlier a lot better than this one.

Despite what some people have said about this TV movie, it was my impression that it was simply magnificent. Patrick Stewart is in his Element in Shakespearean characterization and this is among his finest roles. Neve Campbell brought a warm sensitivity to the role of Virginia and gave a moving performance. The script was first rate, and contrary to what some have said, playing this story in a modern setting works remarkably. That is one of the strengths of great literature that it can be shaped to different times. I was riveted to this production, I having forty years or more since I saw the Charles Laughton version. I can highly recommend this version as a great film and a great family film.