GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

dougdoepke The two hours come across as a tantalizing version of the classic Henry James novelette. To me, the story appears more a psychological mystery then a ghostly horror tale. But either way, the results are fascinating, though I can see why viewers preferring cut-and-dried story lines might be unhappy with the results.A well-meaning governess Miss Cubberly is hired into an English country mansion to tutor two young children. While there, she's drawn into a web of creepy events. The young brother and sister are beautiful and charming, but perhaps they are also possessed by the evil spirits of dead former governess Miss Jessel and dead former house valet Quint. On the other hand, perhaps the ghostly visitations are actually mental projections of the new governess about whom we crucially know very little. For example, she certainly appears consumed with her charges welfare, but is she also mingling their behavior with her own deep-seated confusions about innocence and sex. Does she, for example, confusingly blend the sexual libertine Quint with the budding adolescent Miles. Story here is foremost. There's no real interest in mood, or even Technicolor ornaments. Instead, we're riveted to the characters, minus peripheral distractions. Acting-wise, Redgrave's just right for the well-meaning governess, though I would have preferred a little more ambiguity in some of her behavior. Stealing the film, however, is young Jasper Jacob as Miles. I don't know that I've ever seen one so young (14) convey such a sense of wickedness, particularly with his gimlet shaped eyes. Several of his scenes with the mature Redgrave are unusually unsettling in their teetering sexuality.I've read James' novelette, but had a hard time with the congested prose, which I assume was meant to provide insight into the governess's mental state. Nonetheless, the book was, like the movie, oddly captivating to the end. And as an exercise in dark psychology, I don't think I've read or seen anything more mysteriously tantalizing. So, if you don't mind ambiguities, catch up with this little exercise.

MARIO GAUCI Surprisingly effective made-for-TV adaptation of Henry James' classic ghost story "The Turn Of The Screw" which had already spawned an acclaimed cinematic version in Jack Clayton's THE INNOCENTS (1961); for the record, I am also familiar with THE NIGHTCOMERS (1972), a serviceable prequel written originally for the screen. Prior to this, I had checked out the following TV movies from director Curtis: THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1968; which he only produced), THE NIGHT STALKER (1971), THE NIGHT STRANGLER (1972), Dracula (1973), THE NORLISS TAPES (1973) and TRILOGY OF TERROR (1975), and this generally measures up to them quality-wise. Anyway, to get back to the film at hand: having watched THE NIGHTCOMERS in 2004 (as part of a Marlon Brando tribute) and THE INNOCENTS in 2005 (while studying in Hollywood) – that is to say, not too long ago – I knew more or less what to expect from the plot; of course, being the early days of TV/video technology, the alternately grainy and flat look emerges as its weakest element and cannot hope to challenge Freddie Francis' renowned chiaroscuro work on the 1961 film version. Incidentally, I opted to watch this now as an extension of my brief tribute to Natasha Richardson – since it stars her aunt, Lynn Redgrave; I have also acquired THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE (1984) – based on another popular novel, by John Irving – which, in its turn, was directed by her father i.e. Tony Richardson. Redgrave is a fitting replacement for Deborah Kerr – managing a quiet fortitude in her dealings with the mansion's absentee landlord, the kids (who are anything but innocent, and the boy rather overbearing!) and even the apparitions (the valet and his lover/preceding governess, resuming their corrupting influence on the children). Probably sticking rigorously to the source material, William F. Nolan's script comes across as too literary and the film itself decidedly overlong at 118 minutes; similarly, Curtis' approach is atypically reserved most of the time – with the manifestations themselves well-handled but hardly chilling…apart from the very last sequence, which then brings the film to an abrupt close! While I readily admit to being wary of remakes – and, when badly done, they are certainly redundant – I have grown tolerant of those emanating from other media (mind you, the 1970s was pretty much the Golden Age of TV); with this in mind, I look forward now to Dan Curtis' own version of FRANKENSTEIN (1973) despite being the nth rendition of the Mary Shelley tale that I would be sampling

brianben ******Spoiler Alert ******** Actually, I think the previous reviewer misunderstood the end of the movie. Young Miles became possessed by the spirit of the older man. He was not acting as Miles any longer. He was acting as an adult. Young Miles had never been brazen enough to drink brandy in front of his governess before. That was an obvious indication that he was possessed by the spirit. Therefore the double meaning of "Turn of the Screw" is quite appropriate.This movie was never really horrifying to me. It was quite creepy and mildly amusing. It's an enjoyable evening if you like movies set in the Elizabethan period. Watching it during a thunder storm enhances the creepiness.

fredrik-1 I was only 10 years old 1984, when i saw this movie for the first time. I bought it in a video store for about 5 dollars. I have seen it a couple of times, and now last spring again. It had still the dark horror feeling I remember. Swedish-Denna film fanns ett tag på video på ett bolag som hette Mariann Video, då under namnet Barnens hemlighet.The movie is about 120 minutes