Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

rmeador I watched this on Hulu Plus on my new Apple TV, and was really excited to find this adaptation (along with Number 13). I must say, I'm completely baffled-- not baffled at what happened in the story (although now that I think of it...), but baffled as to why anyone would set out to make a film version of an M.R. James story, then completely discard the story and write a new one that has nothing to do with the original. What on earth is the point of that? John Hurt is a great actor, the scenes were nicely filmed, and all that. But it had nothing to do with the James story-- no whistle, no Templar ruins, no really creepy and scary presence, no reference to "Whistle and I'll come to you, lad", no real point of reference to the story whatsoever. The apparition wasn't very scary (wrapped in a sheet on a beach in broad daylight), the ring (instead of a whistle) didn't really make sense, and the whole invalid wife subplot just wasn't very good or scary (except at the end when it leapt out and yelled "boo"). It was moody and atmospheric, and John Hurt is terrific, but why would anyone present this as an M.R. James story? What a missed opportunity.

AlanJ2 This is a modern version of the classic MR James ghost story 'Whistle and I'll Come To You'. To his credit Neil Cross has tried to find a modern way into the story and has turned it into a tale about a man whose wife is lost to Alzheimer's. Unfortunately what emerges has little resonance (the Alzheimer's stuff is patently phony--sorry Neil all sufferers from the illness do not act like corpses)and also zero connection to the original. All that survives is a lonely hotel by the seaside, a lonely man and...well not much else. Not even the whistle remains. The writer might just as well have stopped trading on the classic name and author and done an original story . Except of course if he had it would never have been made. Nobody is saying we need a slavish copy. Jonathan Miller's earlier classic version was recognisably the same story but it was still changed to brilliant effect. Cross just grafts a mediocre ending on and leaves it at that. The result is quite atmospherically directed but all else goes for nothing. What exactly was the point?

TheLittleSongbird I wouldn't say Whistle and I'll Come to You is a complete disaster, but it does fall short, especially when the story it is based on is as good as it is. Not only that, it is for me the most disappointing programme of the festive/New Year season, and that is saying a lot seeing as there were quite a few gems(ie. Toast, Eric and Ernie). Starting with the good things, the location shooting is very evocative and atmospheric and the camera work is interesting. And the acting of John Hurt, Gemma Jones and Lesley Sharp is impressive, though I think all three have been better.Conversely, Whistle and I'll Come to You was a big disappointment, not so much as the previous year's Turn of the Screw but as an adaptation and on its own terms I was disappointed. The ghost story is truly great, it has an unsettling, dark story and has suspense and chills. Here, Whistle and I'll Come to You has its moments but that wasn't enough. Apart from the occasional moment that made me jump I wasn't gripped or unsettled and some scenes(at the beach) were laughable. I don't think the pace helped either, it was really quite dull. Granted, I would have rathered that the story unfolded slowly to add to the atmosphere, but that leads me to my next point.The atmosphere here is rather empty. For me there was very little suspense or tension, while the ambiguity is not done well at all. The script seemed lacking too, some of it seemed too forced, superficial and methodical, and the story is a mixed bag with some decent bits merged with some very disconnected ones, sadly the disconnected scenes outweigh the decent ones. Also, why call it Whistle and I'll Come to You when the whistle of the title is excised entirely. It's like having an adaptation of Pinocchio but without the puppet or something like that. As much as I liked the production values, the modernisation didn't work, it took away from the authenticity and effectiveness that the adaptation could have had easily, while the climatic scene did little for me as it was rather obvious after about 5-10 minutes. In conclusion, a big disappointment but the cast do their best and the adaptation at least looks good so it is not a complete debacle. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Muldwych I think it's important to begin by saying that the BBC's efforts to bring the classic ghost stories of M.R. James to the small screen have, over the years, been a continual source of joy for lovers of old school horror such as myself. While not every adaptation has been as accomplished an approach to film-making as Jonathan Miller's iconic 1968 realisation of 'Whistle & I'll Come To You' and Lawrence Gordon-Clarke's memorable interpretation of 'A Warning To The Curious', even the comparatively more pedestrian entries have evoked not only the much-anticipated foreboding and supernatural atmosphere of the source material, but a good degree of faithfulness to their underlying themes. This, however, cannot be said for 2010's apparently necessary remake of 'Whistle And I'll Come To You', wherein the terms 'remake', 'intuitive understanding' and 'source material' are applied with the same degree of dubiousness as any arguments in support of the production's validity.For those unfamiliar, as indeed many still will be after watching the new Whistle, the plot of the original centres around the cocksure academic bachelor Professor Parkins (Parkins in the original text), who takes a vacation during the off-season at a remote Norfolk seaside village for golf and exploration, the latter prompted by a colleague's request that he inspect the remains of an old Templar preceptory to determine its archaeological worth. This he duly does, and within the crumbling ruins, discovers an ancient whistle, unable to resist putting its practical function to the test. From that moment on, Parkins is never alone, having awoken forces beyond description and quite beyond all human understanding. The heart of the story is the folly of arrogant presumption, that there will always be realms of understanding beyond mortal man, and to believe you can quantify existence is to invite downfall. James's overconfident scholar and protagonist is the perfect vehicle to deliver this message, and an archetype that the writer, who was himself a highly-accomplished academic, knew better than most. The rapid destruction of Parkins's self-assured, almost autistic world is almost as disconcerting as the unknown forces he has unleashed, for which we are given only fleeting glimpses and very little explanation.All of which clearly flew over the heads of the 2010 production team, who presumably felt that the core elements of the story were its beach setting, the university professor more inclined to the rational than the superstitious, and the general bleakness of his existence. So long as some vague continuity with these components was maintained, it seemed perfectly reasonable to completely rewrite both story and characterization to the point where the result was a pale shadow of its former self yet could still be legitimately broadcast under the same title.The Neil Cross teleplay, in which the action is relocated to the present day, sees a Professor James Parkin committing his wife, apparently suffering from advanced senile dementia, to a care home before taking a long overdue vacation on the Kentish Coast in order to come to terms with his loss. The seaside resort also happens to be one of their old stomping grounds, and the discovery of a ring in the sand dunes brings to life more than mere memories for Parkin. Something seems keen to communicate with him on the deserted coast, and it may not be as unfamiliar as it first appears.Cross's script quite spectacularly manages to miss the point of the James tale, retaining only superficial vestiges of its substance. Gone is the arrogant, antisocial university mandarin of the original. In his place is the more socially-capable doting husband whose rational worldview is in no way extreme and borne of great personal tragedy – again entirely caused by the most intimate of social interaction (the original Parkins wouldn't even know what to do with a woman). The character's ultimate fate is seemingly more extreme, yet far more simplistic and obvious, undercutting the psychological ramifications of his plight.The 'ghost' of the story is equally less subtle and, by the climax of the tale, extremely more quantifiable than its antecedent, of which one understands no more by the end than they did when it first appears. Its intangible mystery is precisely the point of its existence, being something so alien that not even the well-read professor can define it.The whole dramatisation is, in short, comprehensively dumbed down. The rapid departure from the original narrative is, according to those behind the camera, because Jonathan Miller had already dramatised the story so well that there seemed little point in retreading the same ground. The creative reigns are firmly in the grip of Marshall McLuhan's prophesied generation wherein the televisual medium has become the message for those who work in the industry. Television is its own reference point and must now be the source material for rehashing plots with diminishing returns. Heaven forfend that the book be the wellspring of inspiration instead. Telling the same story is surely the point of the exercise: if there is little point in retreading ground well-covered in the past, this, surely, is proof that the endeavour was unnecessary in the first place.Cashing in on a popular title is perhaps the greatest offence and indeed irony, since the Cross script under the direction of Euros Lyn does deliver its own chilling moments. Add to this the very capable cast headed by John Hurt and Gemma Jones and some excellent location shoots, and there is much to otherwise praise. More damage is done to it by being arrogant enough to masquerade it as something it is not, whereas a more favourable analysis would be quite easy if it were touted as a new work in its own right. It isn't, however, being instead an unwarranted 'Disneyfication' of a far darker psychological piece that a new audience will mistakenly equate with Britain's greatest master of the macabre. It is the same blind egotistical behaviour that Hollywood is typically blamed for. With them, however, such silliness is expected.