Robert J. Maxwell It's always hard to do a remake or adaptation of a classic like Henry James' "Turn of the Screw." The director, actors, and crew must transpose a lot of printed words into visual images and sound. It ain't easy.The performers can do a lot to add realism to the movie. Diana Rigg, for instance, is the housekeeper, Mrs. Grose, and without seeming to do so she turns a dull and unimaginative old lady into a human being by the pitch and stress of her voice and by occasional sideways glances that aren't in the novella but which suggest she's smarter than she looks.Valerie Bertinelli does a TV version of the heroine, Helen Walker, who was unnamed in the original. She's not bad, considering the challenge presented by a display of creeping madness.But cast and crew aside, there's another element to be considered -- the intended audience, whose nature will help structure and color the narrative. Any movie is a joint project between the producers and the consumers. In this instance, the producers have presented the audience with a kind of Rorschach ink blot and the viewers have to decide, among other things, whether or not it's a picture of a crazy lady.The intended audience is the TV viewer looking for something interesting but not too demanding. "The Haunting of Helen Walker" fills the bill. It's not too demanding. For example the governess is given a name right off the bat because it make writing the screenplay easier and it doesn't prompt the audience to wonder if her name was left out by mistake.Most of the better-done stories of threats and danger take a while to build up tense anticipation. We don't get a look at Bruce the Shark until half-way through "Jaws," and the same with "King Kong." The mysterious and evil figure in "The Third Man" has about fifteen minutes of screen time towards the end. In "The Turn of the Screw" evil is represented by two not-quite-real figures who are only gradually insinuated into the tale. But in "The Haunting of Helen Walker," with an impatient audience in mind, the producers give us the first supernatural shock at ten minutes into the story. (The second comes ten minutes later.) Between eerie incidents, the movie lets us see the governess daydreaming about the handsome young master of the country estate, whom we see only briefly at the start. James let us infer her yearning for a suitable husband.I've been kind of harsh on "The Haunting of Helen Walker" but it's not a bad movie. They haven't taken a meat ax to James' ghost story. It gets more confusing towards the end, almost hysterical. I don't know what James had in mind. Is she nuts or not? Maybe all James wanted to do was write a chilling tale about ghosts and such.

OllieSuave-007 Based on the novel, Turn of the Screw, Helen Walker is hired as a governess for two English children, Miles and Flora, in their old mansion in the England countryside. While on the job, Helen notices strange events surrounding the mansion and children and is determined to discover the surrounding secrets of the home's past history.This is actually a pretty intriguing movie that captures the audience's attention with the peculiar children, followed by the immediate sightings of the apparitions by Helen Walker. Valerie Bertinelli did a nice job portraying her, displaying aspects of care and nurture for the children and drama and suspicion in places in the plot where appropriate. Diana Rigg did a commanding job in portraying the intimidating Mrs. Grose and Florence Hoath and Aled Roberts did a convincing job portraying the kids - very refined, dignified and lady/gentleman-like. Aled's portrayal of Miles always has this sly and sinister look at his face, with his nose in the air and stuck-up persona that I've found annoying at times.The effects done for the ghosts were worked out very well and their appearances really sent chills down my body and the hair raise on the back of my neck. The effects team also did a great job in setting up the grand mansion (making it spooky when appropriate) and the surrounding landscapes, especially the green valleys and lake.I know the movie is based on the novel, but I wished ***spoiler ahead*** Helen would have gave the screaming and obnoxious Flora a taste of her own medicine toward the end and wished the ending would have been made a little more hopeful rather than downright sad (I'm a sucker for happy endings). The ending also seemed a little rushed for me. ***spoiler ends***Overall, it's not a bad hair-raising TV movie for a few good scares and chills.Grade B-

TheGuyWithTheFeet 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.

helpless_dancer This was worse than a Harlequin romance novel: the only good part was the old castle and the surrounding landscape. Hammy, overdone rehash of every 2 bit ghostly/old manse film that's ever been done. It provided rain, lightning, dim corridors, haunting music, candles blowing out, spectral beings, and on and on and on all the way to the 'creepy' finale. Valerie should have stayed home and let Eddie bring home the bacon.