mary-25239 Has everyone forgotten the adaptation of Turn of the Screw starring Ingrid Bergman and filmed for television in 1959? It was shown in the USA and on BBC in Britain. Bergman was brilliant ,of course!and the two children were also excellent. I have forgotten who played Quint or any of the other parts and shall search for it. My point here is: don't assume the most recent adaptation of anything is the best. Usually it is not - for example Far from the Madding Crowd 1967 is 100% better than the recent version.

PippinInOz I agree with all of the previous four reviews here. Like another reviewer, I have been looking forwards to seeing this - absolutely LOVE 'The Innocents' and was curious as to how a contemporary film maker would interpret this. It aired as part of Christmas / New Year viewing in Australia on Foxtel's UK Channel.Where to begin?? Thought there was trouble brewing when it began in the asylum. Straight away the audience is given 'markers' as to how we are to interpret or 'read' this television film. To me, the story's power is it's AMBIGUITY! Immediately, this is undercut.Okay, they have decided to swap the setting to 1922 rather than Victorian England. Was willing to play along and give the film makers the benefit of the doubt, but alarm bells are going off. After all, Gothic and 19th Century England just go so beautifully don't they?! Quite apart from the fact that this is the historical period in which the novel is set. I have no problem with films and television programmes providing viewers with fresh contexts, but swapping the historical period was always going to be difficult. But no matter, I persevered. What really REALLY annoyed me - in no particular order:SPELLING EVERYTHING OUT. You know those B grade made for television (often Hallmark) films where the characters are given ridiculous lines of dialogue telling you everything - in case you might get to use your imagination and try to work something out for yourself? Well, you will recognise this modus operandi here. The sinister mysterious figure of the male that the governess 'sees' - transformed into a panto villain who keeps doing the 'HA HA HA!!!!' laugh. Spare us. Not scary, just irritating.The 'oh look at ye governess, she be havin' sexual fantasies about Master' scenes. What makes the original story so effective is the general repression of the Victorian era. The style of Gothic in literature has been interpreted as a way to express that which was repressed in the Victorian era. For example: see 'Wuthering Heights' amongst others. All feature violent, sexual, usually dark haired men - (Heathcliffe is a classic). The viewer should never be completely sure of how the governess is feeling about the male characters. This is about repression, not telling. That ancient gravestone when the Governess and the Housekeeper (Oh Sue Johnston - I love your work, but how in God's name did you get involved in this?) are supposed to be looking at the previous Governesses gravestone. She is only meant to have died recently and this gravestone looks like it's been there for centuries. A small goof perhaps, but this nicely sums up the general sloppiness. The poor child actors - pity them. They have no idea what is going on here at all. Suspect they were turning up for work in Studio 1 for a new version of 'Village of the Damned' but walked into Studio 2 by mistake, ending up in this. If you want to see an evocative version of this story, go and find a copy of 'The Innocents' - watch it a couple of times and see how your idea of just what happened in this house continually changes. It opens up interpretation rather than shut it down and spell it out. It will make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. This dogs dinner on the other hand will make you wonder why you bothered.

Good-Will I can only add to the only other review here (with which I completely agree), that this is a sad waste of time, talent and money.How so much effort resulted in a trivial and virtually inept outcome is beyond me. Didn't the writer read the book?Having read the novel when I was 7 or so (I was quite quick to pick up on great literature), then this fiasco of an adaptation was a massive disappointment.My major gripes are as follows: 1. The music is great, but completely out of context. Shut those violins up, please! 2. The acting on the whole is wooden, stilted and annoying. The housekeeper gave the only performance of note.3. Don't mess with Henry James's whole point of the novel, changing it (I assume) to target a younger audience who have the attention span of a goldfish.Ach. It was simply rubbish.Cheers, Will

srm-1 Of all the programmes in this year's Christmas TV schedule, 'A Turn of the Screw' was the one that I was looking forward to most of all. Although not explicitly advertised as a "BBC Ghost Story for Christmas" that is exactly what it was: a BBC - ghost story - at Christmas. And with top director Tim Fywell at the helm, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, it did.Others might like to list all of the myriad small problems with this production but, for me, there were two major faults which rendered it almost unwatchable: firstly, the two child protagonists were neither enchanting nor engaging which made it impossible to sympathise, or care, about their situation. Secondly, the way that the governess either thought that she heard things, or thought that she saw things, almost every second of every scene of her time on screen meant that there was absolutely no build-up of tension or foreboding throughout the whole production. Ultimately, and disappointingly, it ended up being just a very boring and completely unsatisfying ninety minutes.Once again the true winter chills were to be found on BBC Four this year, with a re-run of the excellent 'Crooked House' and welcome screenings from the real master ghost storyteller - the other Mr. James.