Falconeer It is difficult to describe the visual beauty of Rusty Lemorande's version of the Henry James novel, 'Turn of the Screw'. Here is a film for people who can appreciate the aesthetic beauty of Gothic cinema. The lovely Patsy Kensit is Jenny, a sexually repressed young woman, who travels to Blye House to care for two very strange, sinister young children. The setting is gorgeous, with almost fetishistic attention being paid to every tiny detail. The clothes, the furnishings, the cars, even the beautiful antique toys are constantly on display here, in a dizzying display of hypnotic beauty. Jenny is tormented by the spirits of the dead, the children's former Nanny, and her mysterious lover. It seems like the children, especially the boy, Miles, have been somehow corrupted by these two. And this version of the story makes it obvious that the 'corruption' is of a sexual nature. Whenever children are sexualized, it adds a truly disturbing level to the goings on. Here we have an utterly bizarre, Gothic/erotic film that has been underrated by critics. Perhaps the subject matter makes some uncomfortable, but true horror should make one feel a bit uneasy. Filled with heavy handed sexual imagery, this is the only film version I know of where the child actors they used were the correct age. And the kids who played little Flora and Miles are superbly pale and haunted looking. Patsy Kensit is fine as the deeply religious Nanny battling her own inner demons as well as the demons of Blye House. Her delicate beauty makes her more of a sympathetic character. Even the music works for this one, haunting music box melodies to compliment the surreal and sometimes breathtaking imagery. The film possesses an undeniable elegance, moving along at a leisurely pace, drawing the viewer in with hypnotic visuals and a classic ghost story. While watching 'Turn of the Screw' I was repeatedly reminded of Mario Bava's masterpiece, "Lisa and the Devil". There is also a bit of "Suspiria" here, but it's similarities to "Lisa" are extreme. The setting; the beautiful house filled with erotic perversion and doomed, illicit romance, the camera angles, the gorgeous attention to detail. I highly recommend 'Turn of the Screw' to fans of Argento and Bava, and other prolific Italian horror directors of the 1970's. I hope someday that this bizarre masterpiece will find it's audience, and get the recognition it deserves.

khalifakhella This 1992 adaptation of "The Turn of the Screw" is a strange experience indeed. Taking the Henry James Psychological ghost story masterpiece as a starting point, writer/director Rusty Lemorande makes a film that is ultimately a failure, but a very intriguing failure nonetheless. The director takes the central premise of the well known story about a governess coming to doubt the innocence of the children under her care and realizing slowly that they may be haunted by the ghosts of her malevolent and sick predecessors, and produces a film that is much more modern (and by modern I mean graphic) which turns the story into a much more perverted psycho-sexual story about child abuse, the occult and of course repression (all themes that were addressed in Henry James' novella but in a much more subdued manner). But despite achieving moments of true dread and an overall ominous and doom-laden atmosphere (aided tremendously by the beautifully Gothic locations and the occasionally brilliant cinematography), the director errs by making the story lose all the subtlety that was imbued in the original novella and instead relying too much on graphic sex scenes and overt violence (although these only appear in dream sequences which are somewhat brief) and ultimately as many filmmakers do when adapting a classic story, reading too much into the story in terms of sexual repression and perversion. Although James' novella mainly dealt with issues of sanity, perspective and depravity, the main strength of the story was the ambiguity that James imbued the story with, something which made the story much more frightening and disturbing even a century after it was published. But director Lemorande throws all subtlety out the window by using ear-shattering musical cues, gratuitous blood and sex and by portraying the apparitions as some sort of demonic beings, which are all things that do not correspond with the original tone or intention of the original story. But in the end the film has its merits as Lemorands succeeds in creating some moments of visual ingenuity as well as the aforementioned atmosphere which is truly haunting and unnerving, things which many other adaptations of the same story failed to achieve.

hershiser2 ...but not too good. The story starts with a weak narration in present times, telling a story... Then we flash back to the 1960s and some crazy scenery. The acting in this film is not the best; in fact, the best performances are by the children, who are the most believable characters in the film.This certainly isn't the best adaptation of the novel, but also not the worst.

brandonsites1981 I have never had the pleasure of reading the story or seeing the previous film adaptions from which this movie is based on which probably explains why I liked this film so much. Anyway, the story is about a nanny (Patsy Kensit) who takes charge of a household for a strange man (Julian Sands- in a brief cameo appearance) and his even stranger children who seem troubled by some unknown terror. This is a frightening film with a slow pace that actually works in favor of the film. As a result of the slow pace the terror is allowed to slowly build up to a terrifying climax. Kensit does a respectable job in the lead role.Rated R; Nudity & Sexual Situations.