CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

mckymllr I enjoyed this production very much. I don't think the frame distracted from The Master's tale at all but then I wasn't wanting a pure recreation of the original. As it was, we are left with ambiguity. I don't believe in ghosts or evil but like to suspend disbelief just to understand how it would feel. The performances were great, a credit to themselves and the director.

eddie_younis It is a great adaptation. It was the best of the two versions I have seen. It is very simple to understand and truly well made with a beautiful setting. I highly recommend it if you like a good and scary tale. Surprised why the other ratings were so low. I watched it at 6 a.m. in the morning, and it made my day. The actors are great. The ending was cool. The piano pieces in that movie were nice. The most attractive thing about this movie is simply the setting. The scary scenes were exciting and dark. I soundtrack is also great. It is a suspenseful movie which keeps you at the edge of your seat. I was very excited for the ending, and it did not disappoint me. I liked so much that I might read the book too. I think it would have been the best Christmas present in 2009.

jc-osms I first read Henry James' chilling ghost story at a young age and have seen different versions of it both on stage and film and so was very keen to see this latest version put forward by the BBC in their winter season.The key to the story, in my opinion, is the doubt on whose truth here is real. Indeed when I first read the novella in my youth, it never occurred to me that the ghosts weren't "real" and not possibly a figment of an over-emotional young woman's imagination. Re-reads and re-viewings of the piece have brought me round to this, I think, intended more ambivalent (and ultimately satisfying) interpretation so that I was disappointed that that this high-production-value version seemed to cleave so much to the former viewpoint, i.e. that the malevolent spirits were real - this evidenced by the ghosts "appearing" in the imagination, for example of the young doctor who attempts to understand and salve the troubled mind of the disturbed young governess.Another source of confusion and disappointment was the transposition of events to post-First World War England. If the lead character had been a young man, just back from and possibly their mind affected by the war, then a case for this change of context, could be argued. In every other respect though, the film plays as if in a 19th Century time-line thus throwing the narrative off-kilter. I could also have done without the sub-Lady Chatterley cavortings of both the governess in her imagination with her new employer (who, good looks apart and a self-confessed seducer of previous servants and governesses), hardly seems able to be responsible for her graphic fantasising, as well as the crudely physical liaison that the phantoms Quint and Jessell portray.The film takes this shock-Gothic outlook to extremes with scenes suggesting the actual possession of the children by their malefactors but it's all done in a very sub-"The Exorcist" way and in the end I felt it wrong to come down so conclusively on the side of the demons.The acting was mixed in quality, the children unable to portray the duality of their personalities convincingly and the actor playing Quint lacking menace entirely. However, Michelle Dockery, as the stricken governess, was convincing in both appearance and conviction, with the omnipresent Sue Johnston a sympathetic foil as the bemused house-matron.There were some scares deftly inserted along the way, punctuated effectively by well-crafted background music, but as I said earlier, the modernising of the story to include the nudity and violence depicted here, overpowered, to me anyway, the thin line between fantasy and reality that served the original book so well.A great story, lost somewhat in this particular re-telling.

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