movieman_kev Flora and Miles have a new governess in the slightly mental, Anna Veigh (Leelee Sobieski) whom gets quite obsessed about the 'wellfare' of the children and the mysteries surrounding the previous governess. Truth be told, her frequent nightmares don't seem to help matters. This overtly sexualized rendition of 'Turn of the Screw" ranks among the bottom amongst all the numerous adaptations of the story, yet it has two things going for it and both lay underneath Miss Sobieski's magnificent bathrobe, who needs acting talent? (That was rhetorical by the way)My Grade: D

mario_c Assumedly an adaptation from the XIX century novella "The Turn of the Screw", written by Henry James, this film IN A DARK PLACE is a modern view of that story. I must confess I hadn't heard about this novel before watch this film but as far as I could read on many texts on the Internet the movie really seems to follow the main plot lines of the original novella, with just some contextual and modern adjustments. However there's a subplot about child abuse in the film that I suppose to not exist in the Henry James' story. As far I as learned the main topic of the Gothic novel are the ghosts, not being clear, though, if they really exist or if they just dwell in the governess mind. About the original novel it seems to still the doubt (and the discussion!) if it's a straight ghost story or a murder story with a lunatic, and mentally deranged, governess. This ambiguity is a bit lost in the movie because the director seems to choose one side, when he increases this subplot about the abuses. I think he clearly induces the viewer to think the governess is insane, and even provides her an alibi: her own anguish caused by the abuses she suffered. So, in this movie, the ghosts really seem to exist only in her mind... I read somewhere that even the title of the movie is an allusion to that, as if "the dark place" was after all her mind! About the movie itself and its production I think it has good and bad features: Good: - The music score; the dream and/or hallucination scenes; the seductive and mysterious atmosphere, the setting, the acting from Tara Fitzgerald and from both kids; the ending. Bad: - The clichéd and old-fashioned whispering voices (at parts they are even ridiculous)!; the ghosts' make up (it seems to be taken from a B-series zombies movie)!; the acting from Leelee Sobieski (it's very inconstant, if she does good scenes, with a nice acting, in others she's terrible. But I must say she's grown as a woman!:); some suspense scenes, which could have been done better.

mindcat After reading many of the comments and poor ratings of this flick, by some here, I conclude a mature motion picture as this wasted upon you. A pearl before swines.First the director himself states in the DVD release this is NOT a remake of the Turning of The Screw, and further he is not a fan of horror flicks, as he says, disturbing things happen everyday in real life.And so it is Anna Veigh, a sexually molested and tortured child attempts to help other children so molested by becoming an art therapist. However, she is pawed over and fired by an old school master who in attempt to keep her quiet, finds her a new position as a Nanny with a boy and girl who have been orphaned and now are the charges of their wealthy uncle. The uncle would rather be totally free of the responsibility.The drama unfolds quietly and with a smoldering subtlety that only true drama and mystery lover could appreciate. Sorry kids no bug eyed monsters, disappointed? And no this isn't a female sex flesh flick as some lechers had hoped.It concerns a metaphor and secrets. Each character has a secret and slowly the viewer pieces the parts together.It is assumed Miss Veigh is in fact, losing her mind and imagining dangers and ghosts.She in fact confronts her own molestation and rape as a child, time and again. She like the children is haunted. It appears the previous Nanny, a Miss Jessel and her lover Peter Quint (names borrowed from the James novel), were lovers. It also appears they included the children in their sexual games and haunted them as Miss Veigh is haunted by her childhood molestations.I very much enjoyed the frank and tasteful nudity, the lesbian scenes.The property manager Miss Gross, portrayed elegantly by Tara Fitzgerald, had been in love with Miss Jessel and also courts Miss Veigh.The words, " its not working out" precede each sexual exploitation of the Anna Veigh. Indeed, Miles and Floras seem possessed by the old perverted team, Miss Jessel and Peter Quint.Both Flora and Miles have symptoms very often associated with children who have been sexually abused.The end is very sad and unless your understand what is going on you'll miss it. Why is Miles running from Miss Veigh? Could it be when he blows the candle out he again is sexually exploited? Flora sleeps with her new Nanny and cryptically says, " Do anything YOU like."The last scenes are metaphors for sexually abused children who want to die and feel dirty, responsible for the abuse they received.This is a misunderstood masterpiece. I hope the child actors, didn't quite grasp what it was really all about.See it and try to understand what the director is attempting to put across. Most here are clueless about this flick.

Dragoneyed363 I was walking past In A Dark Place one day at a rental store and I saw Leelee Sobieski on the cover of the film. It looked something similar to recent movies such as The Return and The Grudge, which I thought both of those films were very satisfying, even though this ended up being nothing like them really, so I decided to give this movie a try.At first, it looked really cool, when I put it in that is. The first near hour or so were fine, just fine, nothing special, but I was enjoying the build up and performances to an extent. Then, it took a turn for the worst. Everything started going horribly wrong and as the film dragged on I became more depressed, and more depressed with how the outcome of the film was turning out. The storyline just gets so ridiculously poor and overrated, and everything they had built up with mildly entertaining values were thrown out the window near the end of the film. Why, how, Leelee, I thought you were great! What made you take part in this movie when you saw how the character development is demolished in the last half hour, or did you even notice? Sure, there was some stuff I found in the movie that was entertaining, I have already stated that, but I felt as if my insides were going to explode from how horrible the last half hour of the film was and how horrifically boring and inane Sobieski and everyone elses' character became. If you love Leelee Sobieski enough, avoid this movie, because I really was expecting more from her and the movie itself seeing as how I enjoy her as an actress. I'm sure her heart will thank you if you don't watch this, for now every time she hears about her role in this film, as often as that probably isn't, I bet she falls to the ground and bursts into tears. . .