MartinHafer I have recently seen several versions of this tale by Henry James. And, being a glutton for punishment, I thought I'd see a few others so I can compare them (such as "The Innocents" and the 1974 and 1992 versions which bear the original story's title). Now I am NOT saying it's a bad story--it's quite good--but most folks don't want to see and compare the stories like this. I am doing it as a public service and because I am a solid humanitarian (well, maybe not).A governess is hired by an odd man to care for his orphaned nephew and nice. However, he has a bizarre demand--that she never contact him or expect him to have any involvement with the kids! Nice, huh? Well, she travels to one of his homes where the niece lives. The governess is surprised to see that the home is huge and quite gorgeous--and the child a sweet little thing. Life seems ideal at this home.A bit later, the nephew is sent home from his boarding school and the governess is informed he cannot return--but they never disclose in any way why. It's odd, as the boy seems exceptionally well behaved and bright. And, for some time life is swell. However, occasionally, the governess sees people--people no one else seems to see. While you'd assume she's either crazy or overreacting, her descriptions of the two figures are consistent with two members of the staff who are now dead! She assumes she's seeing ghosts--and she assumes the ghost mean to do the children harm. How she comes up with this is unknown--and opens the story up to some interpretation. In this 1999 version, the filmmakers seem to STRONGLY imply that the governess is probably insane and/or suffering from religious delusions. She might seem in this version to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or is just very uptight and impressionable--but you aren't sure. This is interesting because in most of the other versions I've seen make it seem as if there really are ghosts and the governess isn't necessarily insane. Either interpretation is possible--as in James' novel this wasn't explicit. And, in the end, what happens to the boy is NOT exactly what happens in other versions. Again, because they seem to be implying the governess is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.This made for TV version has very nice location shooting and music. However, if you are looking to get your fill of Colin Firth (for all you Firth-a-holics), you will be sadly mistaken, as he's ONLY in the opening scene and no more. And, I appreciate it emphasizing an atypical interpretation of the tale, as MANY stories have been done about it--and it's nice to see something a bit different. Well worth seeing--particularly if you are looking for a psychological picture as opposed to a supernatural story.

Framescourer A wonderful screen adaptation of Henry James ghost story. There are a fair few versions of the story both direct and oblique (a recent, successful version was The Others with Nicole Kidman). This film manages capably the understated, romantic sweep and lyricism in Henry James prose with the shocks and insidiousness that are also hidden within.Colin Firth, who was something of a superstar at the time, may only appear briefly as a mature Byronic patriarch at the beginning but it's all he needs to give the whole enterprise a sense of privation, melancholy and sexual charge. Consequently there's always the possibility that the Governess ('Miss' in this version) is projecting her own sexual longing into spaces rather than actually seeing sexually malign spectres. Johdi May nurtures this potential but in a straightforward performance of power without melodrama. It's all pretty creepy and engrossing. 7/10

irish23 I read "Turn of the Screw" over 20 years ago but I recall that it struck me as dead boring. I watched this adaptation in the hopes the story would grow on me over the years. Alas! The film has lovely sets, costumes, and music. It occasionally has decent acting. But overall it can be watched on fast-forward most of the time and not lose anything. Perhaps it relies on the idea that viewers will be so familiar with James' story that dialogue and even (gasp) exposition might be necessary to flesh things out a bit. I learned more from reading the viewer comments here than I did from watching the film.Poor Jodhi May must have drunk gallons of water during filming, since she seems to spend about 50% of her on screen time with eyes bulging and her mouth hanging open. Her descent into madness is believably gradual, but her Victorian ideas of purity and evil seem to leap from nowhere. Her character desperately needed context in order to be more clear.I saw "The Innocents" with Deborah Kerr a few years ago and it was genuinely creepy. This Masterpiece Theatre production lacked Innocents' clarity of narrative and commitment to interpretation. Instead, it wandered through far too many long shots, pan shots, and crane shots across an English country estate. And the ending was completely anti-climactic, with May's emotional level the same as it had been throughout most of the rest of the film, when instead it should have been leaping off the screen.Three stars for pretty pictures and occasional acting; minus seven stars for poor script, vision, and direction.

Benny_L I enjoyed to see the young womans convincing efforts to protect and take care of the children. She was very focussed, both the movie character and the actress.The clear and precise english language added extra value to the movie.