In a Dark Place (2006)

I would have to say it here that if anything is not true itself falls looking at this film was a difficult experience i can see why so many people hated it the this does not fit into the horror or suspense genre either,its surprising that something made for critics is seen first by people i have seen this film today i got the DVD lying in my collection it was packed now i wish it was remained sealed i don't know if it direct to DVD or not but if it was theatrical release my prayers are with all the audience members i can imagine how hard it was for them to sit through this pain,it is one of the worst adaptations of the most important novella the turn of the screw by Henry James.There is a film Nicole Kidman did in 2001 i guess its way better then this,this film killed everything i mean it was going good suspense wise until it take the viewer for granted and the main character collides with itself i am talking about the character Anna it is intentionally serious for no reason why is that my i ask what was the writer thinking was it on purpose to just kill of the big buildup to the a great climax.The Plot:Anna Veigh gets a job of a nanny to handle two kids who are orphans the place she is staying is at country side soon sometime after Anna feels that the place might be haunted & might be linked to the death of her predecessors,are the children involved in it or is it her imagination the answers lies in this film.The Cast:impressive cast id loved Tara Fitzgerald & Leele Sobieski was just amazing to look at shes got a nice body and talent of good dialog delivery i wonder why she is not famous.There is a lesbian scene here and an orgasm scene here but don't let this fool you its only one minute of it this is not some soft core stuff so beware.Overall In A Dark Place 2006 should be watch alone in a jungle avoid watching this with family this will bore you out my rating is 3/10.Skipp It.

I have absolutely no idea about the original novel based on which the movie has been produced. But I can assure you that this movie independent of the work on which it has been based is a pathetically directed and scripted one. The topic under consideration is a complicated one and requires the primary cast and crew to be matured and precise about psychological responses of people under varied circumstances. The movie is a horror movie and yet there are psychological elements involved in it. The biggest failure of the movie is that it fails to do a good job in both the elements.When I am seeing a horror movie, I am ready to fore go some elements that make good cinema provided that I do really enjoy the goosebumps the movie has to throw at me. Do I really get scared when I see this movie? The answer is a plain and a simple "no". Because the visual effects are simply too lame. One does not really need a great animation studio to get the effects right. It takes sheer brilliance on part of the director to get things done right. A simple evidence of this is that we have really scary movies when there was nothing called computer animation! And that brilliance is completely lacking on part of the crew of the movie and we do not get goosebumps at all except maybe on one or two occasions.The movie is to end without any proper conclusion. It is one of those kind of movies which tell you two parallel possibilities and then leave you to decide for yourself what you want to think about the conclusion of the movie. Such movies are not bad provided that both the parallels are strongly motivating. This movie does not really do a good job in this department and at the end all we are left with is an ending that just does not excite you, enthrall you and to make matters worse, it leaves you completely dejected and heartbroken for having wasted your time on it.The central character of the movie is a disturbed character. She has been sexually assaulted back in childhood and one of the explorations of the movie is how such a person can pass on the pain to others. But the overall lack of skill on the part of the actress, the script and the failure of the director to hold it all together destroy this element of the movie and we find nothing convincing at the end of the movie. A movie can always end with a twist but it should be so strong that people are left with a feeling of "Wow" at the end of it. Nothing like that happens in this movie. It is disappointing right from the very beginning.

I don't know why they had to tap Henry James' novel, "The Turn of the Screw", to get this plot together. The writers could have knocked off a one- or two-sentence treatment: "Mad woman hires out as nanny and harasses her two young charges to death." James' story, and Jack Clayton's adaptation of it in 1963, are full of ambiguity. This version isn't.Leelee Sobieski is okay, as are the other performers. Sobieksi has the advantage of not being a star in the Hollywood sense, but an actress instead. Her figure is a little shapeless and her eyes, with all that black liner, too close together, and in this wintry English setting, her pallor against the snow gives her face the appearance of a charcoal sketch. She's the kind of woman a discerning man might find himself staring idly at, while standing next to her in the supermarket checkout line, and slowly realizing -- "Gee, she ain't too homely." Her beauty is insinuating, and she's quite good in the role. The problem isn't with her, it's with the script.Tara Fitzgerald as Mrs. Grose has a tough job -- projecting sensuality undercut by a touch of the sinister. The two kids are alright, but they are, after all, kids.But never mind all that. The screenplay and direction bungle the task. Where to begin. The direction has a lot of arty touches, none of them original. Three figures in black silhouette skip along the top of a snowbank against a washed-out winter sky. Lots of cross-cutting during critical scenes. Intrusive flashbacks to Sobieski's youth, incomprehensible much of the time. (Okay, she's suddenly a little girl oscillating on a park swing and she looks back over her shoulder and smiles at the camera and -- wham -- we're back in the present.) These arty effects -- done with accomplished camera work, though -- deteriorate quickly into every cliché from the horror movie script guide. Guttural, animal sounds in the middle of the night, coming from nowhere. An intense electrical storm in the midst of winter, straight out of a B horror movie. Shock cuts accompanied by stings on the sound track. Before the movie is half over, Sobieski is already creeping around holding a butcher knife. Child abuse is hinted at. Lesbianism is shown. Graphic but brief nudity. (Too brief. A little gratuitous sex might have helped.) The monster's POV shots, where there be no monster.My attitude may be warped because Clayton's "The Innocents" was superb. It stuck pretty close to Henry James. James' Mrs. Grose was not the dominatrix she is here; she was an unimaginative old housekeeper. There is absolutely nothing in this version to compare with the scene in the garden in Clayton's movie, in which Deborah Kerr and the child watch a repugnant black beetle crawl out of the mouth of a marble cherub. Out of the mouths of babes! But not here. If Deborah Kerr as the governess may have been slightly delusional, perhaps prompted by her attraction to her dismissive employer, Leelee Sobieski is frankly loco. In the earlier movie Kerr first merely senses the two ghosts -- Quint and Miss Jessel -- and then glimpses them from afar. The closest Kerr comes is when she enters an elongated empty classroom and thinks she sees Miss Jessel weeping over the desk at the other end. Miss Jessel disappears as Kerr approaches, but Kerr finds a fresh teardrop on the desk. The "evil" that the ghosts represent is never made clear. Here, it's the sexual abuse of children. Ho hum.I don't know why they bother to remake films that were so good in their original form. I really don't. How about a remake of "Citizen Kane" with Tom Cruise? No? "Gone With the Wind" with Keanu Reeves and Brittany Spears? I've got it -- "On the Waterfront" with Rob Lowe and Paris Hilton.

"In A Dark Place" is a somewhat slow and boring horror drama with a few good moments.**SPOILERS**Fired from a teaching job, Anna Veigh, (Leelee Sobieski) is offered a babysitting gig and eventually takes the position. Brought by assistant Mrs. Grose, (Tara Fitzgerald) to the house, she meets her charges Miles, (Christian Olson) and Flora, (Gabrielle Adam) and is soon tending to their problems as a full-time nanny. When she starts to suspect that something is amiss with them, she decides to learn about the history of the position, and realizes that there's a violent history involving the ghosts of previous residents of the house haunting the grounds and targeting the children. Taking matters into her own hands, she tries to prevent the same thing which happened to them from repeating itself with the children.The Good News: This one didn't have a whole lot to really get excited about. One of the most memorable aspects of the film is it's lesbian relationship, even though there isn't much of that going on. The one sequence where one of them writes in agony in a flowery shirt is nice, and the one sequence where they give in to the temptation and it goes for a mild sex scene is the real highlight, offering up a lot of good points to really serve it well. Some of the haunting scenes are actually good, mainly the ones coming at the end. The fact that they all occur in the frosty winter-land is a little chilling, giving it a nice atmosphere due to the stripped, dead trees reaching out to their victims. It's quite impressive and eerie altogether. The other plus is that they're used in conjunction with the ghostly hauntings, all of in the distance and making them seem even creepier. The last good point is the really nice chase at the end. The stalking in the house is pure gold, lasting much longer than normal and going out to really get a lot going for it. Then it moves out into the wintery forest, which is always great and it's combined into a spectacular conclusion. These here are all that really work for the film.The Bad News: This was an all-together huge missed opportunity for something decent. One of the biggest problems is that the supernatural hauntings are nowhere near center-stage in this, making the drama the real focus of the action. There's very little, if anything at all, in the beginning which is all that great, or even entertaining, centering around the efforts to understand the children. That's not a wholly entertaining avenue to explore in this, especially once it starts dominating and nothing at all really happens, and when they do happen, it's usually a quick-cut sequence that isn't followed up on, rendering it of no importance other than a cheap-jump gag or is written off as hallucinations, which is really a shame since the hide-and-seek game played is rather cheapened of a great, genuine thrill by it's lame revelation. Other scenes are also hurt by this, and it really hurts the film altogether. Another missed opportunity comes from the weakened lesbian angle. Not enough nudity is really shown outside of one sequence, and with a coupler bathing scenes, a make-out fondling and a couple dressing scenes all offering up nothing, all coming off as teasing rather than anything else and coming up as plain irritating. The main missed opportunity with the ghostly haunting also manages to slow the film's momentum down, really making the beginning quite boring, especially with the fact that it's more or less an unnamed remake of a classic in the genre, only with a few minor changes. It's quite easy to pick up on the references, to the manner of job acquisition to the antics between the two to the school problems and much, much more, really taking a large piece with it. The last flaw is the film's rather misused house. This could've been a really creepy, old-style house with modern twists that really could've been a creepy and unsettling place, but is shot all the wrong way and really does the film a huge disservice. These here are the film's flaws.The Final Verdict: With a couple of good parts and some really big flaws, this one is a really big disappointment when it could've been worthwhile. Really only give this a chance if you're a huge fan of the style or those who like the creative side, while those who want some action in their films should heed caution.Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence, Nudity and a mild sex scene