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

I've heard that the book this film is based on is quite good, although you'd never know it from this screen translation. The movie itself is quite terrible in the way it's delivered. It is the type of film that doesn't tell you everything, and wants the viewer to decide what really happened. However this isn't directed with the skill of a Kubrick or a Bergman, nor is this version written well for the screen, so really the film just leaves you going, "What the ****?". Not even really caring much what happened, nor leaving you with interesting ideas of what may have happened. It's just crap really. The story here is an ugly toad covered in warts, as for the princess. Enter Leelee Sobieski who is the one and only reason to watch this confused effort. If you are a lesbian or a male who likes Leelee, then this will satisfy. Otherwise run from this dark place. To me, Leelee was well worth the watch. In fact I couldn't stop watching her, despite the ridiculousness of the story. Leelee's voluptuous body in itself is a feature presentation well worth the price of admission. Cleavage and curves galore, this is the only film in existence that I can think of where a woman's body completely steals the film, and alone makes it worth while. That is truly the way I felt though. The film's story is laughably stupid, however Leelee's body is nothing short of a masterpiece. And so...the princess saves an ugly toad.7/10

I have to say probably the worst film i have watched in years. The story was viable but the editing,production and watch ability were nothing short of Diabolical. I was really shocked by the quality of actors like Tara Fitzgerald would even consider being in this failed experiment of a movie but times are hard i suppose. If anyone has considered watching this please don't waist 90 minutes of your life because you will never get them back. Overall a disaster of a movie which if made correctly and the right editing could have been enjoyable,but this was nothing more than a washout. I advise not to waste your time.

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.