THE TURN OF THE SCREW is, of course, another version of the classic ghost story written by American author Henry James. This one is produced by Dan Curtis as one of the many TV movie adaptations of classic horror literature that he turned out, and the screenplay was by sci-fi writer William F. Nolan. It's very different in tone to the classic film version of the story, THE INNOCENTS, but no less interesting. Lynn Redgrave plays the repressed nanny who becomes to believe that there's something very wrong about the children in her care. The cast do a fine job here, particularly the child actors for whom the material must have been different, and there's an appropriate atmosphere of regret and nostalgia which sees film through some of the slower moments. Redgrave does worried very well, and for once the low key nature of the production works.

This version of Henry James' novel of the same name was directed by Dan Curtis--the same guy who brought us the TV show "Dark Shadows". During the 60s and 70s, Curtis was responsible for several exceptional made for TV horror movies--including ones about Frankenstein, Dracula and Dr. Jekyll. "The Turn of the Screw" is one of his lesser-known horror tales. And, like these others, it's exceptional and well worth seeing. And, when I checked IMDb, I noticed that there have been TONS of other versions of the story--including the 1961 film "The Innocents".The story is told from the governess' (Lynn Redgrave) viewpoint and she narrates the film as well. She is given the job of looking after the niece and nephew of a man who has absolutely no interest in them--and he even tells the governess that! When she goes to this house in the country, she finds that the little girl is very sweet and all seems well. Soon the boy is expelled from school and the governess decides to keep him there and teach him herself. However, it's odd the school never explained WHY he was expelled and the teen never discusses it either. Still, everything seems pretty normal. But, over time, the governess begins seeing apparitions--ghosts of the old governess and master of the house. She learns that the pair are dead--and it CAN'T be them she keeps seeing. But, she also notices that the more the spirits appear, the more vile and bizarre the children's' behavior--particularly the boy. What eventually follows is a struggle between the governess and the ghosts for possession of the children. Who is to win? The best thing about the film isn't the plot (which isn't bad), but the very creepy mood that Curtis is able to create. The slow brooding pace works well and I was impressed that the story was very close to the original story. A very creepy horror story--one that is well worth your time. Also, there's a nice featurette on the DVD--featuring interviews with Lynn Redgrave and Dan Curtis. Very interesting and I recommend you see it as well.

*** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ***Perhaps its unfair to rate and comment on this as I haven't seen this since its original release some thirty years ago. However I remember being very affected by it, so much so that it sent me to the novella with which I promptly became somewhat obsessed. From what I recall (Quint was very vivid, as was Miles), however, I believe this is probably a heavy-handed version of the great James story, which is tremendously ambiguous and designed (as James himself said) "to catch those not easily caught." James wrote an unconventional "ghost/horror" story using the motif of the supernatural to drive his point home. I distinctly remember the very dramatic ending of this Redgrave version (note: her father Michael appeared as the Uncle in The Innocents), it is not about possession or spirits at all. That is far too literal and misses James' meaning entirely. That said, I believe The Innocents, another version mentioned by other reviewers, released in 1961 starring Deborah Kerr, is a more faithful adaptation, but still too heavy-handed in the depiction of the children and what is (or is not) happening. Good as Kerr is, she is too old for the role and brings her own natural elegance and poise which is in stark contrast to the governess's increasing, hyper-paranoia. So while I will always be grateful for this Dan Curtis version which impressed me so much as a kid (and why I rate it a 6), it led me to Henry James and the hope that someday someone will make a proper adaptation of a truly chilling tale.

******Spoiler Alert ******** Actually, I think the previous reviewer misunderstood the end of the movie. Young Miles became possessed by the spirit of the older man. He was not acting as Miles any longer. He was acting as an adult. Young Miles had never been brazen enough to drink brandy in front of his governess before. That was an obvious indication that he was possessed by the spirit. Therefore the double meaning of "Turn of the Screw" is quite appropriate.This movie was never really horrifying to me. It was quite creepy and mildly amusing. It's an enjoyable evening if you like movies set in the Elizabethan period. Watching it during a thunder storm enhances the creepiness.