Customer Reviews

In a Dark Place

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

Anna Veigh (Leelee Sobieski) is not cutting it as an art teacher in a city school, so she ends up getting a job as a nanny looking after two children in a remote countryside estate. Flora (Gabrielle Adam) and Miles (Christian Olson) lost their parents in a car accident and are now living with their uncle, who is away on a trip in Europe. Running the estate is Ms. Grose (Tara Fitzgerald), who wears formal wear to Anna's first dinner. Anna likes the kids, but then she starts seeing things and bit by bit she starts to discover what the hell is going on there. If the whole thing smacks of a Victorian era horror story, then you are on the right track, which is more than can be said for this 2006 film from first-time director Donato Rotunno.

This movie depends on Sobieski to carry the load and frankly she is not up to it for most of the film, alternating between frowning and blank stares as her character tries to puzzle things out. In her relationships with the children she does have a few moments where she connects, but her interactions with Ms. Grose are pretty bad. Anna might be the only person who does not pick up that Ms. Grose is a lesbian, but her admission of admiration for the housekeeper is quite painful and Anna's open-eyed blank stares during their brief lesbian encounter are much more confusing than revealing about her character. Her best scene is the last one and the ending was rather effective, which surprised me because I was totally prepared to give "In a Dark Place" an even lower rating until the final scene. But the surprisingly successful ending cannot totally reverse the downward spiral of this film.

I was also bothered by Sobieski's persistent near nudity, what with a couple of baths and a propensity to let her robe hang open, especially when standing in a window. One such scene would be one thing, but throw in everything we get in this film and suddenly I want to complain about the novel notion of gratuitous near nudity. Despite the brief "love" scene, Anna is neither a sexual nor a sensuous character, and for good reason given what we see and learn about her in the film, so every time the film ventures in that direction you have to wonder why. Maybe the idea is for us to stop thinking of the 24-year-old Sobieski as a child actress (or a young Helen Hunt), but her performance in this film would lead me to conclude that she is cannot carry a movie by herself as an actress.

"In a Dark Place" starts off by having the names of the two main actresses before the film's title and then dispenses with the rest of the credits because if they had told you up top what literary work was being adapted here that would give pretty much the whole game away. Instead, the credit comes up at the end and you go, "Duh, of course" (and if you decide to see this movie then the least I can do is to preserve that moment for your enjoyment, such as it might be). In the "making of" featurette the director talks about how he tried to sell the film as a new idea rather than as an adaptation, which might speak to the ignorance of Hollywood producers when it comes to knowing literature (not that making the same movie over and over again has never bothered tinsel town). Cinematographer Jean-Francois Hensgen gives the film a nice look and the original music by first-time composer Adam Pendse helps, but Rotunno could have overcome some of the weakness of Sobieski's performance by picking up the pacing in the long set-up of the film before things pick up at the end.

Hollywood is fond of updating classic tales: Shakespeare is the author most often reconfigured, at times with great success, at times not. The intellectually stimulating works of Henry James have been brought to the screen and making visual the inherently cerebral stories come to life. Such, sadly, is not the case for IN A DARK PLACE, a warping and distorted 'update' of one of the finest ghost stories ever written - James' 1898 TURN OF THE SCREW. Screenwriter Peter Waddington adapted the story to place in our faces fully realized interpretations of what James used as suggestion: James realized that the reader's mind could infuse his story with personal demons that would replace the need for detailed description.

Cases in point: the Governess is here an art teacher given a name, Anna Veigh; the occult sexual overtones of the story are played out in full view leaving little to the frightening aspects of James' intentions; the concentration of the story on the governess' mental fragility is forced into clichés and placed in the hands of an actress unable to be subtle; the 'interiority' of the mansion is replaced by equal time outside on the snowy grounds (opening up the story, so they say), etc.

The story is well known, having been adapted successfully before by television, movies, and opera (Benjamin Britten's immensely well written opera TURN OF THE SCREW). Anna Veigh (Leelee Sobieski) is the art therapist turned governess who upon losing her job is hired to care for the children Flora (Gabrielle Adam) and Miles (Christian Olson) in a now deserted mansion whose only other occupant is the secretary/estate manager Ms. Grose (Tara Fitzgerald). Soon enough Anna discovers that the previous governess Miss Jessel (another art therapist who was three months pregnant) was found dead in the lake, and that the prior male butler Peter Quint hanged himself. Anna alone begins to see the ghosts of these newly departed servants, and when she explores the reasons with Ms. Grose we discover the Ms. Grose was in love with Miss Jessel and hated Peter Quint. Anna is frequently visited by nightmares of her own sexual abuse as a young girl and transfers these fears onto Flora and Miles, feeling that they were similarly abused - an explanation for their bizarre behavior patterns. Ms. Grose acts out her sexuality with Anna, confusing Anna even more, and stressing her vulnerable psyche into thinking she can exorcise the demons of the house. And the ending will surprise us all!

Director Donato Rotunno needs to re-read the James novella and rely on the audience's intelligence more than to alter the story to become faddist and frank instead of subtle and suspenseful. A major problem with the casting is the far too frequently physically exposed Leelee Sobieski: it feels as though she is reading her rather pedestrian lines from a cue card off camera. It is a sad imitation of the governess. Tara Fitzgerald's Ms. Grose is not the obese, matronly of the original, but instead a very svelte and seductive woman: she succeeds in creating a credible alternative figure very well. The setting and photography are fine, but the musical score by Adam Pendse is a pedestrian mix of incongruous styles. In short, if you are a fan of Henry James, avoid this sloppy work. But then, if Leelee Sobieski is a favorite, then you see more of her as a grown woman than you probably will ever see again! Not Recommended. Grady Harp, August 07

I LOVE Leelee, I think she's great, this film however was a stinker. I was hoping for a good scare, but all I got was confused. Although well acted, the story was boring and weird

I thought the movie was pretty good, not the best but it had it's moments. It's not really scary like you think it would be but rather it a movie the you have to look deeper into. Perhaps it's not for people who can't analyze a movie.

As for Leelee's performance, I've always liked her as an actress, perhaps she couldn't mesh with the other actors. I still think she did a good job.

Overall, I'd say you could at least give the movie a try. If you don't like it, then maybe this genre isn't for you.

I read the reviews and despite some of the negatives I decided to give it a try. I really wish I hadn't. It took a very very long time before anything even remotely interesting happened. This wasn't so much a ghost story as a story about psychosis and abuse, poorly told at that. It was absolutely dismal as far as entertainment value. Not scary at all. Not interesting at all. Just lame. the only halfway entertaining bit is getting a few glimpses of leelees almost nekkid body, girls got it going on...but even then a rip off, no actual nudity on leelee's part.

It is weird as to why they would hire someone to look after the kids when Ms. Grose is there 24/7. Honestly I will not knock on Leelee's performance because the script itself is questionable more than the actress'.

I did not expect Ms. Grose to be a lesbian it was a twist. Also since when do people complain about a girls showing too much of nothing? Leelee wore some skintastic outfits which revealed her lovely body, however she still remained covered which should satisfy both type of audiences.

The description made the movie seem more interesting than what it really was. I stil enjoyed it, Leelee's performance wasn't all that great to carry the film, but her looks did it for me. She tried the best she could considering the script she had.

This movie has much potential. A usable plotline (a young woman is hired to take care of kids who are plagued by evil spirits) with a capable cast (Leelee Sobieski is, in my opinion, an underrated actress) as well as a decent atmosphere (an isolated home in the dead of winter) should lead to a good movie. Am I right? Well unfortunately, in this instance I was wrong.

The biggest fault for this movie is that it is just too dang slow. Even though it runs about 100 minutes, which is average for a movie, I sincerely thought that two hours had passed by the middle mark. I can easily divide up the movie's different kinds of scenes in this manner:

30% - Leelee Sobieski walking down a hallway
30% - Leelee Sobieski taking a bath
30% - "Ghost" characters just standing around trying to appear ominous
10% - Plot development

I almost fell asleep a few times during the middle part of the film, and felt really guilty when the highlight of the film is the lesbian kissing scene between Sobieski and fellow actress Tara Fitzgerald. It's not that I'm a pervert (I actually don't get the lesbian fetish) but by the time that scene occurs you're just BEGGING for SOMETHING to happen - no doubt the filmmakers put in that scene as fanservice for the viewers. There's very little development, and much of it feels like a mobius strip of what I've listed before. Whenever plot elements are introduced they're not entirely exciting nor unexpected, and there's never that "wow" moment needed to make us interested in what happens next.

Then comes the ending. I won't give anything away, but it will leave you thinking the same thing I did, which was along the lines of:

"...what?! That was it?! That was what I waited 100 agonizing minutes for?!"

At the risk of sounding like a video game reviewer, "In a Dark Place" is a fitting title for this movie, because that's exactly where it belongs. I felt sorry for the cast being wasted in such a trivial piece of cinema. Don't bother - not scary, not entertaining, not worth your time.

It was intense at times but overall the movie boring as it dragged on. It made little sence until the terrible ending. The flashbacks made no sence untill later but it would have been a little better without them.

A previous reviewer wrote:
"I was also bothered by Sobieski's persistent near nudity"....
hmmm..

I thought the movie was quite interesting, and I cannot imagine ever saying something like this.
Thanks

This take on Henry James' classic TURN OF THE SCREW pales in comparison to 1961's THE INNOCENTS which featured an astounding performance from the late Deborah Kerr. This update lacks the sense of doom of that version, and LeeLee Sobieski is far from Kerr's league.
This version brings the story into modern times and features the requisite lesbian love scene, which in my opinion, is turning up too much in our modern horror movies. There also isn't enough focus on the children's relationship with Quint and Miss Jessel and the ending lacks the dynamic impact of the INNOCENTS. Remaining still is the question: are there really ghosts or is the governess just batty? Stick to the INNOCENTS--it's a far better ghost story.