In a Dark Place (2006) Reviews

• Unsuccessful Attempt to Update Henry James' Classic Novella

  gradyharp2007-08-18

  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

• I'm not sure about this befuddled effort…

  darkangel_52007-01-26

  On one hand, In a Dark Place provides an interesting, if turgid, psychological drama. I hesitate to call it either horror or a thriller, because it really is neither. Additionally, the story is terrifically delicate; its tendrils are woven through events with such skill that it is easy to miss the significance of what's going on. The watcher is also pelted with a hundred herrings and MacGuffins until the drama becomes indistinct. Also, the role of Anna Veigh was miscast with Leelee Sobieski. The part called for someone really talented, delicate, and passionate. Her look was right (exotic), except for her height. It was weird to see her clopping around towering over everyone else. She just seemed blurry and clumsy, like she was constantly confused about what was going on. Tara Fitzgerald, however, was perfek! She smoldered and sizzled her way through every frame. It really is a pity that the screen chemistry between Leelee and Tara was a wreck. That alone could've carried the script. The sexual tension between Tara & Leelee's character builds for what seems an excessive amount of time. We wait. We want it. Tara boots us back into line several times. Then, when we've been teased long enough…they kiss…and Leelee blows it by looking like she's either going to blow up a balloon or hurl. (You could "hear" her going "EEEEK!" by her body movements.) That moment stuck a dagger through the heart of the movie. It drifted slowly below the icy water after that. As for the children, I normally dislike really young actors and actresses as they are usually wooden as an oak post or overact like Shatner or Montalban on crystal meth. Christian Olson stumbles a little, but Gabrielle Adam is flawless. She has great screen presence and she should keep acting, 'cause she's a natural. Moving on, the scenery and colors are absolutely gorgeous contrasts of warm creams and browns of the manor contrasted with cold snowy fields, forests, and an icy lake. Eye popping. It's a pity, then, that the cinematography falls down. It is shot with a slightly eerie mood, to the point that the light is almost green/blue at times, while the camera work is shaky with odd and unpleasant camera angles. It doesn't work. Ultimately, I think audiences will be disappointed when they think they're seeing a horror movie or ghost story which is in fact an excruciatingly slow psychological thriller with two disappointments waiting…failed sensuality and an aggravatingly fuzzy ending. It's a shame too, this movie could've been *so* much better. 4/10.

• Another Unnecessary Remake

  claudio_carvalho2007-11-02

  The disturbed arts teacher Anna Veigh (Leelee Sobieski) is hired by the busy Mr. Laing (Jonathan Fox), the tutor of the orphan siblings Flora (Gabrielle Adam) and her brother Miles (Christian Olson), to work as governess and raise the children in their huge mansion in Bly with the support of his secretary Ms. Grose (Tara Fitzgerald). Sooner, Anna believes that the ghosts of the former governess Miss Jessel and housekeeper Peter Quint are in the property haunting the children, and she decides to help them to face the spirits and get their souls free. "In a Dark Place" is an unsuccessful update and unnecessary remake of the classic ghost story "The Innocents". In the original movie, Debora Kerr magnificently performed an ambiguous character while in this remake Leelee Sobieski visibly performs a deranged woman, spoiling the fantastic ambiguity of the original screenplay. If the viewer has not seen "The Innocents", he or she may like "In the Dark Place"; but for those like me that saw the other film, "In a Dark Place" ruins the mysterious atmosphere of the story. My vote is five. Title (Brazil): "Lugares Escuros" ("Dark Places")

• Poor Screenplay, Poor Direction, Poor Effects!

  KillerLord2009-05-19

  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.

• Leelee Sobieski, how could you?

  Dragoneyed3632008-05-20

  I was walking past In A Dark Place one day at a rental store and I saw Leelee Sobieski on the cover of the film. It looked something similar to recent movies such as The Return and The Grudge, which I thought both of those films were very satisfying, even though this ended up being nothing like them really, so I decided to give this movie a try. At first, it looked really cool, when I put it in that is. The first near hour or so were fine, just fine, nothing special, but I was enjoying the build up and performances to an extent. Then, it took a turn for the worst. Everything started going horribly wrong and as the film dragged on I became more depressed, and more depressed with how the outcome of the film was turning out. The storyline just gets so ridiculously poor and overrated, and everything they had built up with mildly entertaining values were thrown out the window near the end of the film. Why, how, Leelee, I thought you were great! What made you take part in this movie when you saw how the character development is demolished in the last half hour, or did you even notice? Sure, there was some stuff I found in the movie that was entertaining, I have already stated that, but I felt as if my insides were going to explode from how horrible the last half hour of the film was and how horrifically boring and inane Sobieski and everyone elses' character became. If you love Leelee Sobieski enough, avoid this movie, because I really was expecting more from her and the movie itself seeing as how I enjoy her as an actress. I'm sure her heart will thank you if you don't watch this, for now every time she hears about her role in this film, as often as that probably isn't, I bet she falls to the ground and bursts into tears. . .