1/5 Worst Version Film Version of a Classic Story
  by Sean Mccambridge (Evansville, IN United States)
I have seen many versions of Henry James' Turn of the Screw, and I have to say this is the worst. The acting is terrible and reminiscent of a Lifetime movie The director seems to miss the entire point of the original story, he takes away any hint of a spooky ambiance and replaces it with a poor allegory for child abuse, which didn't really work. In the special features the director mentioned that he never read the story and didn't care to, perhaps he should ha rethought that. If you want to see a good, spooky version of this story I recommend watching The Innocents or even The Haunting of Helen Walker. stay away from this one.

1/5 Disappointing at best
  by Coloratura (USA)
"In a Dark Place" could have been so much more that it was, but as it is, this movie falls flat. The basic story comes from Henry James' novella "The Turn of the Screw", and had the director not gone out of his way to feign ignorance over it, this modern re-telling could have been quite good. (In the bonus features "Making of..." vignette, the director begins by vehemently defending his decision NOT to have read the story, watched any other movie based upon it, or the opera by Benjamin Britten. It smacks of arrogance and partly explains the convoluted mess he made of the movie.)

Like many of the other reviewers here, I agree that Ms. Sobieski's near-nudity did nothing to enhance the story and seemed gratuitous and embarrassing, as did the violin-playing masturbation scene by Tara Fitzgerald. The sexual overtones between the Governess (Sobieski) and Mrs. Gross (Fitzgerald) would have actually been a compelling means of "updating" James' Victorian thriller had they been more ambiguous. The beauty of the original story lies in its refusal to be "pinned down" to one solution. The writers of this movie try too hard to explain and resolve the ambiguities and succeed at neither.

Readers of "The Turn of the Screw" leave the book with many unanswered questions, as do those who watch this movie; the questions, however, are not the same. If you read the book, you might ask "Were the "ghosts" real, or was she crazy?", but if you watch this movie, you're likely to ask yourself "Can I get my hour and forty minutes back?"

2/5 The place where the sun don't shine?
  by TrezKu13 (Norfolk, VA)
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.

3/5 Wanted to like it..
  by K-cee Kit (Va, USA)
I really wanted to like this movie it had potential but it just fell flat... nothing else to add lol it's a disappointing flick.

1/5 Waste of time
  by Hug Monkey (USA)
I'm glad I did not buy this movie or pay to rent it. It was a waste of time. We were trying to figure out what the heck was happening the whole time. It had potential to be a great movie, but there were too many ways to "guess" what was supposed to be happening. Nothing was answered. I can understand some movies leave you hanging a little, but at least they do with clearer ways to decide for yourself how you think it ended. Not this movie. It's like the writter couldnt make up his mind. I think I would like to read the book now just to see if it made more sense than this movie. Dont waste your time or money on the movie though.