3/10
Confused rewrite missing the point of the original
18 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The original story describes the horror when the supernatural breaks out of the confines of abstract theory and scornful dismissal into a very real manifestation. The sense of growing dread which begins with the question carved into the whistle is conveyed brilliantly in Jonathan Miller's version.

Not so in this version. Despite sharing many of the elements of the original, with a superb actor in John Hurt and with a far superior budget, this production can only be seen as a confused mess.

There is no whistle, just a ring. The whistle is critical for summoning this ancient menace - for what reason was a ring seen as an appropriate substitute? A play on words for the smartphone age?

And what is this ancient menace ? Miller's version never answered this question; it never needed to. In this version it seems the wife's disembodied spirit was doing the haunting - and if so, why was the manifestation so aggressive and frightening? Was she annoyed he didn't bring her along?

It would have been more coherent to drop the horror element altogether and turn it into a romantic ghost-of-sorts story whereby the couple could be reunited at the place they had enjoyed so much.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed