The Canterville Ghost

Do you remember those charming, touching, romantic movies from the 40s or 50s? Can you imagine one of those transformed into a teenie film without loosing a bit of its charm? Well, it can be done, as this film proves.

It's the perfect film for an autumn evening with a fire crackling in the fireplace and the lights turned low.

Neve Campbell and her family (small brothers, sympathetic mum, physicist and cynic father) travel from America to England when he lands a lucrative research post, and almost immediately strange things begin to happen in the de Canterville ancestry home.

Bumps and moans in the night, bloodstains, invisible hands on the shoulder - yes, there's a ghost about.

Oscar Wilde's story takes shape beautifully in this TV version, one of the numerous adaptations of his tale for children. Patrick Stewart is the ghostly Simon de Canterville, doomed to walk the house at night for all eternity for his earthly crimes, and he is watchable, especially wrestling with the pride of 400 years dead and no one to bow and scrape around him.

This being a fairy tale there's romance for Ginny as well in the shape of a local Duke (Daniel Betts) who is sympathetic to ghosts and very charming, as local Dukes so often are in these stories. Donald Sinden and Joan Sims play butler and housekeeper, shielding guilty secrets, and Leslie Philips appears briefly as the current representative of family de Canterville.

Recommended for children and adults alike, 'The Canterville Ghost' is charming, touching, and with just the right amount of suspense. The Americans may be paint-by-numbers stereotypes, but that doesn't matter. Without Stewart, I might have rated this much lower, but it definitely deserves high points for his performance alone.

Despite what some people have said about this TV movie, it was my impression that it was simply magnificent. Patrick Stewart is in his Element in Shakespearean characterization and this is among his finest roles. Neve Campbell brought a warm sensitivity to the role of Virginia and gave a moving performance. The script was first rate, and contrary to what some have said, playing this story in a modern setting works remarkably. That is one of the strengths of great literature that it can be shaped to different times. I was riveted to this production, I having forty years or more since I saw the Charles Laughton version. I can highly recommend this version as a great film and a great family film.

While there are still many variances from the original story, this version hewed much more closely to it than the 1944 film, which bore little more resemblance to the original than the name. I think this one was well served by the greater similarity.

I thought all the actors did a great job, though I was a bit put off by the peevishness of the father character during most of the movie. In the original story he was also a non-believer, but with much more good humor and sympathy.

I don't know if anyone has ever tried enacting the story as written but I'd be interested in seeing it if they did.

I liked this version okay, but my favorite "Canterville Ghost" is the one 10 years before this one-- the 1986 version with Alyssa Milano and Sir John Gielgud. The 1986 movie was much better and more exciting than this one... More scary and funny things happened in it. I also thought they bothered to do better "ghostly" special effects. But the 1996 one is definitely worth seeing, none the less... It's a nice story and I thought that Patrick Stewart and Neve Campbell did a good job. The little brothers were annoying though in this one, and completely un-necessary to the movie. But the castles and the english scenery are so pretty in both. The music was much better in the 1986 version though.. even the opening scene was nicer of them going up to the castle in the horse drawn carriage, rather than in a car. So it's those little details that make the one a decade earlier a lot better than this one.