The Canterville Ghost (1996)

GREAT MOVIE!!!

This movie was better than John Gielgud version (matter of opinion)but both are well worth buying! Both are heart warming and moral valued so if you want to OWN 2 great movies? Either one or both will do. I give both movies 5 out or 5 stars no matter how many times they are watched! September 28, 2008

Really, a one star production

The version with Charles Laughton is still unavailable on dvd and the Ian Richardson one is cost-prohibitive. So, after doing some searches on different versions of this movie, I decided on this particular version-- since Patrick Stewart is definitely one of my favorite actors.

He really doesn't disappoint here. He's excellent, as expected, and brings depth and empathy to the role of the Canterville Ghost.

However, everyone else in this production is more than bad. They are horrid.

Neve Campbell, in particular, can't act. She's a one-note actress and I'm surprised that nobody has told her to go take some acting lessons. She does this great tentative, unsure-of-herself, little girl smile thing, then she stops smiling (as if she's not sure a smile is appropriate), then she'll smile again-- just a bit. UGH! Talk about annoying. Maybe this was a good thing for that character she played on the tv show, but it's not good in feature films and it's not good if that's all you see her do. And, it is. I've seen her in a few other films, and she plays every single role the same way. Have you ever seen her break into a wide grin? Give a hearty laugh (a guffaw, even?)? No-- because she can't act. She can only shyly smile, stop smiling, give a hint of another smile, lick her lips tentatively, and repeat.

So, because she has so much on-screen camera time, I can't give this film too many stars. And, because there are other people who also can't act in this film, I can't give the film too many stars.

The little brothers were alright- not too cute, but cute enough. They didn't have big roles, however. The father was horrible! If not exactly a one-note actor, he's a two note actor, maybe. He wasn't given a great script, granted, but he delivered his lines fairly flatly. Yes, he was "angry" when he delivered the lines, but not with depth. And, at one point, he had to kneel and cry into his wife's body. Oh, he didn't pull that off well, at all.

The script was terrible. Yes, Sir Canterville's dialogue was perfectly fine. But the story line for the rest of the film was asinine. The kids can see the ghost. The parents can't and the dad thinks the daughter is making it all up so that they can leave England (she's just a sullen hormonal teen, I suppose). So, the kids are being haunted and the father is increasingly angry at the daughter, unfairly. Finally, the daughter has the 'ingenious' idea that will force her father to be able to see the ghost, too. This works, but also has some consequences. That's the story-- which would be okay, if they had some actors that could act.

That's what really bothered me about this movie. There are so many actors out there who need jobs and can act. Why use these actors? Why use the dad and Neve Campbell when there are tons of good quality actors who would love to do these roles? It's not as if actors are in short supply!

So, five stars for Patrick Stewart, and so many negative stars for the other actors and the script itself, that it works out to about 2 stars. January 7, 2008

Good Ghost Story

This version of the Canterville Ghost is a nice update of the WWII version. It's a good famiy movie that won't give the kids nightmares. November 14, 2007

the canterville ghost

This is a great version, although I absolutely loved the one with Sir John Gielgud, he is fantastic, such a regal presence. Patrick Stewart, wasted his talents on the Star Trek series.
Wish they would put the Gielgud one out on DVD October 11, 2007

Um ewwww

I caught this last night and while I am a HUGE fan of Stewart I was greatly disappointed in the overall weak acting, bad storytelling, huge plot holes and poor production values. As always Patrick Stewart takes the role and does what he can with it while the standard cast of awesome British character actors helps tremendously. But everything else frankly sucked.

We had downloaded the movie with a vague expectation of an updated version of the Charles Laughton original. Understanding that there'd be the inevitable changes to accommodate modern sensibilities I was nonetheless appalled at how bad it was. Truly the only life in this picture was with the ghost!

I could go on but I don't want to invest any more effort than even the movie did. Avoid this one. Watch the Laughton version, read a book, play with your kids or catch up on some sleep. :) October 6, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...