Touches You

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

I recently saw both versions of "Whistle and I'll come to you" for the first time and thoroughly enjoyed both but was somewhat surprised to come on here and see all the negative reviews for the remake. So this may help to redress the balance a little. Certainly, I am no fan of remakes. The vast majority are utterly pointless vanity projects and crucially, their major flaw is that they extract and dilute content, often removing a central motif, character or complexity found within the original work. Some of these criticisms have been levelled at the remake of "Whistle", however I feel this is unfair. I am no expert on MR James and I appreciate this prevents me from having a full picture of why people value this story so much. It seems that the themes of the original 1968 TV production are best summed up by muldwych in another review posted on IMDb: 1. "The heart of the story is the folly of arrogant presumption, that there will always be realms of understanding beyond mortal man, and to believe you can quantify existence is to invite downfall". 2. "The rapid destruction of Parkins's self-assured, almost autistic world is almost as disconcerting as the unknown forces he has unleashed". This take on the 1968 version is fascinating and there is no doubt that this is the central theme of the piece. However, with the wonderful Michael Hordern playing the role, I just don't get the sense of his world crumbling in this way. He seems intrigued by these "unknown forces" but never particularly troubled by them (with the exception of the last 30 seconds). In a scene five minutes before the end, he is still fussing about not liking tomatoes and generally bumbling around in his own world. The events hardly seem to depict the dismantling and discrediting of an intellectual mindset as other reviews have described.So what is it about the John Hurt version that irritates fans of the original adaptation? Well, it is indeed a very different character with different circumstances. Hurt has just taken his incapacitated wife, suffering from dementia, into a care home and then gone on a therapeutic holiday alone to revisit places where they spent time together. While this twist raises the ire of many fans of the original tale, for me on first viewing without any background knowledge, it was utterly compelling and sublime. There is a palpable sense of loss, loneliness and bereavement running throughout, as Hurt appears to be pushing himself into this new life of solitude, forcing himself to function and revisit the past, a place that is both comforting and gut wrenchingly bittersweet. The film just seems to throb and reverberate with a glow of sadness and a kind of bleak fortitude.And this is perhaps where the two adaptations link together. Both men have been cut loose from their moorings and their belief systems, and the way they understand and relate to the world around them is being called into question. Michael Hordern's version of the character is not put into this situation until he blows into the whistle. John Hurt is already adrift when he arrives at the hotel and the supernatural events send him further into this spiral. But they are both lost souls in different ways and for this reason, they are both equally valid as a lead character.The two versions are exquisitely filmed and both are utterly beautiful. I did find more tension in the 2010 remake, I have to say, and I found myself nervously scouring the edges and background of each frame for any ghostly figures or disturbing detail. So for this reason, maybe the John Hurt version just edges it for me. Admittedly though, perhaps the title of the remake should've been changed, as it is a little clumsy considering the plot changes involved.

There haven't been many feature films recently that spooked me as much as this adaptation let alone a short film (in fact the length may have contributed to it's effectiveness). Contrary to many reviews already posted I have no knowledge of the source material or original TV version that came before so I approached this version with a virgin mind to the story and it chilled me to the core. The two stand out aspects were the photography which was magnificent in widescreen with slow lingering pans, pulled focus and open sections of the frame that tantalisingly invited 'things' to occupy them in addition to a stellar central performance from John Hurt. As the central (and one of only four) characters featured, he inhabited characteristics that heightened the slow building tensions that crept up throughout. The relationship with his wife added a tender sheen to proceedings amongst the dread. There were a number of tiny details that were used to great effect including human facial images hidden away in mundane objects such as rocks and clouds that are difficult to miss but all add to an implication of the supernatural on a sub-conscious level. The methods used in the piece reminded me of Robert Wise's classic, 'The Haunting' and I couldn't take my eyes from the screen. the climax knocked me off my chair in a similar fashion to 'Ringu' the J Horror Classic. The production is a triumph.

I wouldn't say Whistle and I'll Come to You is a complete disaster, but it does fall short, especially when the story it is based on is as good as it is. Not only that, it is for me the most disappointing programme of the festive/New Year season, and that is saying a lot seeing as there were quite a few gems(ie. Toast, Eric and Ernie). Starting with the good things, the location shooting is very evocative and atmospheric and the camera work is interesting. And the acting of John Hurt, Gemma Jones and Lesley Sharp is impressive, though I think all three have been better.Conversely, Whistle and I'll Come to You was a big disappointment, not so much as the previous year's Turn of the Screw but as an adaptation and on its own terms I was disappointed. The ghost story is truly great, it has an unsettling, dark story and has suspense and chills. Here, Whistle and I'll Come to You has its moments but that wasn't enough. Apart from the occasional moment that made me jump I wasn't gripped or unsettled and some scenes(at the beach) were laughable. I don't think the pace helped either, it was really quite dull. Granted, I would have rathered that the story unfolded slowly to add to the atmosphere, but that leads me to my next point.The atmosphere here is rather empty. For me there was very little suspense or tension, while the ambiguity is not done well at all. The script seemed lacking too, some of it seemed too forced, superficial and methodical, and the story is a mixed bag with some decent bits merged with some very disconnected ones, sadly the disconnected scenes outweigh the decent ones. Also, why call it Whistle and I'll Come to You when the whistle of the title is excised entirely. It's like having an adaptation of Pinocchio but without the puppet or something like that. As much as I liked the production values, the modernisation didn't work, it took away from the authenticity and effectiveness that the adaptation could have had easily, while the climatic scene did little for me as it was rather obvious after about 5-10 minutes. In conclusion, a big disappointment but the cast do their best and the adaptation at least looks good so it is not a complete debacle. 3/10 Bethany Cox

'Whistle And I'll Come To You'; except that there's no whistle. When a drama is so constructed as to render its own title obsolete, questions should have been asked somewhere...This spooky short story was brought to the screen many years ago, starring excellent Michael Hordern (here we have John Hurt). I remember seeing it and finding it quite a little chiller. Basically; an academic taking a late-season holiday by the sea, discovers an ancient wind-instrument washed out of the cliffs. He blows a few notes and sure enough; something comes. The DVD is available at Amazon, but the price is a discouraging £50+ ; so I was looking forward to its update, especially as some of the more recent techniques in special-effects might be employed - dare I suggest a little CGI?Yes, well; of course, I can suggest it. What I got was the most dismal, unimaginative and boring piece of drama I can recollect ever seeing. Instead he finds a finger-ring amongst the dunes and takes it back to his guesthouse room. It contains a Latin inscription which translates roughly into 'who is this that is coming'. To which the reply is: 'The bloke with John Hurt's easiest paycheque'.He begins to see a white-clad figure on the beach and runs away. Why? It's about as scary as a seagull. He hears a scratching sound at night and complains to the staff that the place has rats. Though he has absolutely no proof. Apart from being slanderous it's surely the quickest and most certain way of getting you meals served with an extra garnish. Then his bedside light doesn't work properly and he moans about that as well. He should try his luck at Fawlty Towers. Finally someone starts banging on his door. So perishin' what?The drama is packed-out to bursting with all of those time-worn and trite little 'incidental' takes: Dipping his chip in the ketchup; the maid changing the sheets; momentary close-ups of incidental objects as if they have some significance, when they haven't. And all the time Hurt just stares about with an expression of blank and uncomprehending senility. In an attempt to create 'atmosphere' the whole indoor production is shot in such unremitting gloom that there were times when I couldn't actually discern what was going on. That wasn't scary; it was irritating.I had to force myself to see this twaddle through. After having re-watched the stupendous 'Indian Hill Railway' series, I am left with a conclusion that the BBC have completely lost the plot as regards popular drama, though they continue to excel at documentaries.The makers of this had obviously not read the original James story, and had assumed is was like Tolkien's 'Lord Of The Rings', with a bit of the recently re-published 'Hark The Herald' by Magnus Mills. I do not give one star very often, but have no hesitation here.PS: if you want to see a door being banged-on by a phantom, watch the in-every-way-superior 'Haunting' from 1963. Now THAT is phantom door-banging!