OK, first off the bat, I'm a great fan of M R James, so I came at this from that angle. But I'm not the "actually, the short story is different" guy, don't worry.
So, back story, the BBC have gone through stages of doing a 'ghost story for Christmas', and the early 70s M R James adaptations are widely regarded as the best (though Dickens' The Signalman' from a year or two later is arguably superior).
Initial impressions are that this is one for the kids. The protagonist is an 11 year old orphan, going to live with a kindly old relative, albeit one who seems oddly obsessed when the boy's birthday will fall.
The two ghosts are similarly-aged, and up until the final scene seem fairly benign. But I suspect the shots of their very long fingernails, and the scene in which their mortal wounds are revealed would have given me nightmares for weeks if I'd seen it as a child.
Like all James stories, the horror is in the atmosphere and small details, and the iterative hints that our young hero's host is aware of the ghosts' existence, and as we proceed, of the reason they are ghosts, are chilling.
It's not perfect. The boy's acting is wooden, and the film makes less use of landscape than other adaptations by the same director. When it does, the flowering horse chestnut trees (May?) immediately preceding Halloween raised a chuckle in this gardener.
Viewed back-to-back with the best one (A Warning to the Curious) shows its limitations, but that film has a downbeat, adult theme from the off, so is far less suitable for drawing in and then traumatising children. I noted how much shorter it is than 'Warning', and wonder if a few more lingering exterior shots would have improved the atmosphere, but my suspicion is this was kept short and snappy for the same reason.
Keep the little-uns watching to the finale, and they will never hear a hurdy-gurdy without wetting themselves until they are old enough to drive.
So, back story, the BBC have gone through stages of doing a 'ghost story for Christmas', and the early 70s M R James adaptations are widely regarded as the best (though Dickens' The Signalman' from a year or two later is arguably superior).
Initial impressions are that this is one for the kids. The protagonist is an 11 year old orphan, going to live with a kindly old relative, albeit one who seems oddly obsessed when the boy's birthday will fall.
The two ghosts are similarly-aged, and up until the final scene seem fairly benign. But I suspect the shots of their very long fingernails, and the scene in which their mortal wounds are revealed would have given me nightmares for weeks if I'd seen it as a child.
Like all James stories, the horror is in the atmosphere and small details, and the iterative hints that our young hero's host is aware of the ghosts' existence, and as we proceed, of the reason they are ghosts, are chilling.
It's not perfect. The boy's acting is wooden, and the film makes less use of landscape than other adaptations by the same director. When it does, the flowering horse chestnut trees (May?) immediately preceding Halloween raised a chuckle in this gardener.
Viewed back-to-back with the best one (A Warning to the Curious) shows its limitations, but that film has a downbeat, adult theme from the off, so is far less suitable for drawing in and then traumatising children. I noted how much shorter it is than 'Warning', and wonder if a few more lingering exterior shots would have improved the atmosphere, but my suspicion is this was kept short and snappy for the same reason.
Keep the little-uns watching to the finale, and they will never hear a hurdy-gurdy without wetting themselves until they are old enough to drive.