The Canterville Ghost (TV Series 2021) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
25 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
It was a challenge getting through it.
Sleepin_Dragon18 January 2023
Tech billionaire Hiram Otis moves his family from The States to Canterville Chase, an English Mansion, with an unexpected extra, a ghost, in the form of Simon de Canterville.

First off, in this day and age, why do we still have to suffer Brits playing Americans with abysmal accents, and vice versa, now I'm a big fan of Caroline Catz and James Lance, but those accents are excruciating, and sadly put me off straight away.

The first three episodes are all very poor, to say that too many liberties were taken is a huge understatement. Only in episode four is there anything worth seeing. The special effects genuinely look as though they've come from 1986.

What so unforgivable, is the pacing, it's supposed to be a ghost story, but it's just so slow and boring.

The standout, by a mile is Haydn Gwynne, she manages to make something out of the character, and makes the wicked Grandmother pretty interesting, sadly she's trying to swim upstream.

The adaptation with David Niven is superior in every possible way, please watch that, then compare it to this, for the most part this was very poor.

5/10.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Meh....
clair_uk27 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
As a lot of other reviewers have written, terrible accents and stereotypes, but it's ok. I like James Lance and Caroline Catz, and love Anthony Head, so intend to watch the entire thing.

However. I'm writing this review after watching the "steeplechase" plot point. The girl decides to ride bare back to beat a disqualification but actually manages to levitate over her horse. Not a ghostly experience, just the result of very poor CGI and scrubbing of the saddle the rider clearly used. Really?! You think we're that stupid or just don't care enough?!?!

It's a shame as it possibly could have been better. But worth 5/10 stars for the minimal entertainment.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A fun miniseries the whole family can watch.
irishizan27 January 2022
It was commissioned by BYU from the BBC. So its rating is for kids of all ages. If your'e a fan of British Television there are many familiar faces in this 4 episode miniseries. The Executive Producer & Writer also worked on 2 of my favorite British cozy mysteries: Father Brown and Shakespeare & Hathaway. Once I got past the fake American accents of James Lance & Carolyn Catz who play the parents, I enjoyed how the mystery unfolded. I liked seeing the gothic mansion & british countryside etc. It was filmed in UK. Available on the BYU Tv. Im watching their free app on my Roku device and there have been no ads.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun well filmed remake.
i-talk-way-too-much23 August 2022
This story has been told and retold in film many times. This remake is a fun rendition with great location shots and beautiful camera work! Worth the time!
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Funny British people
yahaira-729-69470116 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
It's fun to see Btits put on an American accent. Unlike thoughtvthis be a brainless series to watch the lovely English countryside. Uhm Oscar Wilde wrote this that eludes me here. Caroline Catz sounds british but no matter, she's great whatever she does and she plays comedy well. The ghost is challenged by the atheistic to engage in ghostly mischief, hooray. The Gypsies are included in the purchase as homesteaders. Home alone parents take off while the kids stay at home to prove the existence of the ghost and that makes for fun ghost busting shenanigans. The Americans vs the stuck up Britts endlessly comparing traditions. I think this is humorous entertaining but not hilarious its well done.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Well made and enjoyable
frukuk26 December 2022
Ignore the off-putting opening minutes of this, where Caroline Catz and James Lance try to speak with American accents. This is a well made and enjoyable family entertainment with some fine performances from the rather large cast. (I thought Laurel Waghorn was particularly good as Virginia Otis.)

I don't know how much this deviates from the original story by Oscar Wilde, but I thought this version was well written and quite affecting as Sir Simon's backstory is revealed.

As a Briton, I didn't care much for some of the UK versus US stuff, but I guess this had to have an element of locals versus immigrants and railing against the strange ways of foreigners.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A great short story ruined.
the_cheezes25 December 2022
A Britain the British won't recognise and one sold to the population of the United States that even they are unlikely to believe.

I've always liked the story and always find time to watch any version of it when it is presented, even though they are usually only loosely based on the original. This time they have gone too far, by embellishing the story so much it barely resembles it at all.

Add to that the ridiculous notion that a small village and its occupants is somehow in need of being saved from its stiff-upper-lipped and stuffy self by the American dream is utterly infuriating.

So-so acting, dragged down further by the terrible accents and then crushed further into the dirt by a contemptible story alteration make for an excruciating watching experience.

Save yourselves!
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Perfect Family Fare
dtstacey27 December 2022
Watched this over Christmas with my wife and we thoroughly enjoyed it. The cast were uniformly good,(..tho the twin boys were a little stilted,at times,not a dealbreaker,though...). Always had a soft spot for James Lance since he helped Alan Partridge tune in to 'Bangkok Chick Boys' in his Travelodge Room and he was good in this with a passable American accent,(..ditto,his screen wife..). Haydn Gwynn essentially played the same part she played in the riotous,irreverent 'The Windsors'....absolutely nothing wrong with that,might I add but for us the star of this production was Tony Head as the Ghost,making us smile whenever he was on screen. It was just good old-fashioned Family entertainment and we loved it.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
horrific American accents as Brits try to emulate Lasso
spasticfreakshow17 November 2021
I followed James Lance here bc he was so terrific as Trent Crimm and this seemed like an oddly similar premise, only with Lasso, they hired Americans for American roles and Brits for British roles - and with this show, no such effort was made - and it shows. The script must have been written by a child and the third grader's friends are the producers, but the idea is cute and it's sweet that they're going for Americans inspire Brits Part II. Still, sadly, even the wonderful Anthony Head is AWFUL here. The only value in this show is unintentional humor, but....a laugh's a laugh. Unless this was produced for a British Nickolodeon type of channel for elementary school viewers, this one's a pass.
7 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wilde is spinning in his grave!
rolfosterberg28 December 2022
Review Canterville ghost 2022 A 2 episode version of Oscar Wildes novel starring Anthony Stewart Head, Giles from Buffy, as the titular ghost.

Ok. As a kidfriendly adventure it might be ok. But i HAVE to compare it to the source material. And it sucks! There only one redeeming thing and thats head as the ghost. But concidering the material it doesnt help.

Its ofcourse set in contemporay times because... They weaved in the twins looking for treasure with two redhaired gipsy twingirls, a drama about the Otises going bankrupt, a rivaling thing btween the otises and the canterville family and a... horseriding adventure?

Gone are the eerie quality of wildes novel, yes it was fun at times but also dramatic and ghostly. Gone are the ghastly desguises the ghosts use traded for wonky CGI , They even give Sir Simon a talking familiar in the form of a rat!

The trip into the 4th dimension wich we never see in the novel, when Vorginia is redeeming the ghost is tirned into a bloody courtroom drama!

Fair to say i HATE this version and will give it a 1/5 because it is well acted but utter trash! Wilde should haunt the team behind this travesty!
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great
willballew28 April 2022
I thought this mini series was a great family series. There isn't a bunch of violence or sex and it is family entertainment. I miss really great series' like this . I hope they make more.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A low budget production with too many corners cut
stevev-3409530 December 2022
Right from the start you know they didn't have much money to spend on this production.

There is a 'horse riding' scene that looks like something from a 1930s comedy.

The father is wearing a wig straight out of the dressing up box, yet the show won an Emmy for outstanding makeup and hairstyling!

The mother has an 'American' accent that changes often, sometimes in the middle of a sentence. I expect more from Caroline Katz even if the budget didn't include money for a voice coach. We will never be able to mock Dick van Dyke's 'cockney' accent again!

BYUtv part funded this so it will have been shown in America, I assume it was re-dubbed.

On the plus side Lizzy Connelly has fun playing 'Moppy' Stilton, her description of her 'charity' work in Africa is hilarious and maybe rather too close to the truth.

Overall it passed the time and the whole family can watch it but it should have been much better.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
"A load of old tripe"
greenjackjc26 December 2022
The title of this review is a line from the series uttered by Jeff rawle's character, 'Bluey', the Duke of Stilton.

It pretty much sums up this series, as it was, in fact, tripe.

It's a shame, really, as we were looking forward to this, but suffered through about 25 minutes of this garbage before switching off.

Aside from the appalling American accents, the main protagonists were painfully bad and the whole thing played to the US myth that all Brits live in stately homes (or Romany Gypsy caravans?!). Some of the better-known cast members (Hadyn Gwynne, Jeff Rawle, Anthony Head & Jonty Stephens) should have known better and avoided this travesty. And it's for them that I gave it three stars. All of the cast below 30 need acting lessons.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kids Will Enjoy
dgjones-6225825 December 2022
This film is enjoyable if you under twelve years of age and are new to all the stereotypes it attempts to portray.

For adults I recommend suspending cynicism and watch it through your inner-child's eye.

It is a whimsical bit of fun not to be taken too seriously.

Some of this film is unbelievably crap and made me wonder how on earth did it get made. Then I recalled it was a BBC production which means jobs for friends in favourable places. Nepotism within the BBC is shockingly awful and the amount of rubbish they commission is embarrassing.

With such a great story to be inspired by the writer, script doctor, and director should have made a classic. They had four hours to use and should be ashamed of what they made.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Decent
CountVladDracula30 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The Canterville Ghost (2021) Review:

I just got done watching The Canterville Ghost from 2021 and starring Anthony Head (Anthony Stewart Head to you Buffy The Vampire Slayer fans) as Sir Simon de Canterville.

I have seen many adaptations of Oscar Wilde's The Canterville Ghost. My favorite version is the 1996 version with Patrick Stewart as Sir Simon de Canterville. My least favorite version is the the one from the 1940s. A lot of people love that one but it was mostly war time propaganda. The original novella was written in the 1880s and certainly had no Nazis in it. Also the whole idea that Sir Simon de Canterville was walled up by his own father for refusing to take part in a duel that wasn't even his own - just to beg that same father for forgiveness later. That really did not sit right for me.

In the original Cantervlille Ghost novella Sir SImon de Canterville had murdered his wife and was doomed to haunt his manor until a prophecy was fulfilled including a child shedding tears for him and pleading his case to The Angel of Death.

In the novel he had pretty much resigned himself to his fate and a slightly annoying (but friendly) American family moved into the manor. The teenage daughter of the family, Virginia (known as Ginny) ended up being the child who would aid him lift the curse. She would also end up in a romance with a neighboring duke.

In this new version with Anthony Head as the ghost, Ginny is now a twenty-two-year-old law student and there are a few nice, clever, plot twists such as the reveal that the Otis family are actually sir Simon's direct descendants and it also turned out that this version of Sir SImon's biggest crime was actually turning away his Roma wife, whom he had handfasted with (unofficially married) to maintain his family's status. He had immediately regretted doing this and sought to set things right with her, with stolen family jewels, but he was caught by her brothers, who thought he had just left her to die in the cold- so they walled him up to starve in his family home.

This version of The Canterville Ghost borrows a lot of elements that were created for the 1996 version with Patrick Stewart such as giving Sir Simon a familiar (an animal companion). This version is a talking rat. The talking animal is a little jarring at first but I guess he's mostly there for comic relief and to remind you that this is (despite the ghost story) supposed to be a family-friendly mini-series.

This version was broken into a four part mini-series and... honestly it did not need to be four parts. There's one episode that is almost entirely set at a cricket game and the whole episode is pretty much filler.

There are two things I disliked about this mini-series (besides the cricket game that went on too long). The first being that SIr Simon makes repeated agist jokes about Ginny such as calling her a spinister, and "Past child bearing years." These jokes were... shall we say cringy, considering the version of Ginny in the original novella was only slightly younger than this version and she was called a "gentle girl" by Sir Simon in the original novella from 1880. This version of Ginny is twenty-two-years-old. It doesn't make sense that Virginia Otis is the focus for age-based barbs from Sir Simon. They aren't funny. I get that the writing is trying to poke fun of the agism of the era Sir Simon would have lived in but those jokes didn't even exist in the 1880s novella, in fact Oscar Wilde, in his writing, had a habit of considering twenty-somethings of men and women to still be children and he repeatedly called twenty-something men in The Picture of Dorian Gray "boy" and Virginia was referred to (in The Canterville Ghost novella) as a child, even though she was in her late teens in the original story.

The age jokes got tired fast. They felt as ...cringy and repetitive as the "child bearing hips" jokes in Tim Burton's comedy version of Dark Shadows. These jokes are jarring and don't really fit the story or how Sir Simon acts with other characters or even how he usually acts with Virginia.

Also pretty much all film versions of Sir Simon de Canterville (except the 1940s version...) are into Shakespeare. He must know The Merchant of Venice and yet he seems baffled by the idea of a woman defense attorney. The jokes about agism and sexism from his mortal life era got tired quick.

The second thing that bothered me about the mini-series was... the weird Americanisms. I say this as an American- the portrayal of American culture in this mini-series was weird. It was like it was written by a British teenager who had a strange, abstract, almost alien planet idea of what Americans are like based on outdated British TV show stereotypes. Yes, I admit many Americans would fly an American flag at the top of a British manor house but the Elvis impersonator singing The Monkee's "I'm a believer" was just odd. Also some of the supposedly American characters had awful, very fake sounding, accents. Why is it so many British people think America = Texas? Texas is the only place like Texas. The rest of the US is not like that, I promise.

At least they made up for this by making Mr. Otis (Virginia's father) extremely kind. A mellow, laid back, almost hippie type of character. He was extremely out going and kind even though he was a bit socially inept. They had managed to make him very likable.

The fact that twenty-two-year-old Virginia kept bringing up American laws as if they have any bearing in England with a sixteenth century Ghost also got a little annoying. She should have known better. And it just perpetuates the stereotype of American arrogance that we think American law applies everywhere in exactly the same way. Oh, that reminds me of something else that bothered me too. Virginia (who isn't even a full lawyer yet) apparently screwed up a case for an eighteen-year-old girl who was convicted of murdering her abusive stepfather. Virginia is told repeatedly that she is not at fault for this but it's never rectified. We're just casually told that there's this eighteen-year-old serving life in prison for murdering her abuser and it's never, ever set right. For a family movie that's quite dark. That bothered me.

They also somehow forgot that the stain on the floor was supposed to be the blood of Sir Simon's wife...

A petty detail about how Sir Simon's powers worked bugged me but not so much that it ruined the show. Sir Simon is slightly corporeal. That is to say he's made up of a very fine matter that disperses when he takes a mist-like form so he cannot actually pass through solid matter but rather tiny cracks and holes in this decorporealized form. I have used similar lore when role playing or writing for the character of Count Dracula on IMVU. It works for vampires that take mist form but but I don't think I really like it for ghosts. I've seen Anne Rice use a similar lore to account for how some of her spirits function but I still don't care for it.

Other than these two things I thought this was a fairly decent mini-series, probably in my top five favorite adaptations of The Canterville Ghost. Yes, I have seen that many versions as to have a top five list. And again, no, the 1940s version is not on that list. I liked the 1940s version of Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray, just not the 1940s version of The Canterville Ghost.

In the first episode I had thought they would draw out the parents not believing in ghosts and being skeptical for far, far too long but mercifully this was only in the first episode and they fast accepted that ghosts are most-assuredly real in his story.

The scene where Ginny had to plead Sir SImon's case and learn the true history behind him and his Roma wife's deaths felt weirdly like it had come out of Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's Good Omens. A bureaucratic afterlife that is comical but darkly cold and cynical and detached where the "angels" and other entities seem to care more about protocol than about justice or love. I half expected to see Aziraphale and Crowley from Good Omens turn up.

This certainly was an interesting take on The Canterville Ghost. There were many times where it felt like Anthony Head was portraying Sir Simon as having a perpetual head-cold. And he certainly had an unusual choice in vocabulary. I still think Patrick Stewart did a better job as the ghost but Anthony Head was decent. And it had a good, satisfying ending.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just terrible
costasiero12 February 2022
I gave this a shot, I really did. Besides the cringefest at the beginning I actually forced my self to watch it since I loved the book and previous older movies.

Honestly though... I have seen better acting and CGI in my toilet with puppets made out of toilet paper.

Ridiculous plot changes, acting that needs to be showed as "things to avoid" in acting lessons, CGI thats worse than SyFi movies.

Such a disappointment.
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Family show
lizs12891 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe the number of low starred reviews. It's not meant to be an action packed, adrenaline fuelled rollercoaster of a film. It is suitable for a family audience, easy for kids to follow and a storyline adults can buy into.

I watched all 4 hours in one go and loved it. I have a high bar for films to reach and will often give up if a film fails to grab me. This didn't.

I will admit there were some slightly clunky parts: the horse riding scene near the start, for one, and the story was a little drawn out in the second half but overall, I enjoyed it and would recommend this for a family to watch together.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't waste your time!
donaldgrantuk-5061626 December 2022
An absolutely awful adaptation. We lasted around 30 minutes of episode one but the thought of four two hour episodes of this drivel had us reaching for the TV remote. Hadyn Gwynne, Caroline Catz and Anthony Head are fine actors each with an impressive back catalogue to be proud of but they are completely wasted in this awful production. The special effects are good but characterisations are stereotypical, in particular the Gypsy family. The superb locations are also wasted and can do nothing to save what is a poor poor story. In short if you are thinking of watching this production don't. It would be several hours of your life you won't get back!
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Enjoyed it!
jack_e-2504217 September 2022
Nice entertaining miniseries (4 episodes). Enjoyable storyline. Certainly no blockbuster theater but good for a few hours a couple evenings this week. Enjoyed the castle and country side tour (I'd visit that). Never heard of byu tv and had to watch on my iPad but found it worthwhile. The courtroom scene was tedious for me and the kids acting was a bit over the top but the young lady and her parents were good. I could see this as a series delving into the fathers experiments more and the kids finding more adventures in and around the castle as well as newly married sister hosting horse riding parties with new hubby and snobby grandma. Potential here.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Watchable but not good
glasgow197511 January 2023
Firstly it's hilarious the featured review mocks the father's terrible wig. Which is in fact the actor's real hair... That said the American accents are indeed terrible, the twins acting is insufferable, the CGI and greenscreen has been done as cheaply as possible and it shows. There's even a talking rat for goodness sakes! It's entirely populated with clichés - cod Shakespearean dialogue, upper class twits, optimistic can do Yanks, picturesque Romany caravans and castles... Unless you're watching with kids I'd definitely skip this bad adaptation.

In the UK this was shown as 2 feature length episodes which made it drag somewhat. I imagine 4 bitesize episodes made it more palatable for the US market.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Aargh No! Not again! 😣
charles-limcw5 February 2022
Another endless stream of movies with a talking rat and Brits playing Americans very very badly??

Brits and Americans should NEVER EVER try to play act each other. They just can't and never has been able to get one another right in anything - not the accent, not the culture, not the mannerisms! So, just NEVER!!

And no more talking rodents either!!

Add to that a bad script and bad acting??

How awful!
11 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best of ALL the past Cantervilles
DeeB42418 November 2022
I've watched all of the Canterville movies. I love the book. This is the most engaging rendition of the movie. One that brings the 21st century to this fine old story. Oscar Wilde wrote in 1887 but this movie gives a renewed and not satirical rendering of this story. The English countryside filming far beats any theater attempts for this to be a play and brings that realism to see modern castles still do exist today. This performance should be pushed for more coverage since I stumbled over this movie while searching for I don't even remember. The castle front gave me the idea to watch it and am glad I did.

I think this should be the best of them all and I loved Patrick Stewart but this movie is fuller with a deeper history given.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Needed more research
triciarey7 January 2023
An entertaining tale, adapted from Oscar Wilde. What a pity that the writers think that all old English verbs end in 'st'. The ghost says 'I canst', etc. ('st' is 2nd person singular, not 1st person singular.) I would have expected Antony Head to know better. The aristocratic young viscount should have a better grasp of English grammar. He uses 'we' instead of 'us'. The hymn sung in church is obviously an American hymn, unknown in the UK. The music gives this away. Not in the English hymn tradition at all. It reminded me of 'Bringing in the sheaves' as sung in 'Little house on the Prairie'! The Otis family arrive in a left-hand drive vehicle. Surely they didn't bring it all the way from the US! The upper class accents are really over the top and everyone is rather stereotyped.

I can only assume that the Americans on the production team had more influence than the British members, if there were any. So obviously produced for the US market.

That said, when not totally overacted, the acting is good and the characters, to children, believable. The settings are beautiful.

With a little more attention to detail this could be a good series. Maybe I would recommend it to the children in my family, on a rainy day. They might find each episode a bit long, so I might wait until they're older and hope for a better version. As it is, I find it rather irritating.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
As Time Progressed
westsideschl22 May 2022
Two cheap opening scenes. First, classically overused overhead view of car on road. Second, supposedly a camera view of man riding horse, but rather a man fake riding on something with a green screen of a moving background. However, though I started out giving it one star for a cheap script & production, after 15min. I was up to two stars & as time went on I became impressed with the novelty of our ghostly story (despite the cheap effects), and the humorous yet intelligent acting. As for dialogue, an entertainment in itself, the researchers must have dug deep to come up with the most interesting & rare synonyms describing the everyday routine of life.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Anthony Head is the only redeeming quality
annacarafas16 December 2023
I really wanted to love this series, and I don't demand perfection. But the cringe factor is so bad that I couldn't get through the first episode. First, some British actors can convincingly portray an American accent - like Hugh Laurie. But none of those are on this show. The American accents are faked so badly that it is distracting and impossible to ignore. I wish they had just stuck with the British accents and changed the story so the family had moved from another part of the UK instead of the US. Secondly, the dialogue feels stilted and the exposition obvious and clunky. The whole thing lacks polish and feels sloppy and low budget. Anthony Head of Buffy fame is a the one bright spot. His acting here is superb as always and the only reason I gave this 2 stars rather than one. But even Anthony Head can't carry the show single handedly. There are a thousand+ better shows out there - go watch one of those instead.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed