Well there's never going to be a better version of this than Charles Laughton's 1944 iteration, but this is still actually quite a watchable adaptation of Oscar Wilde's short story. It centres around an American family who relocate to creaky and spooky old "Canterville Chase" - a stately pile that is reputedly haunted by a menacing spectre. The "Otis" family have three children and after the odd eerie visitation, they become distinctly unafraid of their haunting buddy - indeed they are soon trying to find some way of helping "Sir Simon" to lift the curse that has trapped him in limbo for some three hundred years and also to reunite him with his long lost love before the Grim Reaper wins the day. The animation is adequate and there are plenty of whimsical goings on - it's just that the story is over-stretched, there's way too much dialogue and I actually find this works better with real people/scenarios. Animation offers too few limitations on the creative ghostliness and so at times this looks a little too much like an episode of "Scooby Do". Maybe daft to write, but it isn't quite real enough for me! Still, it's good that this story is still doing the rounds - it's a fun tale of true love that's stood the test of time well.
7 Reviews
I doubt if it would be possible to make a faithful adaptation of Wilde's story today
JamesHitchcock2 May 2024
Warning: Spoilers
Oscar Wilde's "The Canterville Ghost", is, in part, a humorous parody of the classical ghost story. An American family buy an English stately home, Canterville Chase, despite being warned by its owner Lord Canterville that it is haunted by the ghost of his sixteenth century ancestor Sir Simon de Canterville, Sir Simon murdered his wife and has been condemned to haunt the house as a punishment ever since. The family scoff at the idea of ghosts, but even when they discover that the ghostly Sir Simon is indeed real, they treat him with a complete lack of respect. The story is, partly, a satire on the differences in manners between progressive, go-ahead Americans and traditionally-minded Britons, represented by the ghost. Ghosts are supposed to be frightening, and Sir Simon is therefore deeply offended by a family who, in a shocking breach with tradition, refuse to be frightened by him. Unlike most ghost stories, however, this one has a happy, and more serious, ending in which Sir Simon finds both eternal rest and forgiveness for his sins though the intercession of the family's saintly daughter Virginia.
The story has been adapted for the cinema or television screen on a number of occasions, but this recent British animated version is the only one I have ever seen, apart from a West German film I saw on German television many years ago. It is not entirely faithful to Wilde's story, but I wonder if it would be possible to make a completely faithful adaptation today.
In Wilde's story the American paterfamilias Hiram Otis was a diplomat and the father or four children; here he is an eccentric inventor and the father of three, daughter Virginia, aged around twenty, and twin sons Kent and Louis, probably in their early teens. Virginia's elder brother Washington is omitted. Virginia has a very different personality; in the original she was quiet and shy, but here she is outgoing with a rebellious attitude and such a tomboy that she wears riding breeches all the time, even when she is not riding. (She even wears them to her wedding!) Her boyfriend, Henry Duke of Cheshire, plays a larger role than he did in the story (where his Christian name was Cecil rather than Henry) and is portrayed as a nice-but-dim chinless wonder rather than Wilde's golden youth.
The biggest change, however, concerns the ghost. As portrayed here, Sir Simon is stuffy and pompous, and does not much care for what he sees as the vulgar manners of the Americans, but he is not evil. Most importantly, he did not kill his wife in this version. Indeed, he loved her dearly, and was heartbroken when she died in what he believed was a drowning accident. (It turns out that this "accident" was arranged by Henry's ancestor, an earlier Duke of Cheshire, who then framed Simon for the supposed murder so he could seize the estate). There is also a sinister gardener, not found in Wilde's story, who turns out to be Death himself.
When I watched the film I was not too happy with these changes, because they seemed to be missing the point of what Wilde was trying to do, and they didn't always make a lot of sense. It is never explained why, if Simon was not guilty of murder, why he was still condemned to haunt the house. Nevertheless, I I could understand why the changes were made. For all the humour of its opening scenes, "The Canterville Ghost" is essentially a story of Christian redemption, and in 2023 that probably wouldn't have been a popular theme for a film. In the original story Virginia is a rather quiet, demure girl; far more interesting to make her the feisty rebel she is here.
More importantly, you couldn't make a film with a wife-murderer as one of the main characters unless you made him an irredeemable villain. In Christian doctrine no crime, even murder, is unforgivable, and no sinner irredeemable, but the average cinema-goer may well demur at this piece of theology. So Simon had to be not guilty.
Some reviewers have criticised the quality of the animation, but I am probably not the best judge, as animated films only form a small part of my viewing and I don't have too many models against which to judge it. I only watched this one because I was already familiar with the story. It will never be a favourite of mine, but it will probably make acceptable family viewing. 6/10
Some goofs. The action is supposed to be taking place in the year 1900, but we see an aeroplane, something not invented until 1903. The design of the Otises' car and some of the women's fashions would also suggest a date closer to 1910. According to Simon's tombstone he lived in the seventeenth century in this version of the story, but he still wears sixteenth century clothes.
The story has been adapted for the cinema or television screen on a number of occasions, but this recent British animated version is the only one I have ever seen, apart from a West German film I saw on German television many years ago. It is not entirely faithful to Wilde's story, but I wonder if it would be possible to make a completely faithful adaptation today.
In Wilde's story the American paterfamilias Hiram Otis was a diplomat and the father or four children; here he is an eccentric inventor and the father of three, daughter Virginia, aged around twenty, and twin sons Kent and Louis, probably in their early teens. Virginia's elder brother Washington is omitted. Virginia has a very different personality; in the original she was quiet and shy, but here she is outgoing with a rebellious attitude and such a tomboy that she wears riding breeches all the time, even when she is not riding. (She even wears them to her wedding!) Her boyfriend, Henry Duke of Cheshire, plays a larger role than he did in the story (where his Christian name was Cecil rather than Henry) and is portrayed as a nice-but-dim chinless wonder rather than Wilde's golden youth.
The biggest change, however, concerns the ghost. As portrayed here, Sir Simon is stuffy and pompous, and does not much care for what he sees as the vulgar manners of the Americans, but he is not evil. Most importantly, he did not kill his wife in this version. Indeed, he loved her dearly, and was heartbroken when she died in what he believed was a drowning accident. (It turns out that this "accident" was arranged by Henry's ancestor, an earlier Duke of Cheshire, who then framed Simon for the supposed murder so he could seize the estate). There is also a sinister gardener, not found in Wilde's story, who turns out to be Death himself.
When I watched the film I was not too happy with these changes, because they seemed to be missing the point of what Wilde was trying to do, and they didn't always make a lot of sense. It is never explained why, if Simon was not guilty of murder, why he was still condemned to haunt the house. Nevertheless, I I could understand why the changes were made. For all the humour of its opening scenes, "The Canterville Ghost" is essentially a story of Christian redemption, and in 2023 that probably wouldn't have been a popular theme for a film. In the original story Virginia is a rather quiet, demure girl; far more interesting to make her the feisty rebel she is here.
More importantly, you couldn't make a film with a wife-murderer as one of the main characters unless you made him an irredeemable villain. In Christian doctrine no crime, even murder, is unforgivable, and no sinner irredeemable, but the average cinema-goer may well demur at this piece of theology. So Simon had to be not guilty.
Some reviewers have criticised the quality of the animation, but I am probably not the best judge, as animated films only form a small part of my viewing and I don't have too many models against which to judge it. I only watched this one because I was already familiar with the story. It will never be a favourite of mine, but it will probably make acceptable family viewing. 6/10
Some goofs. The action is supposed to be taking place in the year 1900, but we see an aeroplane, something not invented until 1903. The design of the Otises' car and some of the women's fashions would also suggest a date closer to 1910. According to Simon's tombstone he lived in the seventeenth century in this version of the story, but he still wears sixteenth century clothes.
boring,bland,unfunny
nicaraguab10 November 2023
1. There's nothing interesting about the choppy animation, in fact it's worse than 2000's animation movies somehow, wich makes this kinda boring to watch.
2. The plotline in most cases is completely unrealistic, making this movie even more unwatchable.
3. The scenes that try to make you laugh, cry or make you feel anything else fail miserably, with the dialogues being exaggerated, bland,or useless, 90% of the sounds effect in the movie just being:"huh?""woah" or any kind of overused interjections.
4. The characters dont have a lot of developement, making them very boring and uninteresting.
5. Why is half the cast morbidly obese?? Seriously,barely anyone was obese in the 20th century.
Overall this movie wasn't funny, interesting or scary at all, and i don't even know what it's supposed to be.
2. The plotline in most cases is completely unrealistic, making this movie even more unwatchable.
3. The scenes that try to make you laugh, cry or make you feel anything else fail miserably, with the dialogues being exaggerated, bland,or useless, 90% of the sounds effect in the movie just being:"huh?""woah" or any kind of overused interjections.
4. The characters dont have a lot of developement, making them very boring and uninteresting.
5. Why is half the cast morbidly obese?? Seriously,barely anyone was obese in the 20th century.
Overall this movie wasn't funny, interesting or scary at all, and i don't even know what it's supposed to be.
Awful animation not worthy of a 5
perkinsuab27 October 2023
The animation evokes the aesthetics of early 2000s video games, but not in a way that adds nostalgic value. Rather, it appears as if constrained by the same limitations that plagued those older games-resulting in choppy and disjointed visuals. A reviewer's perfect 10 out of 10 score for the film raises further concerns. This suspicion is heightened by the fact that the review was published a month before the film's official release. Such an anomalously high rating strongly suggests a self-serving agenda, likely from someone affiliated with the production team. Despite a compelling story, the film ultimately fails to deliver a visual experience that matches the quality of its narrative.
🏰 The Excellence of Execution 👻
DoNotComeToTheCinemaDepressed28 September 2023
Man, it was such a Magnificent Film, from Start to Finish.
Granted, the Source Material is of Oscar Wilde.
But you still have to Execute.
Elements -
1. Again the Filmmakers already have the Upper Hand with Such Material as this Particular Oscar Wilde Story but the Effective Execution was also There.
2. The Dialogue was Excellent, Forwarding the Plotline Consistently. A Few Good Quips too. "Somehow Cucumber Sandwiches are a Thing, But I don't know why" - or something along those lines, It was Funny to me.
3. The Animation Style, I love this Style. It's Nothing Out of this World, but it had this Charm that Suited this Particular Story.
4. Virginia Otis is Great, she has the Charisma to Lead this thing. Canterville was Ok. And the Rest of the Supporting Cast were Good too.
5. It Hits the Emotional Beats Well.
Overall, Excellent Narrative Storytelling, Great Dialogue, Emotional Beats, it was just a Delightful Watch.
Granted, the Source Material is of Oscar Wilde.
But you still have to Execute.
Elements -
1. Again the Filmmakers already have the Upper Hand with Such Material as this Particular Oscar Wilde Story but the Effective Execution was also There.
2. The Dialogue was Excellent, Forwarding the Plotline Consistently. A Few Good Quips too. "Somehow Cucumber Sandwiches are a Thing, But I don't know why" - or something along those lines, It was Funny to me.
3. The Animation Style, I love this Style. It's Nothing Out of this World, but it had this Charm that Suited this Particular Story.
4. Virginia Otis is Great, she has the Charisma to Lead this thing. Canterville was Ok. And the Rest of the Supporting Cast were Good too.
5. It Hits the Emotional Beats Well.
Overall, Excellent Narrative Storytelling, Great Dialogue, Emotional Beats, it was just a Delightful Watch.
Awful
dpant-4134622 April 2024
One of the worst, if not the worst, animation films I've ever seen. They probably used a Pentium 4 PC from the early 00s for the animation. I mean, come on, TV cartoons look much better. The story is equally bad. Too many unnecessary dialogs saying the same over and over again (we heard the prophecy a hundred
times; got it, thank you very much). And what's with the winter scene that came out of blue? A random sequence in a randomly made film. There are so many times that you feel something is missing or has gone really wrong or does not fit in. I wonder how such a product made it to the theaters. It shouldn't. Total waste of money and time.
Beautiful
kovilanram23 October 2023
I underestimated the movie at first but after watching it a enjoyed it a lot
Now to the main review.
I Enjoy the movie a lot,it is well made and has an interesting plot It has what you expect from movies,scenes that make you cry,laugh or any other emotion, i also like how its not scary so kids can watch it without parents worrying about their children being scared.
I think, is a movie that is fun for the whole family. Youngsters will like the characters, the older children will enjoy the plot, and the adults will likely enjoy the movie as.
I don't feel any horror. It's a very good movie for family,kids and youngsters.
Now to the main review.
I Enjoy the movie a lot,it is well made and has an interesting plot It has what you expect from movies,scenes that make you cry,laugh or any other emotion, i also like how its not scary so kids can watch it without parents worrying about their children being scared.
I think, is a movie that is fun for the whole family. Youngsters will like the characters, the older children will enjoy the plot, and the adults will likely enjoy the movie as.
I don't feel any horror. It's a very good movie for family,kids and youngsters.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
