User reviews

Oscar Wilde's short story is here updated and given a glossy makeover in this American TV movie co-produced by lead actor Patrick Stewart. Wilde's tale is tweaked somewhat, no doubt for modern consumption, but the story of the lamenting ghost, behind whose bluster lies a desire for redemption and eternal rest still comes through in what was a pleasant and watchable piece of family entertainment.

Making good use of its Knebworth House location and employing the services of veteran English supporting actors Joan Sims and Donald Sinden as housekeeper Mrs Umney and her husband, these fustian, traditional components, along with the stentorian, Shakespeare-quoting Stewart as the ghost himself, contrast nicely with the brash youth of Mr & Mrs Otis and their young children. I might have wished for a scarier ghost and better special effects but I guess a TV movie budget is somewhat less than for a full cinematic release.

As is usual in tales of this type, there's always one disbelieving sceptic, in this case the father, Mr Otis, who for good measure appears to have seen his relationship with oldest daughter Virginia become strained as she gets older, the situation for the latter exacerbated by the family's move to England from America.

After initially encountering Stewart's ghost with to be fair, not much fear and trepidation, the children man (and woman) up enough for Virginia to bond with it and by the end lead it to peace and the expected happy ending. The device of trying to convince the father of the ghost's existence by means of the daughter and Stewart recreating Hamlet's father's ghost scene seems a bit far-fetched for modern audiences, even whilst I appreciate it is in the book. Neve Campbell does well in her scenes with Stewart depicting a young teenage girl's blossoming into womanhood, aided conveniently by the appearance of a neighbouring handsome young lord.

Purists may criticise some of the liberties taken with Wilde's original story, but sufficient respect I believe is paid in what was for me a sprightly and warming retelling of a nice old tale.

While there are still many variances from the original story, this version hewed much more closely to it than the 1944 film, which bore little more resemblance to the original than the name. I think this one was well served by the greater similarity.

I thought all the actors did a great job, though I was a bit put off by the peevishness of the father character during most of the movie. In the original story he was also a non-believer, but with much more good humor and sympathy.

I don't know if anyone has ever tried enacting the story as written but I'd be interested in seeing it if they did.

Neve Campbell and her family (small brothers, sympathetic mum, physicist and cynic father) travel from America to England when he lands a lucrative research post, and almost immediately strange things begin to happen in the de Canterville ancestry home.

Bumps and moans in the night, bloodstains, invisible hands on the shoulder - yes, there's a ghost about.

Oscar Wilde's story takes shape beautifully in this TV version, one of the numerous adaptations of his tale for children. Patrick Stewart is the ghostly Simon de Canterville, doomed to walk the house at night for all eternity for his earthly crimes, and he is watchable, especially wrestling with the pride of 400 years dead and no one to bow and scrape around him.

This being a fairy tale there's romance for Ginny as well in the shape of a local Duke (Daniel Betts) who is sympathetic to ghosts and very charming, as local Dukes so often are in these stories. Donald Sinden and Joan Sims play butler and housekeeper, shielding guilty secrets, and Leslie Philips appears briefly as the current representative of family de Canterville.

Recommended for children and adults alike, 'The Canterville Ghost' is charming, touching, and with just the right amount of suspense. The Americans may be paint-by-numbers stereotypes, but that doesn't matter. Without Stewart, I might have rated this much lower, but it definitely deserves high points for his performance alone.

This is a little gem of a movie, with lush sets and surprisingly good special effects, in a truly English (as opposed to a Disney/Mary Poppins British) setting and an attractive cast. Patrick Stewart brings the full weight of his Shakespearian background to bear, and creates a tragic and tender ghost, never lapsing into bathos or slapstick. Neve Campbell as the heroine is convincing as a brave, warm-hearted girl embarking on a gentle romance with the well-cast Daniel Betts. Kids will love the ghostly capers, teenagers and older family members will enjoy Ginny and Francis getting closer together, and empathise with the father-daughter conflict, and more mature watchers will be moved by the sad history of Sir Simon. A three-hanky movie. The only fly in the ointment was the entirely wasted presence of Joan Sims and Donald Sinden - "ham" really should have been off the menu in their case, but at least we don't have to see much of them.

This movie was quite enjoyable. Patrick Stewart is great in everything and this was no exception, he transformed his ghost character to be engaging and sympathetic. Neve brought charm and warmth. The rest of the cast were pretty good, some better than others. I didn't give it a full 10 stars because certain scenes were a bit too hokey, eg. the portrait scene with Sir Canterville and Neve (anyone who saw it will know what I mean - harks back to hammy 80s photos) and the father character was a little too smarmy and annoying. There will be no plot surprises but all up it was an interesting and entertaining 1.5 hour movie.

Research scientist Edward Wiley moves his family to England for a research professorship. They take up at a magnificent country home (Knebworth House, eventually bought by Edward Bulwer-Lytton, and still in the possession of his descendants), Daughter Neve Campbell hates it. Then she meets and makes friends with the ghost of a 16th century Canterville -- Sir Patrick Stewart, who seeks to pass beyond the veil of this world.

Although it's based on a short story by Oscar Wilde, it's been made into a movie several times, most notably with Charles Laughton as the cowardly ghost. This version is a far more serious one, about love and faith, but mostly giving Sir Patrick a chance to speak some Shakespearean and pseudo-Shakespearean lines. With a cast that includes Joan Sims, Donald Sinden, and Leslie Phillips, it takes a while to get going, but in the end it is quite effective for its purpose.

I liked this version okay, but my favorite "Canterville Ghost" is the one 10 years before this one-- the 1986 version with Alyssa Milano and Sir John Gielgud. The 1986 movie was much better and more exciting than this one... More scary and funny things happened in it. I also thought they bothered to do better "ghostly" special effects. But the 1996 one is definitely worth seeing, none the less... It's a nice story and I thought that Patrick Stewart and Neve Campbell did a good job. The little brothers were annoying though in this one, and completely un-necessary to the movie. But the castles and the english scenery are so pretty in both. The music was much better in the 1986 version though.. even the opening scene was nicer of them going up to the castle in the horse drawn carriage, rather than in a car. So it's those little details that make the one a decade earlier a lot better than this one.

There's a certain irony in a parody of the Gothic genre being turned into a mess of clichés by filmmakers who either had no idea what the story's purpose was, or just didn't care. All of the hallmarks of your average family film are present- rambunctious younger siblings, a grumpy teenager who doesn't want to move, unsympathetic parents who are unable to see the apparition, and of course a romantic subplot. The movie has very little in common with Wilde's original story, which was largely written to poke fun at the melodramatic Gothic novellas that were all the rage at the time. If Wilde saw this version, he'd probably laugh- and then of course, write a parody. One can only hope that the children who watched this bland, mass-produced pap eventually discovered the wit and sparkle of the original version.

Despite what some people have said about this TV movie, it was my impression that it was simply magnificent. Patrick Stewart is in his Element in Shakespearean characterization and this is among his finest roles. Neve Campbell brought a warm sensitivity to the role of Virginia and gave a moving performance. The script was first rate, and contrary to what some have said, playing this story in a modern setting works remarkably. That is one of the strengths of great literature that it can be shaped to different times. I was riveted to this production, I having forty years or more since I saw the Charles Laughton version. I can highly recommend this version as a great film and a great family film.

Fore I did in fact enjoy this.

Its not everyday that after years of watching thousands of movies, shows and anime from across the decades from the turn of the century with black and white silent flicks, to modern crud or the odd good modern film. I am not going to pretend I am some great critic that writes like a poet, but this film, though made for tv, was good. IT had the super talented and entertainment Sir Patrick Stewart, Neve Campbell back in her super cute early 20s, and a relatively funny "newer" version of one of Oscar Wilde's short stories. The irony is that this story was like the polar opposite of The Portrait of Dorian Grey, which is a storye of Wilde's I love. Yet for those not familiar with the Canterville Ghost the tale is about a different kind of immortality; stuck in perpetual pergatory and not actually being allowed to move on to heaven or hell. Just stuck in a lonely, sad, soul crushing, purposeless ghostly existence. At least Dorian Grey got to live, but he was too much of a hollow, nearly dead foppish fool. Dead on the inside as the Ghost of Canterville was in all truth and meaning of the word. BUt it was kinda light hearted as older made for tv stories were.Its got that kinda grainy lower quality look to the film from the older tech and trying to shoot scenes by actual candlelight ( with dim but noticable staged lgihting here and there too at times)...but I loved that back in the day. The story is nice and charming ina simple way that almost anyone can watch, even young children of 5+ years old. Its hardly a real horror story. And the family and myself liked it immensely. Almost an 8 out of 10 for that fine tale and ending.

The Canterville Ghost (1996).The director made this too sappy a production. Maybe it's the generation, but I really liked the Charles Laughton version. There is a time and place for "emoting" and this production does not translate very well. Patrick Stewart, reciting Shakespeare was very good, but still inappropriate. Would neither recommend nor watch again. The close-ups and padded text and sub-plots were lost on me. Adding extraneous material and scenes takes away from a truly great work. The screenplay writer should find another profession in which to misplace his talent, maybe afternoon soap operas would be a better venue. Check out the really good version and pass on this one.

What cuteness, great adaptation, half youthful, half romantic, a little dramatic and almost nothing frightening, anyway, delicious ... Gracinha da Família, a simple and captivating film...

Neve Campbell plays a young woman who moves reluctantly with her modified family to a new house, new country in an adaptation of the Oscar Wilde story. As with most of Wilde's short stories and fairy tales, there is a moral to learn, but the morals he spoke of challenged contemporary ideas. The film is based at a younger audience, but there is much for the older viewer to enjoy too, as was also the way with his short stories. There has been much debate as to whether they, and his fairy tales were designed for children or adults.

The plot follows Neve's character dealing with growing up, life, love with the help of a ghost played by Patrick Stewart. Both leads perform well, with adequate help from veterans and relative newcomers. The film looks gorgeous, but unless you are a big fan of Wilde, Neve or Stewart, you probably won't go out of your way to see it. However, if it is on TV, it is worth watching. 7 out of 10.

There is nothing like an Oscar Wilde comedy, and this movie is nothing like a comedy. The melodrama labors from scene to scene and the comedy is completely absent. In the original story, the humor comes from the Americans who are oblivious to the ghostly traditions of Canterville Chase. The American father even offers some oil to the ghost to quiet the creaking chains. Read the book!

I first saw this at a sleepover, so I wasn't in the right state of mind, but I've got to say the first thing I noticed was Daniel Betts as the Duke of Cheshire. Once I saw the film again I realised how great it was, and being a HUGE Star Trek fan it was an added bonus to see Patrick Stewart in a different role, loving the Shakesperian accent! I have it on video and never get tired of watching it! Neve Campbell was also very good but the film was made by Francis, why don't Dukes like that really roam around England?! And Leslie Philips as Lord Canterville was an added bonus. .

This is a fun family movie. It is slightly scary in some parts but has a love conquers all theme to it. There is a steady plot, following closely to the original story.

Some of the acting was cheesy and stiff but the interaction between the main characters makes up for the inexperience of the sideline actors. Patrick Stewart is a great ghost and plays the part with authenticity and bravado. His classical training really shines through in this film as he recites Shakepeare. Neve Campbell is Neve Campbell, you either like her or you don't.

We bought it at Wal-Mart for $5 and it is worth the money to add it to our family collection.

"The Canterville Ghost" (1996) is yet another adaptation of Oscar Wilde's classic tale, and while it may not be the most faithful or nuanced interpretation, it does offer a few redeeming qualities.

The film's production values are surprisingly high for a television movie, with lavish sets and costumes that evoke the grandeur of Canterville Hall. The cinematography is also quite lovely, capturing the English countryside's beauty and the gothic atmosphere of the manor.

However, the film's script feels somewhat rushed and underdeveloped, failing to fully explore the complexities of Wilde's story. The humor falls flat at times, relying on tired tropes and predictable gags. The pacing is uneven, with some scenes dragging on while others feel rushed.

The performances are a mixed bag. Neve Campbell, in her teenage years, brings a certain charm and innocence to the role of Virginia Otis, the young American girl who befriends the ghost. However, her character lacks the depth and complexity of Wilde's original creation.

Patrick Stewart, on the other hand, seems to be channeling his inner Hamlet in his portrayal of Sir Simon de Canterville, the titular ghost. While Stewart is undoubtedly a talented actor, his performance here feels over-the-top and out of place in this otherwise lighthearted adaptation. His Shakespearean delivery and melodramatic gestures clash with the film's overall tone, creating a jarring disconnect for the audience.

The supporting cast is serviceable, but none of the performances are particularly memorable. The film's attempts at humor often fall flat, and the romantic subplot between Virginia and a young Duke feels forced and unconvincing.

Despite its flaws, "The Canterville Ghost" is not entirely without merit. It's a visually appealing film with a few charming moments, and Neve Campbell's performance is a bright spot in an otherwise underwhelming production. However, the film ultimately fails to capture the wit and sophistication of Wilde's original story, opting instead for a more simplistic and sentimental approach.

I was really excited when I read "The Canterville Ghost" would be shown on TV. However, I was deeply disappointed. I loved the original story written by Oscar Wilde and sadly nothing of that was transferred by the movie.

What can say about The Canterville Ghost, it is a excellent family drama safe for children to watch, it's fun to watch, it has mystery, and fantasy, it makes you laugh, and puts tears in your eyes.

It is a movie that we watch three or more times a year. Never get tired of it.

Fans of Patrick Stewart, and Neve Campbell, both are great in the movie. Check it out.

Virginia 'Ginny' Otis (Neve Campbell) is an unhappy teenager. Her father got a new job and moved the American family to the English countryside. He rented the vast estate of Canterville Hall. Everybody knows that it's haunted. Ginny and her two younger brothers can see the ghost of Sir Simon de Canterville (Patrick Stewart), but their scientist father cannot accept it. He believes that Ginny is manufacturing it to drive the family back home.

This is Captain Picard and Sidney Prescott doing a TV adaptation of an Oscar Wilde short story for ABC. Maybe people have a problem with that. Neve Campbell is on the verge of her IT girl pinnacle. Patrick Stewart is well entrenched. This is pretty good for a TV movie.

Anyone who gives this movie more than 2 stars or who extols its virtues obviously hasn't read the original from the incomparable Oscar Wilde. Almost all of the heart of the story was taken out of this script. It's really sacrilegious. The only good lines were Patrick Stewart's, since they weren't tampered with by this movie's so-called teleplay writer. Even Virginia's young boyfriend's name was inexplicably changed from Cecil to Francis, her brothers were no longer twins, and the older brother just disappeared. Mrs. Umney was suddenly given a husband, and they were the only servants in this huge castle. Yeah, right! The most awful change, however, was the abusive father. I was so glad when at the end the mother finally stood up to him and told him how awful he's been to his sweet daughter, but she had allowed it to go on throughout the whole film -- it's just unforgivable! I'm sure Mr. Wilde is doing flips in his grave. A travesty!

Do you remember those charming, touching, romantic movies from the 40s or 50s? Can you imagine one of those transformed into a teenie film without loosing a bit of its charm? Well, it can be done, as this film proves.

It's the perfect film for an autumn evening with a fire crackling in the fireplace and the lights turned low.

An American family moves into a huge manor north of London where the teenage daughter (Neve) discerns a ghostly presence (Stewart) while romancing a young duke (Daniel Betts).

A television production, "The Canterville Ghost" (1996) is based on Oscar Wilde's humorous short story from 1887 and is one of the more faithful film adoptions (amongst many), just updating the story to modern times and omitting the eldest son, Washington, as well as making Virginia about 18 years-old, rather than 15.

It's an entertaining family fantasy with a haunting edge in the mold of "The Watcher in the Woods" (1980/2017). You could call it G horror or PG horror and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as the story's good. It's akin to a Nancy Drew mystery set at a castle-like manor in Britain.

Neve was 21 during shooting, almost 22, and does fine as the intelligent protagonist, although I could take her or leave her. Meanwhile Stewart was keeping busy before doing his second TNG movie. He makes the specter sympathetic.

The movie runs 1 hour, 32 minutes, and was shot at Knebworth House, which is located 30 miles north of London.

GRADE: B/B-

Some famous stories are prone to being moved to another epoch and, as such, becoming an embarrassing TV-movie. Oscar Wilde's Canterville Ghost is one of them. This TV movie for kids is utterly cheap, concerning acting, character work, credibility, directing and even concerning the modest special effects. As often, the question arises: what was this made for?