Good concept, poorly executed.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

I only gave this two stars for the way that Emma Jones spent the entire movie staring into space. But seriously how did they get her to play the role?? Did she get extra direction on staring? But I get sidetracked. No, I never read the original novel or saw the 1968 movie. So my review is only about this movie right here. John Hurt puts his wife into a home when he obviously doesn't want to. Then he goes on a trip he doesn't want to take. He says he's going to several places but only actually goes to one and doesn't say anything else about going to another destination. So without any backstory I am completely derailed. Why did he put her in a home? Was someone pressuring him to do that? When you have no idea why someone is doing something it's hard when things start to get weird for them to feel sorry or pity - if anything you want to shout "Now you know how I feel watching this movie!" Then for no apparent reason he begins to be haunted by invisible rats. This is soon followed by a woman on the beach wrapped in sheets who he is terrorized by for no reason. She sometimes walks toward him and sometimes just appears right behind him. Nice jump scare but no reason!! He's running about have a grabber for no reason. Lastly, he is terrorized by someone knocking on his door. I don't know about everyone else but if someone was banging on my hotel door I'd get up and see who it was and what was going on. Maybe the hotel was on fire?? And then he dies of fright. After claiming there are no ghosts. After wanting so badly to be with his wife again (and then she's there and he dies)- the ghost appears as his angry wife crawling over to him. Why? I thought they were in love for 50 years? If they set it up that he was abusive then OK! But he doted on her. He loved her. Why wasn't he happy to see her?? And she killed him?? She was furious for no reason. I know the husbands out there will nod their heads but no.. no. Not in literature. You can't make a loving relationship into something horrible and lethal without explanation. So there you have it. If you think you want to watch this because you have 50 minutes to kill.. don't. Just sit there listening to your heart beat and know you spent the last 50 minutes better off than watching this movie.

In contrast to Sir Michael Hordern's character in the 1968 adaption of this classic tale, John Hurt's character (James Parkin) is far more socially adept. His wife, suffering from dementia, has been put into the hands of Lesley Sharp and her legion of nurses at a care home, and is revisiting a few 'old haunts' with the intention of taking a few photographs to bring back and show her. And yet, his conversation with lone receptionist Carol (Sophie Thompson), he – in fact both of them – address themselves as much as each other, both unknowingly trapped in their isolation.Rather than a whistle, it is a wedding ring he finds on the shore. The subsequent apparition he is followed by on the beach is surprisingly less of a special effect than in the original – a white, blurred mannequin.The hotel he stays in is typical of those hotels near the English coastline – magnificent yet weathered, sprawling but intimate. Out of season, Parkin is alarmed to find he is entirely alone during one fitful night. The porcelain bust of a head on a shelf in his room seems poised to move of its own accord – the camera teases as much, yet it remains static, much to our relief.Just as we never knew the nature of the spirit in the original, we are just as much deliberately left mostly in the dark here too – if indeed the spectres aren't figments of Parkin's very literal imagination. Here we can speculate that the very frightening scene at the end features the spirit of Parkin's wife blaming him for leaving her alone, or his own guilt. Either way, the effect and the lead-up to it, is genuinely unnerving.This 2010 version received mixed reviews. Some were incredulous, stating that Miller's early version didn't need a remake/reimagining, whilst others criticised the way the story was tweaked – so it seems Neil Cross's adaption could never win with some people. I love this version – it avoids repetition and does something new whilst retaining the original's atmosphere of dread.

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!