Whistle and I'll Come to You (2010 TV Movie) User Reviews

Whistle while you Hurt...

[Lejink · 6/10 · 9 January 2011]

It's many years since I read the M.R. James ghost story from which this production was adapted and so my familiarity with it has faded. I could only approach it then on its own merits whilst obviously recognising that the story had been relocated to the present-day. As such, whilst I did get caught up, to some extent, in the events which overtake John Hurt, who having just put his senile dementia-suffering wife into a care home, revisits, as he himself puts it, an old haunt of theirs, the story just had too many ambiguities to really leave me anything more than puzzled by the end.

I found myself trying too hard to put together the relative significance of the various constituents of the plot devices employed, like the ring Hurt finds on the beach, the vaguely menacing statuette which sits in his boarding house room and the appearance of the apparition on the beach. No doubt the director's aim was to make manifest the inner turmoil of Hurt's character, haunted by the guilt of abandoning his wife's care to others and his own inner wish to be reunited with her, but I wasn't fully convinced that such a sane-seeming individual as Hurt would succumb to his demons as actually takes place.

That said, the climactic scene itself did bring up the hackles on my neck, with it's effective use of close editing and background music, but for me, I couldn't afterwards tie up the loose ends as I felt I should.

It's also been a while since I saw John Hurt in a TV role and nowadays his lived-in face is perfect for an anguished role like this. The rest of the cast is minimal in number, pointing up his isolation. The unnatural eeriness of him walking a deserted beach in broad day-light and being completely alone in the boarding house seems a little unnatural however and stretches credulity. The direction too is a little slow and grey and fails to convey Hurt's dread until the very end.

A production then which for me lost something in the updating, and couldn't withstand the superimposition of modern-day post-traumatic psychology onto the source material of a hoary old Victorian ghost-story.

'call if you need me.....' A solid production.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 3 June 2023]

Have cared of his ill wife Alice for some time, James Parkin places his her in a care home. He sets off to one of their romantic haunts for a visit, and finds a ring on the beach, taking it with him, he is soon haunted by a malign force.

It's fair to say that Neil Cross heavily rewrote the story, to the point where chunks of it are virtually new, but he's a good writer, having penned Luther, and two episodes of Doctor Who (one awesome, the other best forgotten.)

I've come to enjoy this over the years, when it first went out I didn't really care for it, however I've grown to enjoy the atmosphere, Parkin's torment and the superb acting.

Pacing I'd say is moderate, it's slow to start, but builds as it develops. I'm not going to say it's up there with the classics, The Ash Tree and Signalman etc, but it's still very watchable, and quite unsettling.

John Hurt can do no wrong in my eyes, and he delivers a terrific performance here, very well supported by Gemma Jones, Sophie Thompson and Lesley Sharp.

7/10.

Fails to Understand James's Story

[JamesHitchcock · 5/10 · 16 January 2024]

Although only one feature film ("Night of the Demon") has been based upon the ghost stories of M R James, a number of them have been adapted as short plays for British television, a format to which they are possibly more suited. During my childhood in the 1970s, the BBC regularly used to dramatise one every year under the title "A Ghost Story for Christmas"; the tradition was revived in 2005 and continues to this day, although these recent offerings have not been broadcast every year. (There have been nine in a period of nineteen years).

James's story "Oh, Whistle and I'll Come to You, My Lad" has been dramatised before by the BBC in Jonathan Miller's version from 1968. (This was broadcast in May of that year as part of the "Omnibus" series of arts documentaries, and does not form part of the "Ghost Story for Christmas" series). James borrowed his title from a Robert Burns poem, but both television versions were broadcast under the shortened title "Whistle and I'll Come to You".

Miller's version omits a few minor details from James's tale, but is otherwise reasonably faithful to it. Professor Parkins, an elderly bachelor Cambridge academic, arrives at a hotel in a small Suffolk seaside town for a golfing holiday. While exploring the ruins of a local abbey, Parkins finds an old whistle. When blown, the whistle unleashes a terrifying supernatural force.

The 2010 version makes much greater changes to James's story. The protagonist is here renamed James Parkin and he becomes a retired astronomer. He is neither a bachelor nor a golfer, but feels the need for holiday after his wife Alice, who is suffering from dementia, has to be moved to a care home. Although it is the middle of winter, he chooses a hotel on the Kent coast which he and Alice once visited in earlier, happier days. He is, in fact, the only guest on the hotel (which made me wonder why they bothered to stay open if they get so little custom off-season).

Instead of a whistle, Parkin finds an old ring. Although this rather makes a nonsense of the title, it is a relatively minor change compared with two other ways in which this adaptation varies from the original story. The first concerns the protagonist's personality. James intended his story to be about "intellectual pride", something which Miller well understood and which was borne out in Michael Hordern's excellent performance in the 1968 version. His Parkins was, on the surface, an unworldly academic, but underneath an arrogant intellectual snob. Like his near-namesake Parkins, Parkin is an scientific rationalist who makes it quite clear that he does not believe in the supernatural. His reasons for disbelief, however, are rooted in his despair at the tragedy which has befallen Alice and have nothing to do with the intellectual pride which is Parkins's besetting vice. The second major change concerns the protagonist's fate. Parkins escapes with nothing more than a bad fright; Parkin also undergoes a terrifying experience but is found dead in his room the next morning.

These changes made me feel that, unlike Miller, Neil Cross, the scriptwriter of the 2010 version, did not really understand James's tale. Miller's version contains a note of ambiguity (which I think is also there in James) in that we can never be sure whether Parkins's experience is genuinely supernatural or a product of his imagination. What is important is that he comes to realise that there are, or at least might be, things in heaven and earth not dreamed of in his philosophy.

In Cross's version, however, we are never really sure what is going on. Is Parkin's experience somehow connected to the mysterious ring? Or is it somehow connected to Alice, who appears to Parkin as if in a dream? And why does Cross kill off this inoffensive old gentleman? Is he the victim of dark forces? Or was his fright more than his heart could stand? James's tale was a taut, well-constructed ghost story; this version is loose, baggy and coming apart at the seams. The only thing which saves it from a lower mark is the very good performance of John Hurt in the leading role. 5/10.

The best adaption of this story for me

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 6 June 2022]

This is the remake of the 60's TV film of the same name. Given the underplayed aesthetic of that former movie, its perhaps unsurprising that this one adopts that very modern style - the slow burn horror. You know the kind of thing - depressed characters eating fish fingers and peas for tea in dreary beige rooms with no soundtrack. I'm generally not a fan of this approach. I prefer less subtlety and more overt fun. And this film was sort of going down that path but lo and behold if it didn't turn things around with some proper scary carry on towards the end - real spine-tingling stuff. Ultimately, ghost stories are defined by spooky moments for me, so this one receives a thumbs up from me on that basis. This one also has John Hurt in the role played by Michael Hordern in the original and he was playing a much less annoying character here which was a further bonus. Some aspects of the story have been changed but the basic set-up is pretty much the same. Its well worth your time.

Chilling & Creepy Film

[Rainey-Dawn · 8/10 · 29 October 2016]

First of all, I have not read MR James' book so I cannot compare the film to the book. Secondly, When I have read the book and watched the film I try never to compare the film to the book.

This made for TV film is really good - very chilling, creepy! I was really impressed how scary the night scenes were - James Parkin (John Hurt) alone in the hotel room completely scary stuff! I had chills running up and down my spine with the scratching noises, the strange smiling bust, the door ratting, banging on the door and the look on Parkin's (Hurt's) terrified face definitely gave me the willies! If you like non-bloody, non-gory ghost stories then give this film a try. It's one of those slower films that builds over the viewing time - very subtle horror that becomes chilling.

8.5/10

Whistle and I'll Rewrite You

[Muldwych · 3/10 · 30 December 2010]

I think it's important to begin by saying that the BBC's efforts to bring the classic ghost stories of M.R. James to the small screen have, over the years, been a continual source of joy for lovers of old school horror such as myself. While not every adaptation has been as accomplished an approach to film-making as Jonathan Miller's iconic 1968 realisation of 'Whistle & I'll Come To You' and Lawrence Gordon-Clarke's memorable interpretation of 'A Warning To The Curious', even the comparatively more pedestrian entries have evoked not only the much-anticipated foreboding and supernatural atmosphere of the source material, but a good degree of faithfulness to their underlying themes. This, however, cannot be said for 2010's apparently necessary remake of 'Whistle And I'll Come To You', wherein the terms 'remake', 'intuitive understanding' and 'source material' are applied with the same degree of dubiousness as any arguments in support of the production's validity.

For those unfamiliar, as indeed many still will be after watching the new Whistle, the plot of the original centres around the cocksure academic bachelor Professor Parkins (Parkins in the original text), who takes a vacation during the off-season at a remote Norfolk seaside village for golf and exploration, the latter prompted by a colleague's request that he inspect the remains of an old Templar preceptory to determine its archaeological worth. This he duly does, and within the crumbling ruins, discovers an ancient whistle, unable to resist putting its practical function to the test. From that moment on, Parkins is never alone, having awoken forces beyond description and quite beyond all human understanding. The heart of the story is the folly of arrogant presumption, that there will always be realms of understanding beyond mortal man, and to believe you can quantify existence is to invite downfall. James's overconfident scholar and protagonist is the perfect vehicle to deliver this message, and an archetype that the writer, who was himself a highly-accomplished academic, knew better than most. The rapid destruction of Parkins's self-assured, almost autistic world is almost as disconcerting as the unknown forces he has unleashed, for which we are given only fleeting glimpses and very little explanation.

All of which clearly flew over the heads of the 2010 production team, who presumably felt that the core elements of the story were its beach setting, the university professor more inclined to the rational than the superstitious, and the general bleakness of his existence. So long as some vague continuity with these components was maintained, it seemed perfectly reasonable to completely rewrite both story and characterization to the point where the result was a pale shadow of its former self yet could still be legitimately broadcast under the same title.

The Neil Cross teleplay, in which the action is relocated to the present day, sees a Professor James Parkin committing his wife, apparently suffering from advanced senile dementia, to a care home before taking a long overdue vacation on the Kentish Coast in order to come to terms with his loss. The seaside resort also happens to be one of their old stomping grounds, and the discovery of a ring in the sand dunes brings to life more than mere memories for Parkin. Something seems keen to communicate with him on the deserted coast, and it may not be as unfamiliar as it first appears.

Cross's script quite spectacularly manages to miss the point of the James tale, retaining only superficial vestiges of its substance. Gone is the arrogant, antisocial university mandarin of the original. In his place is the more socially-capable doting husband whose rational worldview is in no way extreme and borne of great personal tragedy – again entirely caused by the most intimate of social interaction (the original Parkins wouldn't even know what to do with a woman). The character's ultimate fate is seemingly more extreme, yet far more simplistic and obvious, undercutting the psychological ramifications of his plight.

The 'ghost' of the story is equally less subtle and, by the climax of the tale, extremely more quantifiable than its antecedent, of which one understands no more by the end than they did when it first appears. Its intangible mystery is precisely the point of its existence, being something so alien that not even the well-read professor can define it.

The whole dramatisation is, in short, comprehensively dumbed down. The rapid departure from the original narrative is, according to those behind the camera, because Jonathan Miller had already dramatised the story so well that there seemed little point in retreading the same ground. The creative reigns are firmly in the grip of Marshall McLuhan's prophesied generation wherein the televisual medium has become the message for those who work in the industry. Television is its own reference point and must now be the source material for rehashing plots with diminishing returns. Heaven forfend that the book be the wellspring of inspiration instead. Telling the same story is surely the point of the exercise: if there is little point in retreading ground well-covered in the past, this, surely, is proof that the endeavour was unnecessary in the first place.

Cashing in on a popular title is perhaps the greatest offence and indeed irony, since the Cross script under the direction of Euros Lyn does deliver its own chilling moments. Add to this the very capable cast headed by John Hurt and Gemma Jones and some excellent location shoots, and there is much to otherwise praise. More damage is done to it by being arrogant enough to masquerade it as something it is not, whereas a more favourable analysis would be quite easy if it were touted as a new work in its own right. It isn't, however, being instead an unwarranted 'Disneyfication' of a far darker psychological piece that a new audience will mistakenly equate with Britain's greatest master of the macabre. It is the same blind egotistical behaviour that Hollywood is typically blamed for. With them, however, such silliness is expected.

Almost perfect little quiet chiller

[GiraffeDoor · 9/10 · 18 March 2019]

I've seen this twice and it holds up. It is not M.R. James' original story but I think it's better.

John Hurt goes to an almost empty hotel at the misty English coast. Shouldn't that be all you need? He totally brings it of course, he is so much fun to watch and listen to in his dry plaintiveness.

The main criticism against this movie is that "nothing happens". I have a shamefully short attention span but I found it to be quite compelling with its tense, cold atmosphere as it builds up gradually to the real freakiness.

It definitely keeps its cards close to its chest and doesn't do any of the cheesy stuff that you're worried it might do. The restraint and feather touch used here is very refreshing without being pretentious. From the very beginning there is a sense of dread and a gradual build toward being confronted with something namelessly terrible.

One thing that bothered me: at one point John Hurt makes a speech at how dementia is scarier than regular ghosts. As much as I admire the irony, NEVER mention what makes scary so scary in an actual scary movie...but I can forgive that.

This really gets under my skin, both by its command of atmosphere and the uncanny and by its very personal core.

It even manages to have dream sequence without it ruining the mood.

Why bother connecting it to M. R. James?

[rmeador · 3/10 · 6 March 2014]

I watched this on Hulu Plus on my new Apple TV, and was really excited to find this adaptation (along with Number 13). I must say, I'm completely baffled-- not baffled at what happened in the story (although now that I think of it...), but baffled as to why anyone would set out to make a film version of an M.R. James story, then completely discard the story and write a new one that has nothing to do with the original. What on earth is the point of that? John Hurt is a great actor, the scenes were nicely filmed, and all that. But it had nothing to do with the James story-- no whistle, no Templar ruins, no really creepy and scary presence, no reference to "Whistle and I'll come to you, lad", no real point of reference to the story whatsoever. The apparition wasn't very scary (wrapped in a sheet on a beach in broad daylight), the ring (instead of a whistle) didn't really make sense, and the whole invalid wife subplot just wasn't very good or scary (except at the end when it leapt out and yelled "boo"). It was moody and atmospheric, and John Hurt is terrific, but why would anyone present this as an M.R. James story? What a missed opportunity.

A very sad and beautiful piece of work

[john-morris-964-856483 · 8/10 · 2 April 2014]

I recently saw both versions of "Whistle and I'll come to you" for the first time and thoroughly enjoyed both but was somewhat surprised to come on here and see all the negative reviews for the remake. So this may help to redress the balance a little. Certainly, I am no fan of remakes. The vast majority are utterly pointless vanity projects and crucially, their major flaw is that they extract and dilute content, often removing a central motif, character or complexity found within the original work. Some of these criticisms have been levelled at the remake of "Whistle", however I feel this is unfair. I am no expert on MR James and I appreciate this prevents me from having a full picture of why people value this story so much.

It seems that the themes of the original 1968 TV production are best summed up by muldwych in another review posted on IMDb:

1. "The heart of the story is the folly of arrogant presumption, that there will always be realms of understanding beyond mortal man, and to believe you can quantify existence is to invite downfall".

2. "The rapid destruction of Parkins's self-assured, almost autistic world is almost as disconcerting as the unknown forces he has unleashed".

This take on the 1968 version is fascinating and there is no doubt that this is the central theme of the piece. However, with the wonderful Michael Hordern playing the role, I just don't get the sense of his world crumbling in this way. He seems intrigued by these "unknown forces" but never particularly troubled by them (with the exception of the last 30 seconds). In a scene five minutes before the end, he is still fussing about not liking tomatoes and generally bumbling around in his own world. The events hardly seem to depict the dismantling and discrediting of an intellectual mindset as other reviews have described.

So what is it about the John Hurt version that irritates fans of the original adaptation? Well, it is indeed a very different character with different circumstances. Hurt has just taken his incapacitated wife, suffering from dementia, into a care home and then gone on a therapeutic holiday alone to revisit places where they spent time together. While this twist raises the ire of many fans of the original tale, for me on first viewing without any background knowledge, it was utterly compelling and sublime. There is a palpable sense of loss, loneliness and bereavement running throughout, as Hurt appears to be pushing himself into this new life of solitude, forcing himself to function and revisit the past, a place that is both comforting and gut wrenchingly bittersweet. The film just seems to throb and reverberate with a glow of sadness and a kind of bleak fortitude.

And this is perhaps where the two adaptations link together. Both men have been cut loose from their moorings and their belief systems, and the way they understand and relate to the world around them is being called into question. Michael Hordern's version of the character is not put into this situation until he blows into the whistle. John Hurt is already adrift when he arrives at the hotel and the supernatural events send him further into this spiral. But they are both lost souls in different ways and for this reason, they are both equally valid as a lead character.

The two versions are exquisitely filmed and both are utterly beautiful. I did find more tension in the 2010 remake, I have to say, and I found myself nervously scouring the edges and background of each frame for any ghostly figures or disturbing detail. So for this reason, maybe the John Hurt version just edges it for me. Admittedly though, perhaps the title of the remake should've been changed, as it is a little clumsy considering the plot changes involved.

Play With My Ring And I'll Bang On Your Door

[screenman · 1/10 · 30 December 2010]

'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!

An atmospheric tale that chilled me to the bone

[icemanufacturer · 8/10 · 6 January 2013]

There haven't been many feature films recently that spooked me as much as this adaptation let alone a short film (in fact the length may have contributed to it's effectiveness). Contrary to many reviews already posted I have no knowledge of the source material or original TV version that came before so I approached this version with a virgin mind to the story and it chilled me to the core. The two stand out aspects were the photography which was magnificent in widescreen with slow lingering pans, pulled focus and open sections of the frame that tantalisingly invited 'things' to occupy them in addition to a stellar central performance from John Hurt. As the central (and one of only four) characters featured, he inhabited characteristics that heightened the slow building tensions that crept up throughout. The relationship with his wife added a tender sheen to proceedings amongst the dread. There were a number of tiny details that were used to great effect including human facial images hidden away in mundane objects such as rocks and clouds that are difficult to miss but all add to an implication of the supernatural on a sub-conscious level. The methods used in the piece reminded me of Robert Wise's classic, 'The Haunting' and I couldn't take my eyes from the screen. the climax knocked me off my chair in a similar fashion to 'Ringu' the J Horror Classic. The production is a triumph.

Probably the biggest disappointment of the festive season

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 18 January 2011]

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

John Hurt..

[mpope-95736 · 10/10 · 24 April 2019]

Whistle & I'll come to you (2010) Can't understand the negative reviews of this decent,imaginative ghost story.For me the presence of John Hurt as the main character,Parkins makes this made for tv effort a very enjoyable ride. This time it seems there is no whistle to be found on the beach ,but an ancient wedding ring which he brings back to the hotel out of curiosity..A well directed & dreamily photographed gem !

Looks good, but why change the story?

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 13 March 2012]

The BBC had a tradition of making some exceptionally spooky TV movie ghost stories based on the writings of M. R. James back in the 1970s – and WHISTLE AND I'LL COME TO YOU is their latest attempt to recall those much-loved classics. Unfortunately, while this 55 minute production is beautifully shot and full of a sense of gradually creeping menace, the whole thing is ruined by a needless updating of the storyline so that it becomes almost unrecognisable. Gone is the old whistle of the story, replaced by an old ring, and gone is the nameless horror lurking in the protagonist's bed sheets in favour of a more "updated" psychological torment. Therefore the title is now redundant and the story bears little resemblance to James's original.

John Hurt is fine in the leading role, playing a refreshingly ordinary man for a change, and Sophie Thompson is also good value as the hotel receptionist. The winner, though, is director Andy De Emmony, who creates a supremely atmospheric look and feel to the production, with good old fashion scares straight out of THE HAUNTING, a suitably bleak backdrop and a wonderfully spine-tingling climax – fingers under the door – before THAT silly twist. Sadly, Neil Cross's look-at-me-I'm-better-than-James screenplay is a real letdown; if only they'd let somebody with a genuine affection for the genre, like Mark Gatiss, have a stab at it instead!

Don't listen to the naysayers

[ebeckstr-1 · 10/10 · 28 February 2019]

Underrated. One of the best ghost stories ever put on film. People who are disparaging this version of the MR James story because it "is not a close enough adaptation" should A) come to a better understanding of the concept of adaptation, and B) judge the film on its own merits. For the sake of comparison, Blade Runner is an extraordinarily loose adaptation of the original novel, and yet both novel and film stand on their own merits as excellent works. The same holds true here.

The James story has been adapted again and again. What makes this version especially strong is its singular interpretation of the psychological dimensions present in the original story; a stunning emotional resonance pertaining to loss, grief, existential despair, and the externalization of these emotions in the form of a haunting, which is a prototypical Gothic convention (similar to Kyoshi Kurosawa's ghost films Retribution and Seance, so if you like those films you'll probably like this one); as well as the creepy, and at moments, terrifying use of sound and camera work. All this, combined with John hurt's superb acting.

This is a great film. Frankly, I think those giving it low scores really don't understand what it's doing.

Wtf??

[phelana01 · 2/10 · 24 July 2017]

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.

Very good, creepy and emotionally impactful adaptation the MR James story

[ebeckstr-1 · 10/10 · 20 January 2019]

I can't understand the low ratings for this production. I suppose some people are giving it low rankings because they object to it being a fairly loose adaptation of the short story. This is somewhat true on the face of it, but also beside the point. Take the story and the film each on its own terms, and enjoy them as separate entities. They are each worthy of your time.

It is a rare ghost story adaptation that does a truly excellent job being scary with respect to the ghostly, creepy events and specters appearing on screen, while also connecting this content with a deeply emotionally resonant story centered on grief and guilt. And John Hurt is superb, as always.

Finally a very poor adaptation of a classic

[AlanJ2 · 3/10 · 17 November 2012]

This is a modern version of the classic MR James ghost story 'Whistle and I'll Come To You'. To his credit Neil Cross has tried to find a modern way into the story and has turned it into a tale about a man whose wife is lost to Alzheimer's. Unfortunately what emerges has little resonance (the Alzheimer's stuff is patently phony--sorry Neil all sufferers from the illness do not act like corpses)and also zero connection to the original. All that survives is a lonely hotel by the seaside, a lonely man and...well not much else. Not even the whistle remains. The writer might just as well have stopped trading on the classic name and author and done an original story . Except of course if he had it would never have been made. Nobody is saying we need a slavish copy. Jonathan Miller's earlier classic version was recognisably the same story but it was still changed to brilliant effect. Cross just grafts a mediocre ending on and leaves it at that. The result is quite atmospherically directed but all else goes for nothing. What exactly was the point?

Remaking 'Whistle and I'll Come to You' was both a bold choice and a logical one: the gamble paid off

[dr_clarke_2 · 9/10 · 6 September 2020]

After a short hiatus, the twenty-first century series of A Ghost Story for Christmas continued with a new adaptation of M. R. James' Oh, Whistle and I'll Come to You, My Lad, Jonathan Miller's celebrated Omnibus version of which is often credited with inspiring the program in the first place. Given that Miller's 'Whistle and I'll Come to You' is considered a classic of British television drama, remaking it might seem rather risky, but wisely the new version written by Neil Cross - and also called 'Whistle and I'll Come to You' - doesn't try to imitate it.

Still drawing inspiration from M. R. James' original story, Cross' screenplay has James Parkin visiting the coast for a respite holiday whilst his wife Alice - who is in the late stages of dementia - remains in a care home. As he forlornly revisits the beaches were they used to ramble together, he finds a ring in the sand (replacing, oddly, the titular whistle), after which he soon finds himself catching glimpses of a mysterious figure in white pursuing him across the beach, whilst unknown forces rattle the door of his hotel bedroom. Resolutely rational - like James' original Parkin - he gradually finds his refusal to believe in the uncanny being eroded and - like so many of James' protagonists - meets a memorably terrifying end.

Cross' version is more overtly supernatural in tone than Miller's, but shares the central concept of an isolated man at the coast being pursued by an unknown something. This version of Parkin is isolated by grief, as he mourns the transformation of his wife into somebody he barely recognises, and John Hurt's effortless brilliant performance makes the lonely, melancholy old man achingly realistic. Hurt also conveys Parkin's growing terror convincingly, as the rattling at his door shreds his nerves and glimpses of a figure on the beach inspire panic.

Andy de Emmony directs, and in the tradition of the program, good use is made of the location filming, even if it lacks the stark bleakness of the seventies episodes or, indeed, Miller's Whistle and I'll Come to You. De Emmony builds suspense slowly: the white figure on the beach should be chilling, but isn't - until the second time we see it. The film slowly, progressively becomes more sinister, building gradually towards the last five minutes, which are absolutely terrifying. De Emmony is aided by Tristin Norwell and Nick Green's subtle, atmospheric soundtrack, and a fine supporting cast that includes Gemma Jones (heartbreakingly believable as Alice) and Sophie Thompson as the sympathetic hotel receptionist. The fact that there are only four cast members (and less than a handful of extras) is a budgetary constraint that pays off, as it heightens the production's sense of loneliness and isolation.

Remaking 'Whistle and I'll Come to You' was both a bold choice and a logical one. As things turned out, the gamble paid off: the end result is a masterful episode of A Ghost Story for Christmas which proves that the work of M. R. James can still produce a chill in the twenty-first century.

Great actors, shame about Neil Cross

[wispy-47669 · 1/10 · 25 November 2021]

I adore M. R. James. I particularly love all the adaptations shown at Christmas. Well, I say all.... This was more than a disappointment, it was a betrayal. While the actors did a brilliant job, the crew too. The writer brought in (and very much an honour to be called on) decided to add depression and grief into a plot which was already tight and fully formed in its message... a message which was muddied by the writers need for recognition of his own touch placed. Well, we didn't need his touch and this will remain the only adaptation that I at least, will never revisit.

Thank the literary gods for the original adaptation and writer. Please don't unleash that writer on classics again.

Very good but it's not Whistle & I'll Come to You

[kerrleea · 8/10 · 6 November 2020]

This is an excellent and atmospheric film in its own right; the only problem I have with it is the title, it's superfluous, the whistle doesn't exist in any form and there is very little in common with the original story. The theme of a man staying in a small out of season seaside hotel, who finds something which was hidden and is followed by and dreams of a mysterious figure remain but the reason for his presence in the hotel, the nature of his find, the nature and behaviour of the ghost and the end result are all altered. If you change the plot and the theme why bother retaining an irrelevant title?

Confused rewrite missing the point of the original

[nebilcs-168-165298 · 3/10 · 18 January 2020]

The original story describes the horror when the supernatural breaks out of the confines of abstract theory and scornful dismissal into a very real manifestation. The sense of growing dread which begins with the question carved into the whistle is conveyed brilliantly in Jonathan Miller's version.

Not so in this version. Despite sharing many of the elements of the original, with a superb actor in John Hurt and with a far superior budget, this production can only be seen as a confused mess.

There is no whistle, just a ring. The whistle is critical for summoning this ancient menace - for what reason was a ring seen as an appropriate substitute? A play on words for the smartphone age?

And what is this ancient menace ? Miller's version never answered this question; it never needed to. In this version it seems the wife's disembodied spirit was doing the haunting - and if so, why was the manifestation so aggressive and frightening? Was she annoyed he didn't bring her along?

It would have been more coherent to drop the horror element altogether and turn it into a romantic ghost-of-sorts story whereby the couple could be reunited at the place they had enjoyed so much.

Very, very good.

[pepgooner · 8/10 · 10 April 2022]

Beautifully shot, superb sound design, well-performed by all (apart from the lady at the hotel desk, who I found too mannered) this is a beautifully eerie and weird short film.

Very loosely adapted from the MR James story, but retaining the sense of quiet menace, I have to recommend it to all lovers of the phantastic who appreciate a tale told carefully and slowly.

Whistle and I'll Come to You

[Prismark10 · 4/10 · 26 December 2023]

Whistle and I'll Come to You. If only I could see a whistle.

Neil Cross has reimagined MR James ghost story. In this updated version set in the present day. James Parkin (John Hurt) a retired astronomer places his wife at a care home. She seems to have dementia.

He then heads to the coast where both he and his wife spent better days. This includes going to the hotel where they honeymooned.

As it is out of season, the hotel is empty, Parkin is the only guest. Only he has a restless night and believes that he is being watched.

When he walks down the beach, Parkin has the sensation of being followed.

Nothing seems to happen much and I thought this lacked atmosphere. The Michael Hordern version from the late 1960s, made in black and white was better. It had more atmosphere.

Cross seems to have gone for a more ambiguous ending. Parkin might have been haunted by his wife, who felt abandoned at the care home.

Unsettling dread

[jjbx-54149 · 8/10 · 13 August 2021]

In my opinion, this is better than the Jonathan Miller version. I watched this late one evening on the BBC during the Christmas period. It scared me on the night and it has left a lasting memory of unsettling dread.