Search  for anything...
TCFHE

The Innocents

    • Based on 720 reviews
Condition: New
Checking for product changes
$10.97 Why this price?
Save $18.98 was $29.95

Buy Now, Pay Later

As low as $2 / mo
  • – 4-month term
  • – No impact on credit
  • – Instant approval decision
  • – Secure and straightforward checkout

Ready to go? Add this product to your cart and select a plan during checkout. Payment plans are offered through our trusted finance partners Klarna, PayTomorrow, Affirm, Afterpay, Apple Pay, and PayPal. No-credit-needed leasing options through Acima may also be available at checkout.

Learn more about financing & leasing here.

Free shipping on this product

This item is eligible for return within 30 days of receipt

To qualify for a full refund, items must be returned in their original, unused condition. If an item is returned in a used, damaged, or materially different state, you may be granted a partial refund.

To initiate a return, please visit our Returns Center.

View our full returns policy here.

Availability: In Stock.
Fulfilled by Amazon
Arrives Wednesday, Nov 20
Order within 10 hours and 22 minutes
Available payment plans shown during checkout

Description

Deborah Kerr stars in this "horrifying Gothic ghost tale" (Newsweek) based on Henry James' "The Turn Of The Screw,' a powerful psychological drama about innocence possessed by evil. Shortly after coming to live with orphans Flora and Miles in their dark, eerie mansion, the new governess (Kerr) mistakes their strange behavior for preciousness. But she soon comes to believe that the charming, beautiful children are possessed by evil, malicious spirits - the souls of their previous governess and estate manager who are now dead. With its shocking conclusion and sinister cinematic effects. The Innocents "catches an eerie, spine-chilling mood right from the start" (Variety) that never lets up.


Aspect Ratio ‏ : ‎ 2.351


Is Discontinued By Manufacturer ‏ : ‎ No


MPAA rating ‏ : ‎ Unrated (Not Rated)


Product Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 7.5 x 5.5 x 0.75 inches; 3.52 Ounces


Item model number ‏ : ‎ FOXS2230296DVD


Director ‏ : ‎ Jack Clayton


Media Format ‏ : ‎ Widescreen, NTSC, Anamorphic


Run time ‏ : ‎ 1 hour and 40 minutes


Release date ‏ : ‎ September 6, 2005


Actors ‏ : ‎ Deborah Kerr, Peter Wyngarde, Megs Jenkins, Michael Redgrave, Martin Stephens


Frequently asked questions

If you place your order now, the estimated arrival date for this product is: Wednesday, Nov 20

Yes, absolutely! You may return this product for a full refund within 30 days of receiving it.

To initiate a return, please visit our Returns Center.

View our full returns policy here.

  • Klarna Financing
  • Affirm Pay in 4
  • Affirm Financing
  • Afterpay Financing
  • PayTomorrow Financing
  • Financing through Apple Pay
Leasing options through Acima may also be available during checkout.

Learn more about financing & leasing here.

Similar Products

Top Amazon Reviews

    • Key discrepancies between the book and movie.
One of my favorite ghost stories ever! A miracle of adaptation from the written word. If you read the short book you'll see what I mean I believe. James is never more ambiguous. Giddons is pretty normal and this is her first placement as governess so I'm guessing she's in her early 20's. Has no history of mental illness. I say that because theres a lively debate among fans of this movie that there may be no ghost in the movie at all - they are all a creation of the heroines sick imagination which eventually turns deadly. I disagree in the strongest terms! To begin with James and everyone I'm aware of always refers to this as a "ghost story", something you certainly could not have merely with a madwomans ravings. There is a huge discrepancy - at least one I'm aware of now - between the movie and the book. In the movie they've conveniently planted the image of Quint in the miniature portrait of him Giddons finds shortly after her arrival in the home. Thus she knew what the man looked like even though at the time she didnt know he was dead. In the book Giddons begins seeing the apparitions without benefit of seeing any portraits of either one - she is certainly unaware of their appearance and when she describes the man to Mrs Gross it is Gross who quickly determines the person Giddons is saying she has seen. I dont know why the movie decided to do it differently, but obviously since Giddons saw and described someone accurately who has died it gives every indication that she in fact has seen a real ghost. Just makes the story so much more compelling to me and yet many people argue that Ms Giddons is simply a lunatic and this whole story is the product of her diseased mind. ... show more
Reviewed in the United States on November 26, 2016 by R. Still
    • Deborah Kerr is stunning in this cinematic masterpiece.
Director Jack Clayton’s 1961 film, “The Innocents” is an absolutely superlative film that reaches near perfection in what it set out to do. Sometimes categorized as Horror, the film is actually more of a spooky Gothic and will not appeal to many fans of contemporary Horror who will likely find it quite boring. For those who enjoy a more subtle touch, the film is a steadily more creepy affair, becoming ever more tense and unnerving as it proceeds. In the end it will leave you with many mysteries and unsolvable puzzles because it can be read two mutually exclusive ways, both of which are supported by the film. It is based on Henry James’ novella, “The Turn of the Screw”, which itself offers up mysteries and the same ambiguity about the events which take place. Pages and pages have been written about both the book and the film, which while not a box office success in its day, is now considered a great classic. Superficially a ghost story, it can also be read as a psychological horror-thriller about a person becoming gradually unhinged. The plot is simple. A man of high station leads and enjoys an active a life in society and has neither the time nor the inclination to care for his niece and nephew in the country . He hires a young governess to see after them and essentially puts her in charge of all things there. It starts out well, but she begins to see two figures on the property, who, through her friendship with the housekeeper, she discovers to be the ghosts of the previous governess and the Master’s valet, who had been in charge of the estate. She intuits that they are gradually possessing the children and sets it upon herself to save them before it is too late. The interpretive dilemma is whether it truly is a ghost story or the story of a governess whose temperament and imaginative nature, as well as the vast house in its isolated setting, lead her to imagine the spirits and gradually go mad, trying to save her charges from a situation that only exists in her mind. There’s no point in trying to figure that one out, although many writers have made strong cases for one or the other idea, because, as noted, both the novella and the film support both possibilities. I’d love to give examples and go into particulars but I wouldn’t want to spoil anything for anyone. I’ve seen the film a number of times over the years, and if you’re the kind of person who can bear to see a film twice in a short period, see it twice, alternating the interpretations and you will see the film is both. It went through two screenplays. The first was by William Archibald, who adapted his own 1950 play, also titled “The Innocents”. He wrote it strictly and completely as a ghost story in which the spirits and seemingly paranormal events are completely real. This did not satisfy Clayton, who was attracted to “The Turn of the Screw” precisely because of its ambiguity. He ordered a rewrite by Truman Capote, who, at the time was busy writing “In Cold Blood”, which would have put him in a correctly dark mood. Capote added elements that made it more Freudian and psychologically oriented and also managed to give it a bit of a Southern Gothic atmosphere, especially in the garden. Many of the really big scenes were added by him and do not exist in the original, but they are cinematic and in the spirit of the novella. Writer John Mortimer (the “Rumpole” novels) was called in to “Victorianize” the dialogue a bit. The film maintained the dual possibilities, though toward the end it leaned more heavily on the psychological interpretation. At times you cannot be sure if the camera’s point of view is that of an impartial witness or whether the point of view has transferred itself to the mind of the governess. It’s simply for you to fill in your own take on the events. There are other mysteries as well. What exactly was the relationship between the children and the previous governess and valet? There is a whole world of possibilities here, some of them of the darkest nature. Why has the boy, Miles, been expelled from school? There are deep psycho-sexual undercurrents that are hinted at but never revealed. And the ending as well leaves you no true resolution. What exactly happened? This is all part of James’ method, piling uncertainty upon uncertainty upon the reader, leading them into the tension caused by doubt, confusion and a lack of resolution. He called it “a potboiler”, but I think that was only because he was writing in a genre generally considered beneath his high literary reputation. He also encouraged the reader to be skeptical, thus absolutely encouraging the work’s multiple possibilities. James was a truly Victorian writer with long, wordy sentences and lush descriptions, as well as an interest in delving into the psychology of his characters. Clayton did a masterly job of transmitting James’ sensibilities to the screen, aided by cinematographer Freddie Francis and a superb Art Department. The film is in a gorgeous black and white with deep blacks and beautifully sharp detail for the great house and its wooded park. It was filmed in CinemaScope at the insistence of 20th Century Fox, a must by then for American moviegoers but a process that tended to flatten the picture. But “The Innocents” has great depth of field with the outer edges of the screen often dark to increase a sense of growing claustrophobia. A suitable Gothic Revival mansion of enormous size was found with Sheffield Park in Sussex which was used for exterior shots as well as it’s park and lake. The set builders went all out to create a suitably Gothic interior (Sheffield Park, an 18th century house was very early Gothic Revival, so early it had a typically classical interior). There are arched windows, a round window at the entrance, Gothic furniture, tapestries and all you need for a tale like this, but never overly elaborate or overdone. The garden is full of big white roses and wisteria, and the roses play a prominent part in the picture. There’s even a Gothic gazebo-like structure by the lake that also becomes important later on. Then there are the actors, especially Deborah Kerr. The governess in the story is twenty and Kerr was twice that, but it was Conway’s luck that the actress, who he admired, owed one last picture to Fox. She’s absolutely perfect as Miss Giddens, the governess. So bright and cheerful in the beginning, admitting to her potential employer that she is an imaginative person, so adept at gliding along in big Victorian hoop skirts, and so taken with the estate that she must walk from the gate to the house just to appreciate the place. She knows how to indulge children without overdoing it and can be stern when necessary. As events gradually darken the picture she expresses her own fear and horror without ever overdoing it. She’s no shrinking violet either. When the ghosts appear, she runs to confront them, even at the climax of the haunting when they seem to be everywhere. Not too, how her clothes go from light, ribboned affairs until the final third where she is entirely in black, looking almost clerical with a pleated blouse collar just above the neck of her jacket. You could not find anyone better to play this role than Deborah Kerr. It’s one of her finest moments. Then there are the children and Mrs. Grose, the housekeeper. Megs Jenkens plays Mrs. Grose as a fairly simple countrywoman, deferential to those of a higher station and superstitious enough to believe in ghosts. The children are both marvelous. Pamela Franklin is all sweetness and light except for moments when she’s watching “A lovely spider eating a butterfly”. And Martin Stephens is outstanding in the larger role of Miles. He’s very polite and sometimes seems to be an adult, wise beyond his years. He seems very precocious, but as an American I sometimes wondered if he was being precocious or just British. In any case he had already had experience playing an odd child in “Village of the Damned ”, and put it to good use here. This is simply a sensational film from an era when horror did not necessarily mean blood and gore and if taken on its own terms is far more disturbing than those silly things. ... show more
Reviewed in the United States on June 13, 2021 by johnf
    • A GHOSTLY MASTERWORK
A brilliant realization of the Henry James story "The Turn of the Screw", Jack Clayton's 1961 film is a mini-masterpiece. Totally absorbing with a potent screenplay written mainly by Truman Capote mixing a fair amount of Southern Gothic with the classic Victorian English ghost story. Deborah Kerr is simply unforgettable as the governess Miss Giddens trying to "save" her charges from the sins of the past. It is reported that Kerr considered this as her best performance and that's really saying something considering her extremely illustrious career. She is supported by two remarkable child actors, Martin Stephens and Pamela Franklin, who are brilliantly chilling in their roles and the main reason why this film is so convincing and believable. Director Jack Clayton was at the peak of his powers and this was the second of three excellent films he made between 1959-1964; the others being the Academy Award winning "Room at the Top" and "The Pumpkin Eater". A huge factor in the success of this film was its "look" mainly achieved by the stunning black and white cinematography of Freddie Francis. Francis had just come off winning the first of his two Oscars: "Sons and Lovers" (1960). As to be expected, the Criterion Collection edition is exemplary with lots of first rate extras. The highlight is an excellent and very informative introduction to the film by Christopher Frayling who also provides the audio commentary. I don't always take a great deal of notice to film intro's but I suggest you watch Frayling's as he provides a remarkable and invaluable insight into the history of this film. ... show more
Reviewed in the United States on October 6, 2014 by Anthony McGill

Can't find a product?

Find it on Amazon first, then paste the link below.