The Woman in Black
2.5/4
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer, Roger Allam
Rated PG-13 for Thematic Material and Violence/Disturbing Images
Not every scary movie has to rely on bloodthirsty killers or possessed forms of technology. Last year's "Insidious" proved that. Daniel Radcliffe's new ghost story is definitely spooky, but it falls short of a recommendation.
Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is a young lawyer who is still grieving over the loss of his wife (Sophie Stuckey) four years ago. She died while giving birth to his son, Joseph (Misha Handley) and he still hasn't gotten over it. He's been assigned to go to a remote village to make sure the passing of a house is done legally. When he gets there, he finds that the locals are terrified of the house, and warn him not to go there. Only one man, Sam Daily (Hinds) is welcoming to him. It isn't long before Arthur realizes that the house is indeed haunted, and she's got a bone to pick.
"The Woman in Black" has a great sense of atmosphere. Unlike many horror movies, not everything is clouded in darkness (although most is), and there's a stark contrast between the light and the dark. This is a very gloomy place. As lensed by Tim Maurice-Jones, it's the perfect setting for a ghost story.
Unfortunately, the film is poorly paced. Director James Watkins spends too much time having Arthur wandering around the house getting spooked instead of developing the plot (which, like all horror movies, is pretty thin). If you really think about it, not much happens, and as a result, the film seems a lot longer than its skinny 95 minute running time.
Daniel Radcliffe does not have a great range. Even as Harry Potter, one could instantly tell that his thespian skills are easily stretched. Radcliffe is good in the role, although he's far too young to play the role of a grieving father. The actor is 22, which even by 19th century standards, is too young to be the father of a four-year-old boy. If this was made five years down the road, Radcliffe could have played the character better. He is given support by an able cast, primarily the wish-he-was-in-everything Ciaran Hinds, but this is mainly his show. To be fair to Radcliffe, his being a father isn't brought up a lot, so it's fairly easy to ignore most of the time.
What is on screen is good stuff. But I wanted more. I wanted more story, and I wanted to be drawn in deeper into this creepy story. The film also makes the mistake of explaining too much too early, which is a bad thing for a ghost story like this.
Don't get me wrong, this film is consistently spooky, and it's got a few legitimate jump scenes and one scene that is very scary. But I can't recommend the movie outright.
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer, Roger Allam
Rated PG-13 for Thematic Material and Violence/Disturbing Images
Not every scary movie has to rely on bloodthirsty killers or possessed forms of technology. Last year's "Insidious" proved that. Daniel Radcliffe's new ghost story is definitely spooky, but it falls short of a recommendation.
Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is a young lawyer who is still grieving over the loss of his wife (Sophie Stuckey) four years ago. She died while giving birth to his son, Joseph (Misha Handley) and he still hasn't gotten over it. He's been assigned to go to a remote village to make sure the passing of a house is done legally. When he gets there, he finds that the locals are terrified of the house, and warn him not to go there. Only one man, Sam Daily (Hinds) is welcoming to him. It isn't long before Arthur realizes that the house is indeed haunted, and she's got a bone to pick.
"The Woman in Black" has a great sense of atmosphere. Unlike many horror movies, not everything is clouded in darkness (although most is), and there's a stark contrast between the light and the dark. This is a very gloomy place. As lensed by Tim Maurice-Jones, it's the perfect setting for a ghost story.
Unfortunately, the film is poorly paced. Director James Watkins spends too much time having Arthur wandering around the house getting spooked instead of developing the plot (which, like all horror movies, is pretty thin). If you really think about it, not much happens, and as a result, the film seems a lot longer than its skinny 95 minute running time.
Daniel Radcliffe does not have a great range. Even as Harry Potter, one could instantly tell that his thespian skills are easily stretched. Radcliffe is good in the role, although he's far too young to play the role of a grieving father. The actor is 22, which even by 19th century standards, is too young to be the father of a four-year-old boy. If this was made five years down the road, Radcliffe could have played the character better. He is given support by an able cast, primarily the wish-he-was-in-everything Ciaran Hinds, but this is mainly his show. To be fair to Radcliffe, his being a father isn't brought up a lot, so it's fairly easy to ignore most of the time.
What is on screen is good stuff. But I wanted more. I wanted more story, and I wanted to be drawn in deeper into this creepy story. The film also makes the mistake of explaining too much too early, which is a bad thing for a ghost story like this.
Don't get me wrong, this film is consistently spooky, and it's got a few legitimate jump scenes and one scene that is very scary. But I can't recommend the movie outright.
Comments
Post a Comment