6/10
Starring:
Daniel Radcliffe
Ciarán Hinds
Janet McTeer
Directed by: James Watkins
This will be the first Daniel Radcliffe movie I’ve seen since he dropped
the wand at Hogwarts, and I advise you to go see it too.
Woman in Black is a horror movie that Radcliffe pulled off. It’s based
on Susan Hill’s novel of the same name and directed by British director James
Watkins.
I must say, Harry Potter (Radcliffe) can act. Although it was hard to
pass him off as a grown man married with a child, because no matter how I tried
to accept his role, all I saw was Potter, and I kept waiting to see if he would
stupefy something. This is what happens when you are known with a franchise, it can cause typecasting.
What can I say? If you’re not a fan of horror movies, then this might be
a bit boring for you, but if you don’t mind a thrill once in a while, give this
movie a buzz.
The story is a little weak, but what horror movie story isn’t? It’s full
of clichés, but again, what horror movie nowadays isn’t? The scenery was so
well crafted, and the cinematographer made sure we enjoyed a lot of wide shots,
so we could take in the beautiful visuals the movie had to offer.
The story goes like this: Arthur, a young solicitor, lost his wife and
has been sad ever since. His son wants more of his time, but he’s still too
shaken by the loss to be fully present.
His office posts him to handle the estate of Alice Drablow, who owned an
English manor called the Eel Marsh House, where she lived with her husband and
son, Nathaniel. The townspeople believe the house is haunted and try to chase
him off, but he stays. He goes to the house, and strange things begin to
happen.
Seeing it as his duty, Arthur (Radcliffe) decides to
investigate. As he digs deeper, people start dying. The town tells him to clear
off. But he hangs around until he finds out the Woman in Black is after him
too.
Directing is just as weak as the story. Who goes to a house, notices
some scary stuff, sees people and children moving around, and still decides to
hang around?
Also, the townspeople were hostile to Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe)
from the start. The funny thing is — and I blame the director again — Arthur
never even tried to find out why. The men of the town gather to run him out for
what they believe he has seen, and he never asks what the connection is between
what he saw and the deaths plaguing the town. He finally asks that question 15
minutes before the movie ends. (Who waits days to find out why a whole town
wants them gone?)
The director also didn’t think it was necessary or befitting for viewers
to know what’s going on. I get that the aim was suspense, but to me it was
dumb. You’ll have to wait over an hour before the full concept of the movie
makes sense. (This was frustrating.)
Enough said. This movie is not half bad, and it’s one I recommend.
0 comments:
Post a Comment