The Woman in Black
Bottom Line: Harry, the Ministry has deemed it acceptable to cast the Killing Curse upon The Woman in Black.
Directed by: James Watkins
Starring: Ciaran Hinds, Daniel Radcliffe, Ellisa Walker-Reid, Emma Shorey, Janet McTeer, Jessica Raine, Misha Handley, Molly Harmon, Roger Allam, Sophie Stuckey
As I watched THE WOMAN IN BLACK, a thought occurred to me: Why haven’t I given up on modern horror movies yet? The answer came, but not all too quickly. It’s because of the few horror films (i.e. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and INSIDIOUS) that actually manage to put the genre to an effective use. It’s sad that actor Daniel Radcliffe has officially retired from his recurring performances as Harry Potter, yet as we watch the film, we’re hoping that Radcliffe still had his wand to put this boring film out of its misery. It’s as if the writer conceived the idea after watching several “ghost story” horror films. The end product is basically THE OTHERS, except it gives no regard to entertaining its audience and has few variations that it can claim as its own. It’s quite probable that THE WOMAN IN BLACK does have a few new twists to offer, but I could not name a single one of them if my life depended on it, because none of them were terribly appealing or memorable.
If I screamed, it was probably a boredom reflex.
Set during World War I, THE WOMAN IN BLACK tells of a British lawyer named Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe), who travels to a village where a ghost of a “woman in black” is haunting residents. The story would be interesting and somewhat deep, had we not seen it several other times. The film is hardly anything more than a ninety-six-minute cliché. If you’ve seen any horror movie, or know the genre well, you’ll likely find this a very predictable film. The cinematography (that is, when it’s not too fluorescent to fit in a horror film), ominous music, and build-up on quote-unquote “tension” gives every attempted scare away before it even strikes. Due to this critical lack of fear presented, the film feels like an overly quiet, exhaustingly dull drama, only with intermittent screaming in the distance. I can’t imagine a horror fan enjoying the film. I can’t imagine a non-horror fan enjoying it, either. Nor can I imagine one having any desire to see it. Knowing how dreadful THE WOMAN IN BLACK is, why should anyone have any desire to see it?
This was oddly enough the first movie I ever reviewed on my blog, and once again I was a bit more forgiving with a 6.5/10 but I definitely understand your reasonings. All in all it just felt too much like it was playing it safe with the usual haunted house formula, and afterwards the only thing I was left with is that Radcliffe still might have a chance of escaping his role as Harry. .
There weren’t many great quotes in the film itself, but there was a really good one in its own subtext:
Arthur Kipps: “I swear! I’m not Harry Potter! Well…not anymore at least.”
The Woman in Black: “Ahh, so you were, Mr. Kipps. And you always will be.”
Whenever I saw a ghost, I couldn’t help but to think of the “Riddikulus” scene from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
I would easily give this one an A. Movies like this I don’t consider the plot as much a factor as long as it doesn’t insult me I’m fine. In a movie like this I go for the thrill ride and the scare factor. This one had all of that and more. A few times it scared the living crap out of me. My only real gripe was the end of it.
Nice review.
The ending was very confusing. What is even more confusing is that there is a sequel in the works.
My friend, I say this at the utmost level of respect: I strongly disagree. The film did not scare me one bit, and I was bored. I will leave you with my review rather than rambling about my opinion.
I understand. My friends get on me too much for getting scared in movies. I let myself get led and even though I know it is coming it still gets me. A 39 year old man, screaming like a little girl – it’s probably pretty funny to witness. Maybe I should record myself when I watch one of these the next time.
I understand. My friends get on me too much for getting scared in movies. I let myself get led and even though I know it is coming it still gets me. A 39 year old man, screaming like a little girl – it’s probably pretty funny to witness. Maybe I should record myself when I watch one of these the next time.
Yeah this was pretty forgettable. I agree with your assessment.
I’m so relieved I have someone on my side with this film. Can’t believe Daniel Radcliffe would choose something like this. Clearly he can do better, and I say that without any comparison whatsoever to his great performances in Harry Potter.
I quite enjoyed this. Perhaps it was the novelty of seeing a horror film at the cinema. I am a fan of classic horror flicks, but am never interested enough in new releases to fork over the money. I think I only bothered with this cause there was very little else on I had not seen. I thought this was pretty taught, scared me in a number of parts. I thought both Radcliffe and Ciaran Hinds were really good in it too.
I’ll…respect your opinion. Did you drink beer while watching that movie?
Unfortunately not (which makes it even more surprising I liked it). The cinema I saw it at shamefully does not sell beer.
Haha okay. I’m 14, so I haven’t tried beer yet. Interesting to know someone who pairs movies with beer over popcorn.
Wow man, you’re a fantastic writer at such a young age. Keep up the good work. And no beer… not for a few years yet anyways.
Thanks! And yes, I know. No beer for me.
A little over six years then I’ll be fine.
Good review, Alexander! As you know, I’m not a big horror fan and this got mostly negative reviews, so I skipped it. I don’t think I missed out on anything.
Pingback: 2012 in Review « Cinemaniac Reviews