Friday, February 3, 2012 at 1:51PM Movie Review: 'The Woman in Black'
| The Woman in Black
Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Janet McTeer, Ciaran Hinds
|
The Woman in Black is solid proof that a movie doesn’t have to be original in order to be worth your time. It’s traditional, straightforward, and predictable. It also happens to be scary as hell, which is where it really matters.
Daniel Radcliffe, in his first major non-Potter role, plays Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer whose wife died while giving birth to his infant son. As he lies on the verge of unemployment, his firm gives him one last chance: he must travel to the home of the recently deceased Alice Drablow and arrange for the selling of her house. Upon entering the small countryside village the mansion is located, he discovers a frightened and superstitious town. It’s hard to blame them, though, with their eerily high number of deceased children. As Arthur gets closer to the truth, he begins to notice more and more strange happenings. Eerie stares from the townspeople, noises bumping in the night, and mysterious figures appearing in the distance and then vanishing all make appearences in this movie, giving a good hint as to its traditional nature.
What’s given this film most of its hype is that it’s the first chance for Radcliffe to prove that he can play someone other than Harry Potter. Radcliffe fans can now sleep soundly, because he plays Arthur wonderfully. It's a surprisingly subtle performance as a widower who has taken his pain and tried his best to just shove it down inside where we can see only occasional glimpses of it. He’s stoic but not emotionless, a difference that many actors miss. It’s a far cry from the young Hogwarts wizard, and while there is a little awkwardness at seeing such a familiar face going in, it really isn’t long before Radcliffe is able to properly shed that image. Much of the film consists show him walking through and examining the mansion, encountering various various frightful things. It’s actually these times that allow him to showcase his skill, demonstrating his subtle but very sincere amount of fear through his face. He’s actually a much better actor silent then when speaking. Radcliffe has done a wonderful job breaking out of his mold, and I really look forward to seeing what he decides to do next.
But, as I said before, it’s the scares this movie provides that truly makes it worthwhile. The film begins by stacking on a fair number of stereotypical “jump scares” that didn’t really do much for me, but once the real stuff starts happening, it’s downright terrifying. Much of this can be attributed to the house that most of the film takes place in. The outside is covered with cracks and vines, and the inside with antiques and disturbing dolls and toys. Even by Victorian England standards. Just being inside of it feels threatening, and director James Watkins knows how to take advantage of it. It would be spoil the fun to try and describe all of the interesting visuals he creates, but I’ll just give one example. In one scene, Arthur enters a room, a lit candle in his hand as he walks. A group of toy monkeys with glass eyes lie on a table beside him. As he steps by, the light from his candle shine’s on the monkeys eyes, and for the briefest of moments, it looks as though the eyes might be moving. It’s a brilliant shot, and only one of many.
The films biggest (but still fairly minor) problems lie with how it attempts to combine its story in with its scares. Or, rather, how it usually doesn’t. The film just feels unbalanced, trading off between long, atmospheric scenes that communicate very little plot and short, jumbled exposition scenes that feel like afterthoughts when compared to the really scary moments. There are also a few instances in which Arhur knows exactly what he needs to do for pretty much no reason. Perhaps some crucial scenes were left on the cutting room floor. The ending is an interesting departure from the rest of the film. On one hand, it's really the only part that's a bit unexpected. On the other, its tone feels completely at odds with the rest of the movie, and ultimately makes it seem as though the movie doesn't really know what it wants to communicate. It probably worked better on paper then it does in practice.
Overall, though, this is a film that has it where it counts. It is a must see for horror movie fans, and should be high on the list of consideration for filmgoers of any other stripes.
Reader Comments (2)
Looks interesting, might give it a go…is this better as a watch in the cinema, or as an alone-at-night-in-a-small-room type of viewing?
I actually liked watching it with an audience, as they reacted to most of the same things I did, but I think it would work either way.