Today’s horror movies are so often cliched shaky-camera romps through modern living rooms with invisible antagonists; anything that doesn’t profess to be “based on true events” and isn’t recorded on a home video camera most often fails to scare the audience. The Woman in Black leaves these cliches behind and profits by it; director James Watkins has produced an atmospheric and legitimately horrifying horror movie that, wonder of wonders, also manages to have a compelling plot.
The film’s setup has father and lawyer Arthur Kipps (the much-hyped Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame, who despite just graduating wizarding school this year, already has a child) traveling to an obscure British village to sort out the effects of a deceased widow who lived in an isolated mansion. Once there, Kipps finds himself amidst villagers horrified of losing their children to the ghost of a vengeful mother who lives in the mansion. Kipps pushes forward with the investigation and soon reawakens the mother’s malevolent spirit while trying to do his job; children start dying and chaos reigns thereafter.
The presentation of the woman in black is far and away the best thing about The Woman in Black: Watkins does not cow around about showing us the woman face-to-face. Radcliffe looks out into the yard and there she is she’s right there she’s still there oh god she’s right there. She appears often and blatantly, and this, believe you me, makes the movie scarier, not less scary. The house’s ramshackle gothic aura also contributes to the terror of the woman in black’s vengeance, though the emphasis on creepy antique dolls and toys did nothing but break the audience’s immersion.
About the performance of Daniel Radcliffe I have mixed feelings. In the village environment, and with his son, Radcliffe shows how much his acting has improved. But when he is trapped in the house at the mercy of the woman in black, Radcliffe falters. He’s just not as engaging in the umpteen close-ups of him panting, gaping and gasping. That’s not to say he’s failed at this role, because it’s the actual acting and not the breathless sprints through graveyards that matters; however, it’s definitely the scarer, and not the scaree, that drives the movie.
I must say, though, that the scenes when Radcliffe is at the village in between stints at the woman in black’s house are just as well-directed; the harrowing story of the terrified villagers is told especially well through a supporting cast of relatively unknown actors. The film simply works, from its damp and moody beginning to its chilling conclusion. Paranormal Activity and its ilk are fine and dandy, but sometimes larger-scale production and solid, authentic storytelling can make a horror film not just more satisfying, but scarier as well. Score: 8/10
Jake Bittle / A&E Editor
I didn’t find the movie nearly as scary as the concept. We just saw Daniel running around the mansion scaring himself. But the whole story of how a ghost makes children commit suicide, is terrifying to me. They made me, a non-believer in ghosts, afraid of ghosts.
I feel like the film was your typical ghost story decked out in Victorian garb to make it look like a more prestigious film. But it was scary as hell.
There is no drug abuse, no teenage pregnancy, and (if I recall correctly) no nudity in The Woman in Black. Your complaints are unfounded.
Correction- Harry never graduates he drops out in 1998 & the movies don’t go along with the time ….
This is inappropriate, it promotes teenage pregnancy, drug/alchol abuse, and public nudity. I am embarrassed to call this my child’s newspaper.
This comment has the word “nudity” in it. I am ashamed to call this a comment on an A&E article on my child’s newspaper’s website.
here’s an idea, quit reading it :*