Woman in Black, the same old story
It’s scary if you are watching a horror/thriller for the first time with expressive visuals but exaggerated, sounds to guide you through anticipated eerie moments.
“Don’t go chasing the shadows” cause it’s already been done.
The film set in the Edwardian era (1901-1910) follows the story of a young solicitor, Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe). Arthur is coping with the loss of his wife years after she passed away giving birth to their son, often having visions of her which causes him to lose focus on his work. He is under pressure from his firm to get his act together and as a final make it or break it project sends Arthur to handle the estate of Alice Darblow, Eel Marsh house in a remote village. Arthur then leaves his son and nanny for his assignment planning to meet them in the village a few days later.
The village people live in fear and greet Arthur with cold eyes and ignorance constantly trying to shoo him out of town. The Eel Marsh House is located off the grid, a work of art that excited about the horror to follow. As Arthur scavenges through the remains of the hose he spots a mysterious woman in black. Back in the village a girl child dies in Arthur’s arms which get the villagers even more fidgety deeming Arthur responsible. Fighting to keep his job and wading off wrath of the villagers as more children die Arthur soldiers on, and on his way discovers the reasons behind the villager’s fears. He also fears for his son coming to meet him amidst dying children.
Will he find the truth behind the haunting? Will he be able to get himself and his child safely home?
James Watkins is relatively new in the industry and the woman in black is only his second film as a director. He went too far with his theatrics to ensure that his audience knew when to be scared. Every time he built up to a moment of terror he followed up with the old school sonic blast and ear-piercing scream, but you could probably put a finger in your ear because u will see it coming. May be I have been spoilt by psychological thrillers
The cinematography is noteworthy and in general all the actors did a good job. The main attraction in the movie, however, is Daniel Radcliffe’s transition from being Harry Potter to a more versatile actor. Though taming a ghost may be a similar to wading off a death eater minus the expecto patronum charm he is definitely grown up. He could be the reason the movie made almost 7 times the amount spent to make it.
A couple of interesting facts: the boy playing his son is Radcliffe’s real life godson, and the actor who played Radcliffe’s role in the 1989 original is Adrian Rawlins, who played Harry Potter’s father in those movies.
I would suggest you to skip the theater and wait for the DVD on this one, may be with headphones on alone at night. If the demonic stares does scare you, a dose of 9gag will certainly calm your nerves.
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for thematic material and violence/disturbing images