A traditional horror modernized for a new audience. Arthur Kipps, a young solicitor facing financial woes and still coping with the death of his wife who died in childbirth with his now four year old son Joseph, is assigned to take care of the legal proceedings of Eel Marsh House. When Arthur arrives in the local village his reception is far from warm and many of the residents hesitantly yet brashly try to force Arthur back to London and away from the old manor house. Managing to reach the house Arthur soon discovers there is much more to the manor than he had previously been told, with eerie deaths plaguing the children of the village and townsfolk ebbing him to leave the house well alone, Arthur becomes unwillingly entangled in the sinister events. Determined to complete the requirements of the transition Arthur sets out to brave the house again with the aid of friendly local Sam Daily he hopes to quickly put an end to the proceedings and return to London and his son, though the long deceased resident of the manor has a different plan...
Fresh from his Harry Potter success, Daniel Radcliffe once more takes the leading role this time he plays Arthur Kipps the widowed solicitor who ends up caught in the midst of the mysterious past surrounding Eel Marsh House. While playing an adolescent teen wizard gave Radcliffe leeway in his turn as the big star and people forgave the lack of in depth acting as he suited the character, yet the lack of a real change in that character is disappointing. In no way is Radcliffe a terrible actor in his portrayal of Arthur, it's more the problem that in this film too much is solely dependent on his character and he doesn't have the strength to carry the film by himself on such an average performance. Other characters of note are Ciaran Hinds as Sam Daily and Janet McTeer taking the role of his wife Elizabeth who both seem to in ways add more to the tale than Radcliffe at times.
The classic style of stylized Edwardian Horror is what this film should be focused on and in terms of story the film is writhe with opportunity, however the deliverance of the horror is what faults The Woman in Black and this is a great fault in the film. Instead of the classic horror tale's of haunted mansions and departed souls longing for release that this film does bring to the table and plays them all well too quite high standards in terms of actual story, the element of classic scares is nowhere to be seen. Forgetting the chilly fear that the story is supposed to bring to the screen, more focus is placed in modernizing the scare factor which in this day and age means making the audience react and jump out of their seats, more to that point and as i view it, that really isn't what horror is. When viewed by it's narrative and performances (despite a fairly wooden Radcliffe at times) the film does work, just not as it's suppose to, an intriguing and clever story, yes. An eerie and chillingly classic ghost story, No. While it could be redeemed as a fairly decent film with it's plot, settings and style, the factor which ruins it most is the fact that it isn't remotely what it should have been in view of Genre, if you want the horror that was promised you won't find it in The Woman in Black.
6 / 10
FIN.
Fresh from his Harry Potter success, Daniel Radcliffe once more takes the leading role this time he plays Arthur Kipps the widowed solicitor who ends up caught in the midst of the mysterious past surrounding Eel Marsh House. While playing an adolescent teen wizard gave Radcliffe leeway in his turn as the big star and people forgave the lack of in depth acting as he suited the character, yet the lack of a real change in that character is disappointing. In no way is Radcliffe a terrible actor in his portrayal of Arthur, it's more the problem that in this film too much is solely dependent on his character and he doesn't have the strength to carry the film by himself on such an average performance. Other characters of note are Ciaran Hinds as Sam Daily and Janet McTeer taking the role of his wife Elizabeth who both seem to in ways add more to the tale than Radcliffe at times.
The classic style of stylized Edwardian Horror is what this film should be focused on and in terms of story the film is writhe with opportunity, however the deliverance of the horror is what faults The Woman in Black and this is a great fault in the film. Instead of the classic horror tale's of haunted mansions and departed souls longing for release that this film does bring to the table and plays them all well too quite high standards in terms of actual story, the element of classic scares is nowhere to be seen. Forgetting the chilly fear that the story is supposed to bring to the screen, more focus is placed in modernizing the scare factor which in this day and age means making the audience react and jump out of their seats, more to that point and as i view it, that really isn't what horror is. When viewed by it's narrative and performances (despite a fairly wooden Radcliffe at times) the film does work, just not as it's suppose to, an intriguing and clever story, yes. An eerie and chillingly classic ghost story, No. While it could be redeemed as a fairly decent film with it's plot, settings and style, the factor which ruins it most is the fact that it isn't remotely what it should have been in view of Genre, if you want the horror that was promised you won't find it in The Woman in Black.
6 / 10
FIN.
Comments
Post a Comment