La Dame en noir

30 years and several retools on from Susan Hill's now seminal pocket novel comes the big screen adaptation of The Woman in Black. Swapping the lingering, life-spanning impact of Hill's Dickensian book of the dead for a hollow yet effective house-of-horrors yarn that'll have you stirring in your seat- and out of it.

The film's set-up is more or less identical to the book but with a few baffling tweaks; Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is a solicitor and widowed father of one who's summoned to a remote town and manor on an eerie northern marshland where he's to settle the estate and will of a recently deceased old hag. Somethings wrong with the place, though. An ominous figure stalks and taunts and haunts the townspeople. A child falls whenever it is seen; a woman in black.

If there's one thing horror movies have taught us, it's that ghostly old dears and kids are a recipe for new underwear. And what do you know, The Woman in Black has them both in droves. All of which reside in a haunted, Victorian mansion in the middle of nowhere. The film charts Kipps' probe into the strange happenings from inside the damned estate in this simplistic yet effectual horror gem that's as playful and frightening as it is enjoyable.

As a stand-alone picture, director James (Eden Lake) Watkins' Woman in Black is as sound a horror of this ilk and purpose come; the haunted-house caper has been done to death then done again over the course of cinema's history. The Woman in Black is the best of its kind for quite some time. When measured against the book, though, it comes up short. Despite remaining faithful to its source through large parts and absolutely nailing the location, Jane Goldman's screenplay omits certain key scenes as well as the haunting bookends that made Hill's novel one the finest ghost stories of all time. Fans of the book will find it hard to fathom why these decisions were made. Maybe Goldman and Watkins wanted to stamp their own, uplifting mark on the tale. Shades of Kubrick's Shining? Not quite. I won't reveal what transpires in Hill's novel, but if the film had followed suite, it would've had greater substance and longevity.

Grafting Harry Potter onto its set-up ensured Watkins' film spun a profit before it hit a single screen. In an undemanding role that require Radcliffe tread cautiously and look scared, the boyish Brit does what's expected of him but fails to impress; to say he's believable as a father would be stupid. He isn't. If Radcliffe is looking to break free from his Potter persona, it's going to take a lot more than a 12A, British horror film to do the trick. Albeit a damn good one; the Evil Dead 2 a la Dickens without the gore, gut laughs and satire. Jumpy, jittery and fun. Yes, fun. The Woman in Black is by no means a black comedy but its clichéd set-up and slow-boiling pots of suspense are so well conceived and cooked you'll be scared silly and amused at the same time. Nervous laughter? You bet. Watkins' delays the unveiling of the shadow shrouded woman to the bitter-end but when we finally see the bitch, its no laughing matter.

Think The Shining without the depth. Think Paranormal Activity without the realism; a minimaliststic, nail-biting scare-fest primed for the big screen that joins the likes of The Others and The Village as well crafted mainstream horrors fit for young and old. See it.

"The Woman in Black" is an exceptional horror film...and much of it is because the plot is very unique and the ghost is one god-awful creature!

When the story begins, Arthur (Daniel Radcliffe) is sent on a business trip to sell Eel Marsh House....a mansion that's somehow sat vacant for years. Soon after arriving, Arthur starts to understand why....it's because the place is haunted. However, it's not a typical sort of ghost...it's an evil and vengeful spirit who is angry at the town and has been killing its children! The deaths are all very creepy and vivid...and Arthur is bent on trying to appease this evil ghost. Good luck with that, Artie!

The film really excels when it comes to a creepy atmosphere. A lot of time, you are waiting for something terrible to jump out at the screen and it works well because they both kept the tension building AND made a great payoff when it did happen! Overall, a wonderful and very creepy horror film...one of the best I've seen...and nearly earning a 10.

People have complained that this is a horror movie filled with horror movie clichés. But how could it not be? I mean is it suppose to be a horror movie at the local shopping mall? No, of course it is in a haunted house, were else would it be? As much as this movie drew on the horror standards, I found it refreshingly different from most horror movies. Part of what I want from a movie is something different, not more of the same, and I think in that respect, all things considered, this movie delivered.

While it did make use of the standards like jump scares, I really felt the suspense of this movie. I mean, at least for me, this movie was wound very tight. The suspense was ratcheted to the limit.

While I'm still not past Daniel Radcliffe's voice, I still hear Harry or Daniel, his face and body language were spot on, and greatly added to the tension of the movie.

In the end, it is what it is, a suspenseful horror movie that gets the job done. This isn't a genre noted for 'Academy Award' performances. But as suspenseful horror movies go, I was very satisfied with this one, and thought they did have a new approach to an old genre.

Steve B

OK, I'll admit, I went into this film with not very high expectations, I left on the other hand pleasantly surprised and genuinely creeped out. Daniel Radcliffe, while not the best actor, also exceeded my expectations. The movie theater was packed and people really seemed to be enjoying themselves. People screamed when they were meant to and shivered accordingly. At the end the theater broke out in applause, and it was the most packed theater I've seen since the midnight premiere of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2. Walking out into the lobby people were still blown away, and I myself could not believe what just happened. So what I'm saying is, if you're looking for a fun night to be creeped out in an old fashioned horror film sort of way, go see the Woman In Black, you will not be disappointed.

I am vividly aware, as are most avid moviegoers, of the horror movie machine. It churns out Final Destinations, exorcism films, and at an even higher frequency, ghost films. At first glance, The Woman in Black appears to be yet another of these "ghost films," where cheap scares, predictable plot "twists," and horrible acting drag the viewer down into an hour-and-a-half maelstrom of mediocrity that can only end at the appearance of "Directed by..."

According to most of the reviewers thus far, The Woman in Black was a letdown. So perhaps it is because I went into the film with no expectations that I came out of it impressed and very, very shaken. I do not plan to explain the plot to you (many have done this already and there is a synopsis which does a far better job than I could), but I will argue in favor of how successfully scary this film was. Yes, it contains ghost film elements we have all seen before, but they are cleverly and patiently arranged so that the viewer becomes totally enveloped in atmospheric dread. Sure, there are "jump" scares, but these are also complimented by many shots which unfold slowly and effectively. It sometimes reminded me of the 1961 film, The Innocents, if that gives you a better idea. Radcliffe is also a worthy focal point of the film, keeping most of the fear and anticipation unspoken throughout.

I would not nominate this film for any kind of award, but it achieves what I believe should be the ultimate goal of all "horror" movies: to draw us in so close that when our fear manifests itself on-screen, it is already too late to turn away. It rates high as one of my favorite horror theater experiences, alongside The Descent and The Strangers.