La Dame en noir

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

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.

The Woman in Black is directed by James Watkins and adapted to screenplay by Jane Goldman from Susan Hill's novel of the same name. It stars Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds and Janet McTeer. Music is scored by Marco Beltrami and cinematography by Tim Maurice-Jones. Plot has Radcliffe as young London solicitor Arthur Kipps, who is sent to the North East village of Crythin Gifford to clear up the affairs of deceased woman Mrs. Drablow. When he arrives he finds that the memory of Drablow, and her remote house of Eel Marsh, holds the village in a grip of fear, particularly those who have children.....

It's fitting that that bastion of British horror, Hammer Studios, should be behind this delightful period ghost story. For this positively oozes old fashioned values, harking back to all those wonderful spookers set around a creepy village that featured an even creepier castle or mansion at its core. More presently, the film has kindred links to the likes of The Orphanage, The Others and The Changeling, while the vengeful spirit acting out of Eel Marsh House is pumped by J-Horror like blood and Darkness Falls' Wraith bitch nastiness. So clearly The Woman in Black is not a fresh arrival to the horror splinter where the ghost story resides. However, great period ghost story films are in short supply, and Watkins' film most assuredly is a great entry in the sub-genre.

Propelling it forward is Watkins' (Eden Lake) excellent sense of mood and crafting of palpable unease. Quite often the better ghost story films are better because they operate on a what you don't see is what scares you more level, Watkins has managed to keep that aspect of his film whilst also giving us enough of the truly terrifying spirit to jolt us in our seats; often showing her to us and not to Radcliffe's Kipps! When the shocks come, and there are many and they are bona fide underwear soiling, they act as merciful releases from the built up dread, but then when Watkins doesn't deliver a shock, we are left waiting uneasily, darting our eyes all over the expansive frame, searching fruitlessly for a glimpse of something troubling. Did that wind up toy move? Is that a pallid face we just glimpsed in the shadows? That damn rocking chair is the scariest there has ever been! And on it goes....

A film such as this is only as good as the production design and setting for the story. Thankfully Watkins and his team have nailed it there as well. Eel Marsh House exteriors are Cotterstock Hall in Northamptionshire, perfectly foreboding, while the beautiful village of Halton Gill in the Yorkshire Dales gets a Hammer Horror make over to become Crythin Gifford. But it's with the interior of the house where the makers excel, an utterly unforgiving and upsetting place, brilliantly under lit by Tim Maurice-Jones for maximum scary effect.

On the acting front the film rests solely on the shoulders of Radcliffe, and he comes up trumps. Initially its awkward accepting him as the father of a young boy, and once he gets to Crythin Gifford he is dwarfed by all the other adults who live there, but once the Victorian setting envelopes him the awkwardness evaporates and the characterisation becomes more realistic and easy to sympathise with. The character is changed from the book, meaning Radcliffe has to carry inner torment as well as exuding an outer coat of trepidation blended with stoic fear. It should be noted that for much of the picture he is acting on his own, reacting to the house and the overgrown gardens and marshes, in short he is terrific and it augers well for his adult acting career. In support Hinds and McTeer are pillars of professionalism, with McTeer's Mrs. Daily a creepy character in her own right, but it's also another neat meditation on grief that sits alongside Arthur Kipps'.

The ending is also changed from that in the novel, and it's already proving to be divisive. How you react to it, and it is up for a two-fold interpretation, may dampen your overall enjoyment of the picture? Personally I have no issue with it, I was still sunk in the cinema chair breathing heavily at that point! The certification and the presence of Radcliffe ensures that a teenage audience will flock to see it, many of whom will not get the "horror" film that they are after. Hopefully the word will get out that this really is only a film for those who love a good boo jump ghost story of old, that's its target audience, and that's the people whose reviews you should trust. 9/10

Creepy and off-putting, The Woman in Black really is a terrific thriller. It's intended to shock, and in many scenes it is successful. It's a moody, psychologically scarring throwback to the old Roger Corman movies based on Edgar Allan Poe stories, with an amazing adult performance by Daniel Radcliffe as a young lawyer out of his depth.

Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe), a down-on-his-luck attorney, is asked to travel to a remote village and find out if a recently deceased woman has left any heretofore unknown wills. It's Kipps' last shot at success, his employer sternly warns him. His journey to the village is eerily similar to that undertaken by Jonathan Harker in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Something's not quite right with the town, which clearly doesn't want him around, something to do with children being murdered and people blaming a dead woman. You know how it is.

Kipps' sleuthing leads to more and more questions. Who was the woman (ostensibly, his client), really? What relationship did she have with the town? And what of those treacherous marshes, and that long and winding road to the main house that is impassable when the tide is in? Why is it that every time Kipps turns around, a shadow darts away? Understanding that these are all staples of the great horror movies of yore doesn't mean that this film is stealing; it is merely authentically replicating the desolate atmosphere, in which a whisper can signal death.

I entered the theater knowing very little of the movie's content. Was it to be a mystery, and we'd find out who the titular woman was at some point? It is, and we do, but that is only part of the puzzle. The best horror movies, in my opinion, are the ones that build just the right amount of suspense and then pull the rug out from under the viewer. A slow buildup must have a satisfying payoff. Showing the evil the lurks in every other scene dilutes the fright quotient. This movie doesn't do that. It pulls no punches to our psyche.

It is so closely shot by Tim Maurice-Jones, who's best known for his work with Guy Ritchie. Maurice-Jones' style here is to capture almost every shot from Kipps' perspective, thus bringing the audience that much closer to the terror he's supposed to be feeling. Radcliffe, to his credit, never comes off as some innocent lad who's just starting out in the business, and although Kipps is perplexed - much like Edward Woodward's character in The Wicker Man - he is determined to see things through, even though he has strayed a bit from his original mission.

Something is definitely wrong here, and it involves the children. Are they to blame for the nefarious goings-on? Are their parents? No one is saying anything. To make matters worse for Kipps, he has a young son of his own, whose mother died in childbirth and who is coming to visit Kipps in a few days. The grief felt by the parents of the fallen children only heightens Kipps' own fears.

There are several moments that, on the Internet, would be called shock videos. Everything seems normal, and then BAM, something pops out of nowhere. In lesser movies, this might be seen as a crutch, a way to stun your senses to get a particular reaction, but here it all fits in, and it conveys mortal terror. The Woman in Black's identity is revealed very early in the film, so the mystery isn't who she is but why these events keep occurring. Is it all superstition, or is there something more to the spiritual aspect of the plot?

The ending is tidy and satisfying, but it is by no means conventional or predictable. In fact, it opens up even more questions. But more importantly, director James Watkins and screenwriter Jane Goldman (based on a book by Susan Hill) do not take the easy way out. People do not necessarily live happily ever after. Story threads are not necessarily sewn up tight. It is a riveting film steeped in a macabre atmosphere teeming with the potential of death with every slow approach to a corner or a locked door.

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.