| 
| 
Is it worth $10? Yes
Daniel Radcliffe will always be Harry Potter. He could win eight Oscars, cure cancer and establish world peace and we’ll still refer to him as Harry Potter. Such is the cost of being financially set for life before you’re a teenager.
The real question is, will we as an audience ever accept him as someone else? “The Woman in Black” is his first real attempt at changing our minds, and the result is impressive.
This is a good ole’ fashion ghost story, complete with an eerie tone and atmosphere and solid scares. Radcliffe’s character, Arthur Kipps, is a widowed lawyer with a young son out to prove himself on an undesirable assignment. He’s sent from London to the English countryside to finalize the will for the deceased Alice Drablow. The catch is the Drablow house is on the outskirts of a marsh that gets flooded for hours every day, meaning whoever is at the house when the marsh floods is stuck there. This is especially bad when an ominous woman in black and various children haunt the house, as Arthur soon learns.
Sadly for Arthur most of the local townspeople don’t want him there either, because whenever someone disturbs the Drablow estate bad things happen to local children. Take the son of Sam (Ciaran Hinds) and Elizabeth Daily (Janet McTeer), for instance. Their son Nicholas died years earlier, and although Sam takes a 
liking to Arthur, Elizabeth is convinced that Nicholas is speaking through her. What’s really troubling is that she may not be wrong.
Director James Watkins maintains a creepy mood (you’ve never seen children’s toys so disturbing) with heavy shadows and overcast skies, and keeps the scares coming with the requisite fake-outs followed by legitimate screams. Granted there’s not much story in Jane Goldman’s screenplay, but there also doesn’t have to be – all that matters is sound effects, scenery and screams, and all of these are top notch.
As for Radcliffe, he’s more than up to the challenge. It helps that he wasn’t that good of an actor while playing Harry, though he certainly improved as the series moved along. But what this means is that in terms of range and ability he can pretty much only go up from here, and he has no trouble being convincing as Arthur. Many of his scenes call for him to be alone and act scared in the house with little dialog, meaning he’s forced to convey all of Arthur’s thoughts and anxieties in his body language and facial expressions. That we feel for Arthur and root for him is a credit to Radcliffe keeping us engaged in his performance and not letting us think he should just pull out his wand and cast a spell.
“The Woman in Black” is a $17 million movie free of excess CGI and violence – its PG-13 rating is appropriate – but full of quality filmmaking and solid performances. That’s right – the guy who’s already made a fortune as Harry Potter is still a rising talent, and it will be very interesting to see what he does next.
Did you know?
“The Woman in Black” also exists as a book and stage show, both of which are fairly different from this film.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
sunsail
said:
 |
... It was not so scary. He did a great performance and did not related him as the boy from Harry Potter. He is a mature performer now. The movie kept me figuring out who and how. |
babsinc1
said:
 |
... The was the scariest movie that I have seen in a really long time. I knew things were going to jump out, but I got scared anyways. I actually screamed out loud. |
AeroPUNK
said:
 |
... I love Danielle Radcliffe in the harry potter role, but I can also see him playing other roles outside of the harry potter realm. He's a talented actor. I don't see how he couldn't successfully play other roles. |
astridyg
said:
|
... Daniel Radcliffe try very hard to differ himself from harry potter (dont think it worked), the movies was alright but i think that the movies too to long to get to the point, did like the twist it had. |
omarsprize1
said:
|
... Overall, this movie was 3/5 for me. It did have scary parts but I don't like scary movies that find it necessary to tell me when to be scared by hitting loud musical notes. THose scenes did have an all around creepiness factor, especially due to the setting, but overall, a very average movie, with an okay acting attempt from Radcliffe, though I've never seen him in anything else (not an HP fan). |
Mariloly
said:
|
... I beg to differ. It's true Daniel will always be Harry unless the world stop turning on its axis but his range of facial expressions seems to be forever locked at "shocked and awed" and this movie's plot is an amalgamation of several other horror flicks. In my humble opinion it is not worth the 10. |
susaninflorida
said:
|
... I don't like scary movies, but this is more of a thriller. The haunted houses and creepy village really sets the tone. I had a couple of good jumps watching the movie. I loved the ending. People either love it or hate it. |
rcanojr1
said:
|
... Movie was not that scary and did not make a lot of sense. I would not recommend going to see it, just wait for DVD. |
CRUZ
said:
 |
... I don't particularly like scary movies, but my daughter was so excited to see this movie that I had no choice but to see it....and I don't regret it. The twist and the end was completely awesome....who would have said that such a scary movie it was going to have a sad/happy ending? Phenomenal!! |
Meowhisker1
said:
|
... I find Daniel Radcliffe fasinating in this role. From the first scene they showed of him in this film you could see an emotional depth to his performance. I don't think of him as Harry Potter any more because he loses himself in order to portray characters how they were meant to be. As for this film, it scared me like no movie had done in a long time! |
sage
said:
 |
... this was a great show well done the show had you thinking and yet you still had no clue till mid way then it all came out little harry potter was great hope to see more of him thanks for the show hudak |
Erin1986
said:
|
... I thought it was horrible. It took too long to get to the point of the story and even when it finally made a little sense, it was over. It was a bad movie, not worth paying to see. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
