.jpg)
So I'm back again to speak about the vengeful spirit from beyond the grave. As I have mentioned before, I'm not a big fan of modern horror movies due to their cliched stories and scare elements. When I heard this movie was being made, my love of Radcliffe's work aside, I was concerned that the film would fall into the same category and a potential for a great horror film would be missed...
I couldn't be happier to have been proven wrong on this outing.
The story is the same as the original (minus some character name alterations, mostly just last names): Arthur Kipps is off to Eel Marsh House to settle the affairs of the estate of Mrs. Drablow when he encouters the titular Woman in Black. The Woman's motivations are unknown to Arthur upon his arrival, as he cannot get any information from the townsfolk, and so he is pulled into the mystery of her past and uncovers the secrets surrounding her past.
The characters feel stronger in this film, showing a more genuine fear involved in a town's desperation to hide their secrets and keep people away from the Drablow estate, and the house itself feels much more alive. The '89 version, in retrospect, is quite clean for a home that was inhabited only by a woman in her 70s. The 2012 version feels dusty and lived-in, lit only with candles (No more electricity like the '89 one)
Altogether, from my own reactions along with those in the theatre, this is definitely worth a viewing. However, if you have issues with theatre patrons freaking out and making noises of shock and surprise, it may be better to wait for later in the movie's run or when it's out on video.
Thanks for the recommendation, Con. This film was already on my to-watch list before it was released, and I'm glad to hear that it's lived up to its expectations. I wonder how long it will take before Daniel Radcliffe stops being known as "the actor who played Harry Potter". Last year I was sitting watching an episode of "Extras" with Daniel Radcliffe as a guest star; my daughter walked by, saw him and said, "Oh, you're watching Harry Potter". I guess that's all he's known for. So far. This film is the first of hopefully many that will help him move on in his career.
ReplyDeleteI certainly hope so as well. He's a wonderful actor and I feel that he will have an excellent career if he continues on the path he's on.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of him being typecasted as Harry reminds me a lot of Rowan Atkinson. While he's had quite the career, the only role most of my friends and family know him for is Mr. Bean. This results in many occasions of "This has Rowan Atkinson in it" "Who's that?" "Mr. Bean" "Oh him!"