The Woman In Black (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> The Woman In Black (6/2/2012 4:08:01 AM)

Post your comments on this article




Bighousewill -> RE: (10/2/2012 1:17:45 PM)

In reply to evildave69 erm Mr Grint is not in this film but Daniel Radcliff is! but they were both in harry potter. [:D]




piginapoke -> RE: loved it (12/2/2012 12:17:26 AM)

Excellent, scary film. 5/5 I'd say. Jane Goldman is a great writer.
The creeping horror of it was very well crafted, the usual shocks here and there but all restrained and even the end didn't succumb to major FX. I initally thought Mr. Radcliffe looked a trifle young but I got the Potter influence out of the way when he started getting spooked in the house.

Lots of tension buildup but spoiled slightly by the drone of the films around us in the multiplex when things went quiet.






piginapoke -> RE: WHY!!!!!!!!!?????? (12/2/2012 11:36:53 AM)

** ONE MILD SPOILER **


quote:

ORIGINAL: guysalisbury

When I heard that Jane Goldman was writing the script And that james Watkins was directing I got very excited about this. I love scary movies and had heard a few people say that this I very creepy. So why the f*ck has it got a 12a rating? If this film is suitable for a 12 year old and his or her mum, how scary can it be?! I wish the film studios would stop being so money grabbing and tying to accommodate everyone. This is supposed to be a horror / ghost story. So make it bloody 15 or 18 and scare the shit out of me.


Well, aside from the obvious need to keep the rating down to maximise sales (especially as a lot would be young and want to see Daniel in a different lead role - I saw a family there with two kids about my son's age (11)), it is a case of less is more with a ghost story, otherwise you're in Ghostbusters territory. The best horror lets the mind do the work, and this one scared the c**p out of me and the rest of the audience in a very effective manner. The higher the rating doesn't necessarily mean a scarier film, not seen it but I guess Final Destination 5 is a string of voyeruristic horrible deaths linked together with a tired script.

WIB kept it tight (even with at one point 20 mins of exploring the house without dialogue, the 1 hr 35 mins didn't drag at all), it had a great location for atmosphere, great lighting, made the most efficient use of the shocks (the window and the hand! jesus!) intelligently restained FX (although I thought the 'rise from the bed' bit was unnecessary) and Daniel did very well to make us forget his Potter days. It was very scary, and my film of the year so far. Prometheus will have to work hard to build up scariness to match this one.





Timon -> RE: creepy (13/2/2012 9:36:28 AM)

Scariest Scottish Widow advert ever.

Very well done film.




Osric -> RE: WHY!!!!!!!!!?????? (13/2/2012 9:58:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: guysalisbury

This is supposed to be a horror / ghost story. So make it bloody 15 or 18 and scare the shit out of me.



It's a 12 because it isn't violent, or gory, and has no swearing in it. None of that stuff means it isn't scary. Go and watch the original Haunting or The Innocents. And then grow up.




piginapoke -> RE: WHY!!!!!!!!!?????? (13/2/2012 1:16:16 PM)

**** MAJOR SPOILER DISCUSSED BELOW ****















So, one thing I'm not too sure about the end is.....

Was she helping him by doing what she did, given his loss and financial situation (despite having his son)?
Despite the 'forgive' reference at the end I think she was, but would be interested to hear other people's views.




Timon -> RE: WHY!!!!!!!!!?????? (13/2/2012 1:18:51 PM)

I don't think so, I think she was just continuing with her vengeance.

What I wanted to know is why you'd continue to live in that village if you had kids. MOVE AWAY!




Hobbitonlass -> RE: WHY!!!!!!!!!?????? (13/2/2012 1:21:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon

What I wanted to know is why you'd continue to live in that village if you had kids. MOVE AWAY!

That was my thought!

Great film and lost count of the times that I jumped. Not read the book or seen the play so went in blind (so to speak) and bloody creepy... Pretty impressed with Danial Radcliffe as well, thought he did a decent job.




Timon -> RE: Scary? Don't be a pussy! (13/2/2012 5:13:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bighousewill

I don't believe in ghosts this film had no effect on me I manned up big time for this film I can sleep in a darkened room no prob.


Someone's going overboard on letting us know how unscared he was.

Congratulations sir. I'll be sure to pass it on to all the girls at school, so they know how brave you are.




horribleives -> RE: Scary? Don't be a pussy! (13/2/2012 5:18:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bighousewill

I don't believe in ghosts this film had no effect on me I manned up big time for this film I can sleep in a darkened room no prob.


Someone's going overboard on letting us know how unscared he was.



And then buggers it up royally by saying the last time he was frightened was at Darth Maul's little brother in Insidious, a film about as scary as Scooby Doo.




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Scary? Don't be a pussy! (13/2/2012 5:37:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bighousewill

I don't believe in ghosts this film had no effect on me I manned up big time for this film I can sleep in a darkened room no prob.


Someone's going overboard on letting us know how unscared he was.



And then buggers it up royally by saying the last time he was frightened was at Darth Maul's little brother in Insidious, a film about as scary as Scooby Doo.


Hey Scooby Doo is pretty darn scary.
I mean.. a talking dog...[sm=scared04.gif]




st3veebee -> RE: Scary? Don't be a pussy! (14/2/2012 11:22:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bighousewill

I don't believe in ghosts this film had no effect on me I manned up big time for this film I can sleep in a darkened room no prob.


Someone's going overboard on letting us know how unscared he was.



And then buggers it up royally by saying the last time he was frightened was at Darth Maul's little brother in Insidious, a film about as scary as Scooby Doo.


I got scared and jumped a lot in both.

Both great films!




JohnChard -> Certification. (15/2/2012 3:12:03 AM)

I saw it last Friday in Dublin and there it was a 15A certificate, which I think is spot on. Why it's a 12 here I have no idea? I thought it was a wonderful old fashioned spooker with period flavours and a damn fine performance from Radcliffe. Looks like I'm going to see it again on Friday in the UK as my Mom is a fan of the book, really looking forward to it again, just hope that the 12 certificate doesn't mean the jolts have been toned down......




Wild about Wilder -> RE: Certification. (15/2/2012 1:06:12 PM)

This all comes down to Spider-Man there was no 12A before that came out & it was thought too strong for a PG & Sony didn't want a 12 cert so low & behold a 12A strangely appeared? [sm=33.gif]
So whereas if we had PG/13 like the US where we'd have seen the film uncut we're left with this though surprisingly Dark Knight wasn't cut & that was far more disturbing torture scenes etc makes you wonder?




Spaldron -> RE: Certification. (15/2/2012 4:06:41 PM)

I saw this the other night and quite enjoyed it really. One or two decent scares, although not as many as I would've liked and I thought Radcliffe did quite well even if I didn't quite buy him as a father. Some good atmospherics reminiscent of The Haunting and The Others let down by a (SPOILERS) slightly schlocky finale with too much use of the title character doing the whole screaming at the camera stuff we'd seen all before. Overall its faults can be forgiven as the first two acts are well done. 3.5/5




S. C. Lee -> RE: Decent Chiller!! (16/2/2012 12:15:16 AM)

I love Jane Goldman's writing (usually) but I found Woman in Black to be quite dull, very little dialogue, lots of walking around a house, 12A scares. I jumped once when Radcliff put his hand on the glass and the woman appeared. The ending was clever but the story was fairly weak. Worth a watch, once.

The opposite of you Ramone87 [:D] I liked the ending, the rest was meh.




JohnChard -> The Ending (16/2/2012 2:00:25 AM)

Well it's two fold in meaning and personally I don't mind it either way.

*SPOILERS BELOW*










She's either given Arthur his peace by puting them back together as a family, a thanks for doing what he did to find her son, or she's just one nasty killing beatch who is going to keep on killing! 

The directors commentary will be interesting for it.

Anyway, a wonderful spooker, in the vein of The Orphanage, The Others, The Changeling, and even the much maligned Darkness Falls.







Vadersville -> RE: The Ending (16/2/2012 1:06:11 PM)

SPOILERS FOR THE ENDING!












I don't think The Woman in Black did it as a sort of reward. I genuinelly think that she was just trying to take Arthur's son away from him or even kill him as well. She was heard chanting never forgive just before. But rather than be lost forever like the others shes killed Arthur and his son were rescued by his wife, (a Woman in White) who led them to cross over.




piginapoke -> RE: The Ending (16/2/2012 1:26:04 PM)

*** ENDING SPOILER BELOW ***














My blood chilled when his boy said "who's that woman", not knowing who they were looking at. Heaven or Hell depending on who that woman was, mind you would never have been hell, way too big a downer then.




theinquisitor -> RE: The Woman In Black (16/2/2012 4:20:45 PM)

Radcliffe is a decent actor and would have been a good choice if the character had been closer to the Kipps of the book, but this version has to be 25+. Radcliffe was 21 during filming and barely looks that. I can only imagine there were commercial rather than artistic considerations in his casting, but it was a serious problem for me in a film I otherwise enjoyed.




JohnChard -> RE: The Ending (16/2/2012 7:15:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

SPOILERS FOR THE ENDING!












I don't think The Woman in Black did it as a sort of reward. I genuinelly think that she was just trying to take Arthur's son away from him or even kill him as well. She was heard chanting never forgive just before. But rather than be lost forever like the others shes killed Arthur and his son were rescued by his wife, (a Woman in White) who led them to cross over.


Yep that works for me also, it has a couple of interpretations, which I like, I don't think it's a coincidence that the wife is all in white. Like I say, it's pretty two-fold and that gives the ending a bit of debate weight and an air of mystery.

[sm=happy34.gif]




JohnChard -> RE: The Woman In Black (16/2/2012 7:20:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theinquisitor

Radcliffe is a decent actor and would have been a good choice if the character had been closer to the Kipps of the book, but this version has to be 25+. Radcliffe was 21 during filming and barely looks that. I can only imagine there were commercial rather than artistic considerations in his casting, but it was a serious problem for me in a film I otherwise enjoyed.


I wrote this in my own review >

"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."

So while it was easy for me to get over it, I fully understand that there are folk like yourself who find it a bit scratchy.

[sm=happy34.gif]





Dr Lenera -> RE: The Woman In Black (18/2/2012 10:24:07 AM)

Now I was surprised [but pleased] when I heard this has very traditional, slow-paced ghost story has become a huge hit and indeed I could barely get a seat at my cinema, but then of course it does have a certain Harry Potter in the lead role! Actually Daniel Radcliffe is okay, considering at least a third of the film consists of him on his own, in a haunted house. These lengthy sequences are superb examples of creepy atmosphere building and contains some solid jolts, though I could have done without the obvious CGI. Overall, the film drags its heels a little too much and a few bits fall flat but it's great to look at and solidly plotted, though the ending, which I hear has been changed from the book, seemed a bit of place for me. As someone who has yet to see the ITV version, I thoroughly enjoyed this often scary, but also rather quaint, old fashioned spook tale, though I disagree with it being cut to get a '12' certificate,which I still don't think it deserves; there may be little blood and violence, but God it screws with your mind!

7.5/10




Dr Lenera -> RE: The Woman In Black (18/2/2012 10:24:40 AM)

double post




Twisted Kitty -> RE: The Woman In Black (20/2/2012 1:25:27 PM)

I'd deliberately not read any reviews on this film as wanted to go in without any expectations. I'd not known anything of the story either so went in cold so to speak.
I really enjoyed it. Thought it had plenty of jumps (which were shared by others) and held a great creepy atmosphere all the time especially in the house. Yes there were some moments when I knew something would happen as it was cliche but then again, it didn't disappoint.

As for Radcliffe, I thought he played his character very well - you could actually see the emptiness in his eyes and how they changed at the end.

I would definitely not have given it a 12A rating. Personally, there is no way I would I take a 12 year old to see that - yeah ok no blood n guts but certainly has the scare factor.




MovieJunkie -> RE: EFFICIENTLY PUT TOGETHER FRIGHTFEST..... (20/2/2012 7:35:24 PM)

I really enjoyed the film, really loved the atmosphere and tension which it was capable of.

However there were a few too many jump scares for my taste, and most of the good ones were in the trailers.

Only just seen it though, so I think I need to ponder on the film more.




funkadelia9999 -> RE: The Woman In Black (22/2/2012 11:03:06 AM)

For me, Susan Hill's The Woman in Black remains the finest ghost story of recent times. It has fueled my imagination – not to mention, my writing – for three decades now and exemplifies how the ghost story genre is arguably the most effective form for exploring the human condition in all its manifestations and complexity. Like the highly celebrated works of MR James, Hill’s work evokes similar unease in the reader with a narrative full of barely-glimpsed horrors in often isolated locations.

In 1989, I was very excited to learn that Central TV was filming an adaptation to be broadcast on Christmas Eve; a broadcast date previously celebrated by the BBC with its memorable Ghost Story at Christmas strand.

Despite 30 plus years of watching the ghost story in all its celluloid adaptations, I have yet to find anything more skin-crawlingly terrifying. The subtle imagery of the magnificent Nigel Kneale screenplay, devastating in appearance and intensity, has never left me. Christmas 1989 reawakened my most primitive of fears: that there is something rather nasty lurking in the unexplored recesses of our mind - as if a house of locked rooms.

Fast forward to 2012 and I am again excited by the spectacle of viewing a new screenplay for The Woman in Black. I try to squash a niggling suspicion that despite the expected quality of a Hammer Production, it will never quite match up to what I consider TV’s scariest moment.

But with heavy heart, as the film progresses I find that this fear is realised.

“Open your mouth Daniel Radcliffe, open your mouth!” I’m not necessarily talking words here, just anything to add to the one-dimensional, wide-eyed consternation mode that the young actor lumbers around the screen with. Even the occasional voiceless utterance would imbue the performance with a sense of Kipps’ reactions to increasingly inauspicious surrounds. If this version wishes to focus on the intense suffering of the people of Crythin Grifford, then surely some of this should be sensed by Kipps whether he chooses to interpret events as a portent to get the hell out of the village (but bloody-mindedness and job conviction convinces him to stay); or as an open invitation to help these poor souls and solve a unique mystery. Neither of these reactions appears to fuel the protagonist’s reason for staying.

As for imagery, the clues are unimaginatively clustered and tend to overstate rather than underplay the hints of the horror to come. A number of scenes clumsily place The Woman central to her surrounds and feature an overuse of the literal. Compare the 1989 version where Pauline Moran's brief appearances as The Woman fill the whole film with a sense of doom and terror. She's seen in the background, almost out-of-focus, a few times. The leering, grimacing expression, white face and red eyes, on the rare occasions used, fill the screen. However, in the most recent direction, the antagonist is squarely placed in a cemetery, staring up at the house, in surroundings complete devoid of the most spectral of landscapes: the mist-smeared marshes. Thereafter, the woman makes frequent appearances but these appear designed more to encourage an audience to fear jumping out of its seats than the subtle art of leading the senses on a not so merry journey across an increasingly terrifying and inauspicious landscape.

Even the ending is a rather inelegant cop-out and manages to completely divert the flow of the movie, far too late for it to recover.

Spoilt by the book, the theatrical performance and the 1989 screenplay; is the 2012 version just a long line in the natural evolution of the subtle art of celluloid ghost story telling into a more hi octane mix for the younger generation? I hope not.




Qwerty Norris -> RE: The Woman In Black (22/2/2012 2:23:34 PM)

Apparently cuts were made in order to secure the 12A certificate, which for a director like James Watkins (who directed such uncompromising fare like Eden Lake and wrote terror-fuelled pieces like The Descent) is a little bit disappointing - although given the involvement of Radcliffe, is hardly a surprise. As a result, it leads to a ghost story that will absolutely work for young teenagers in terms of chills, yet those better versed in haunted house fare will admire it rather than being genuinely spooked - a wee bit of a let-down after the brilliantly unnerving teaser trailer. As for Harry Potter himself; whilst initially giving off indications that he's far too young to play his character, he grows into the role well as things develop and convincingly portrays a grieve-stricken man motivated to chasing shadows - playing the Woman In Black's 20 minute silent centrepiece very effectively in particular. In general, an admirable effort with a little too much reveal of the title character, whilst the final minute is disappointingly mainstream.
3/5




Drone -> RE: The Woman In Black (22/2/2012 11:15:03 PM)

Thw Woman in Black had so many cliches it was painful - yet somehow, despite the constant expectation, I just didn't see any of them coming.

I thought it was utterly fantastic, and many bricks were shat. It was full of BOO moments, but they just worked.

I had pretty low expectations of this, thinking I'd be sitting through standard haunted-house fare, and to be honest had it not been for Radcliffe I probably would have given in it a miss; I was definitely just curious to see how he would do outside of Potter.

But damn, personally I thought it was terrifying. My pulse was still racing well after it had finished.

Yes, it's full of "jump scares". But, it's by far and away the most effective "jump scare" horror movie I've ever seen. Brillant. Easy peasy four stars.





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.125