There are classic ghost story/horror films which start off with just a hint of unease, then gradually build upon subtle menace to full-fledged terror. “The Woman in Black” does this – but first it punches you right in the guts to get you in the mood.
“The Woman in Black,” based on the 1983 novle by Susan Hill, is Daniel Radcliffe’s first feature film after the conclusion of the “Harry Potter” series, and also stars fellow Hogwarts alumnus Ciaran Hinds.
Harry Potter made Radcliffe a very, very rich young man, and put him in the enviable position for an actor of being able to pursue art for arts sake for the rest of his life.
He does not disappoint.
Judging from this film, and the 2007 made for TV movie “My Boy Jack,” Radcliffe has taken his craft very seriously. Here he takes on a role where there are
long extended scenes with no dialog and he has to act with his face and body language.
Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps, a soliciter in Edwardian England, who is sent by his firm to settle the estate of a reclusive woman who has just died. The estate is Eel Marsh House, a rambling wreck of a place on an island in a salt marsh which is cut off from the coast when the tide is high.
Kipps’ backstory is revealed in flashbacks and instruction from his boss. Kipps is falling apart personally and professionally after his wife died giving birth to his now four-year-old son, and this assignment is a make-or-break for him.
The backstory of Eel Marsh House and the nearby village is the place is haunted by the aparition of a woman in black, whose appearance always means children are going to die.
The setting couldn’t be more appropriate, the sky is nearly always overcast and the area either fog-bound or rain-drenched. The London scenes, the house, the village, the train, and the train station have a remarkable authenticity. Any prop department can knock together a period piece set, but how did they get the look of the scarred wooden windowsill on the train for a scene of a few seconds length?
There is nothing original in the plot, which is entirely appropriate. There are no original ghost stories, just variations on a theme that is very old.
Herein there is madness, old scandal, surly suspicious villagers, suicide, unburied dead, possession, a vengeful ghost, and a vulnerable adult. Shades of “The Haunting” via “The Ring.”
There are things that move by themselves, windup toys that start to play themselves, doors that won’t open until they’re good and ready to open, bumps in the night, and corpse-like faces and figures illuminated by flashes of lighting.
I know, I know, “Been there, seen that.”
Just take my word for it, if this genre is your cup of tea – see it. I really can’t tell you a lot about the plot and the events without spoilers. But I can tell you this is the first movie in a long time that made me jump in my seat, not once but several times, and literally sent chills down my spine.
(That is by the way, is why it’s a great date movie – but I’m still glad I saw a matinee and came out of the theater into the bright sunlight.)
If I have any criticism it’s that the richest guy in the county Sam Daily (Hinds,) is skeptical beyond reason, given all that’s happened. The convention is to have the Skeptic bow to the overwhelming weight of evidence slowly and reluctantly. Sam just caves in to belief in the supernatural nature of the events too easily.
Like I said, see it. Kids? I don’t know. My 10-year-old is into giant shark and monster movies at present, but this is a whole ‘nother thing. I don’t know how he’d deal with supernatural horror/ghost stories. Use your judgment.