THE WOMAN IN BLACK (2012)

(Directed by James Watkins)

"Ghosts like to scare people."- Signed by MartialHorror.

Plot: A young lawyer travels to a remote village in order to settle the affairs of a dead crazy woman, only to learn that her ghost is preying upon the village's children.

Review:

Hammer Studios dominated the horror genre in the 60's, even though they were around before and after. They became infamous for their Gothic horror films that relied on suspense, set design and dread filled atmosphere, sprinkled with implications of violence and sex (cutting edge at the time). While I am not an expert on Hammer Horror in general, I have liked most of what I've seen. “The Curse of Frankenstein” is one of my favorite films of all time and “The Horror of Dracula” isn't far behind. Even misfires like “The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll” are unique and intriguing by today's standards. Plus, the actors were played by veterans who had good dialogue to work with. But no one will watch any of those films these days and call them “scary”. Moody? Sure? Chilling? Perhaps, but rarely will anything plague your nightmares. Horror has changed too much.

These days, scares are actually more advanced. There is a much greater use of the foreground and background, which is what freaks me out the most. Our technology allows us to use lighting more creatively and there are no boundaries anymore as to what film can do. Unfortunately, most horror films fail to use these new gifts and instead opt to make crappy remakes that rely more on marketing campaigns than actual chills. That is the main difference between then and now when it came to mainstream horror. “The Woman In Black” was the first old school Gothic film produced by Hammer since it's revival and it immediately intrigued me. It would either be a throwback to the 60's or perhaps it would be a modern style horror film that happens to take place in the past. Luckily, the film turned out to be a marriage of the styles. It combines what I loved about 60's horror films and what I love about modern day horror films, although the end result isn't quite the masterpiece I wished it would be.

 

Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is a young widower whose grief has begun to effect his duties as a Laywer. Problem number one, Radcliffe is way too young for the part. I can buy him as an up and coming lawyer I guess, but a widower? This is mostly redeemed by his effective performance, but considering Hammer films usually relied on guys like Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee I would expect the protagonist to at least look like he's gone through puberty. Anyway, he gets the chance to redeem himself by traveling to remote village in order to settle the legal affairs of a dead recluse who owned a lavish- but now dilapidated- Mansion that is even more isolated than the rest of the village. Once he arrives, he quickly learns that there is something supernatural targeting the villagers children. But what is going on and why?

The moment when Kipps confronts hostile villagers, I knew I was in comfortable territory. The film recreates most of what I loved about the Hammer films of old. For one, the Edwardian age setting is almost as awesome as the Victorian age setting that was so popular in these films. To me, horror works best in the past, where cell phones don't exist and creepy innkeepers glare at people menacingly. Good times. But while the films limited budget obstructs things a bit, the locations are excellent. The costume and set design is masterful, especially when it came to the Mansion. The exteriors and interiors are vast and creepy, and the island it rests on is even creepier. The cinematography really has a lot of fun in capturing the chilling, fog filled atmosphere these locations provide. The feeling of isolation and dread is consuming and I constantly felt my heart beat rapidly in anticipation.

 

But there's nothing old fashioned about it. There are plenty of modern day scares for us to jump at. There are creepy dolls (was that the “Saw” doll laugh I heard?), sudden loud noises to throw us off our guard, ghosts appearing for a brief glimpse out of nowhere and startling boo scares that actually work for once. But the films most frightening moments come from the buildup. A strange sound coming from upstairs, something ghastly emerging from the marsh and wanting in the house, faces appearing in the windows or silhouetted in the trees, a door opening in the background for no reason and many more of the scares that relied on some sort of build up were the scares that scored the most. The use of shadows, lighting, locations and sound all came together to make a film that freaked me out consistently. I constantly squirmed in my seat, so clearly the films brand of terror worked its magic on me.

Unfortunately, “The Woman In Black” is like “Insidious” in that it works only for its execution, not it's story. The script is very average, although it does have some stellar dialogue. But the film goes down in a very predictable way. You know what's coming (in terms of plot) and everything happens as you would expect it to happen. The explanation as to why everything is happening and the attempt to stop it is all stuff that we've seen many times before. “The Woman In Black” is conventional at its core, only redeemed by his energetic and spooky execution. Some subplots that are introduced don't go anywhere, so maybe a lot of this movie ended up on the editing room floor, but I don't know if that would've made the story any deeper. 

But I liked “The Woman In Black”. I was a good throwback to Hammer Horror films, taking place in a setting that more horror films should exploit, but also brought in what modern audiences find scary. Of course, what we find scary is always subjective, but it's brands of horror appealed to my tastes and I found the film to be quite frightening. It's just too bad that the story is very by the numbers, not only in concept but also in how it plays out. It kept the film from being great, but the good direction made for a good film.

Note: I constantly point this out but remember that fear is subjective. I find ghoulish figures appearing in windows and in the backgrounds, for example, to be good horror. What scares me might bore you and what bores me might scare you. If you've seen "Paranormal Activity" then you should know that no one agrees as to what counts as a scary film.

Violence: PG-13. Some disturbing sequences.

Nudity: None.

Overall: “The Woman In Black” is a good ghost film and should be watched by horror fans who wish to be spooked out. But if you don't like ghost films, the only difference between this and most is its setting.

 

3/4 Stars