Harry Potter has gone from strength to strength till its recent final installment. Now Daniel Radcliffe sort of lets go of his Potter character and delves into the depths of horror film mania with upcoming, much anticipated The Woman in Black...
The trailer
Image by Squidoo
The plot
The Woman in Black goes back to Edwardian times with Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) visiting a far off village where as a young lawyer he discovers a curse and a ghost who persists in haunting the locals.
Arthur is invited to stay in the most haunted of the houses, where he initially is assigned to work on settling the estate of Eel Marsh. While in the village, Kipps endures creepy visions, child suicides and constant terror until he realizes that only one thing will make the haunting stop.
The director, James Watkins, opts for a tale told with feeling and classic Hammer Horror spookiness rather than blood, gore and the systematic killing off of characters that his contemporaries in the horror genre seem to have grown so attached to.
Image by: thehollywoodnews
Potter to haunted lawyer
The cast seems like a good fit to bring you to the edge and possibly off your feet. Daniel Radcliffe is definitely the main attraction though and here is his best answer from a recent interview on how being in the film has been a ‘departure’ from the Harry Potter series.
When asked what intrigued him about the role in the film he would play and if he saw it as a way of getting into ‘older roles’, Radcliffe was clear on his thoughts:
Yes, certainly I was never under any illusions that this would be the one film that I would do that everyone would suddenly go: ‘Oh, he’s no longer Harry Potter!’ I don’t think that’s going to happen but I certainly think it’ll start that. I think I look very different in this film, I think it’s a very different type of performance that I give. I mean, when you play Harry, my own natural energy and attack is very useful because that’s how Harry is as well.
But with a part like this, it was about trying to completely suppress and deaden my own natural energy and give the look of somebody who has had the vitality taken out of him by the circumstances of his life. So, those were the things I was kind of concentrating on. I didn’t think at the time about how much it would distance me or not distance me. Also, one of the things that was really appealing about this was that the story was so compelling that I… and I still think, even if people go in with Harry Potter in mind, after the first 10 minutes the story is quite gripping, so I think people are just going to be involved in the story and won’t be thinking about too many other things. But who knows, I could be wrong! WebOrange
Image by: the guardian
Mixed reviews
Considering this is a re-make it may be interesting to watch it after you watch the original Woman in Black (1989) to see how it fares. Otherwise the reviews have been good so far, mostly claiming its a ‘true horror’ film that will give you the fright of your life without the typical bloody gore that comes with contemporary horror.
Reviewers say:
“Happily, Watkins steers clear of indulging in modern horror tropes, especially where gore and vulgarity are concerned. In most respects other than technical expertise, this is a film that essentially could have been made in Hammer’s heyday back in the 1950s, as well as one that Radcliffe’s Potter fans can enjoy.” Hollywood Reporter
“… Oh, and the ending is superb.” E!Online
Watch this video below for an occasionally negative YouTube review of The Woman in Black which may inform your decision whether to go watch this creepy flick.
Have you been to see this already? Give us your thoughts in the comments.
