Movie review: 'The Woman in Black'

Through the 1950s and 60s, Hammer Studios in England produced some of films most memorable horror movies, including interpretations of such classics as “Dracula”, “Frankenstein”, and “The Mummy”.  Hammer fell by the wayside for a while, but came back a few years ago with the eerie vampire tale “Let Me In”.  Now, with director James Watkins’ “The Woman in Black”, Hammer recalls the films they are most known for—predominantly, those set in foggy, crumbling old towns in Victorian England.

“The Woman in Black” stars Daniel Radcliffe as Arthur Kipp, a young attorney struggling to make ends meet.  His wife died giving birth to his now four-year-old son.  He is tasked with sorting out the affairs of a recently-deceased woman, and travels to the remote village where she lived in a large, now-abandoned home on the water.  But Arthur quickly realizes that the locals don’t want him there.  He is turned out of the inn, and has to pay the reluctant carriage driver a large sum of money just to take him to the mansion.  While there, he begins to understand why: the house—dusty, dark, and filled with eccentric items like stuffed monkeys and wide-eyed dolls—makes noises, things move on their own, and the vision of a woman wearing a long black dress and veil frequently appears out of nowhere.  But this is more than a haunted house story; this woman in out for vengeance, as Arthur learns that every time she is seen, a child in the village suffers some horrible death.

As a creepy, old-fashioned ghost story, “The Woman in Black” is pretty successful, and a rather refreshing departure from the ghost films like “Paranormal Activity” that have recently been populating theaters.  It keeps you guessing until the end as to why these things are happening, and what the mysterious woman wants.  The setting is also just about as perfect as it can be for this kind of film, from the incredibly detailed haunted mansion to the dreary, fear-struck town.  And there is more going on than just things going bump in the night, the apparitions, and the discoveries Arthur makes in the house, are quite unnerving.

At the same time, there are some things that don’t quite work in the film.  For one, it’s too noisy.  Perhaps this is being too nit-picky, but the film overdoes it on the music, which blares every time something happens—the woman in black appearing, for instance.  Yes music, we know she is there and don’t need you to keep calling attention to her.  I can’t help but feel that at times some of the scenes would be more effective if they were just silent, letting the woman’s presence creep up on you rather than loudly announcing itself.

On top of that, while it is nice to see Radcliffe venturing outside the realm of “Harry Potter”, he doesn’t fit the role of Arthur well at all.  First of all, he doesn’t look like he could even be the father of a four-year-old.  Second, he is often no more than mildly alarmed when reacting to the frightening, paranormal things happening around him.  Perhaps the script has equal blame for that: the good scenes all belong to the woman and the house, and rightly so.

Runtime: 95 minutes.  Rated PG-13 for thematic material and violence/disturbing images.

For more info, visit Film Releases, or feel free to email me. For updates on my latest articles, click the subscribe button at the top of this page. You can also follow me on the following websites: