It’s hard to watch this film without looking at Daniel Radcliffe and not think of Harry Potter. It’s nice to see him putting himself in a role that is completely unlike anything he did in the Potter franchise however. There are moments when this film works well as a haunted house horror film, however the simple truth is there are not enough of these moments to truly be scary.
Daniel Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps a lawyer who has been commissioned to settle a ownership dispute for an old abandoned mansion. Apparently the mansion has supernatural entities, like most old mansions apparently do. I suppose that spirits do not like to occupy section 8 housing. The plot manages to get deeper but that is not crucial to what the film is really about. Like Insidious, this film is a haunted house film. Unlike Insidious however, this film fails to bring beginning to end scares. The Woman in Black tries to blend drama and Horror. When the film is allowed to be horrifying, it works relatively well. Despite this, the film lacks in the dramatic department. Nonetheless the film is still well made. It doesn’t dumb down the film for American audiences.
 |
| Are Bratz going to be this scary in 100 years? |
By the time the film reaches the ending, you want more from the film, but the film prevents it. the ending is actually the best part of the film. It is an interesting and effective way that displays the afterlife. This film will work for some in it’s entirety, but for me it only worked when it focused on what the film set out to do, scare the audience.
2/4 muffins.
No comments:
Post a Comment