Directed by: James Watkins
Verdict: What the Woman in Black lacks in substance it tries to make up in scares. Lauded as Daniel Radcliffe’s big foray into the non-Harry Potter world, for me his performance fell a little flat and the real star of this film was the haunted house at the centre of this spooky tale. The film is carried rather too much by its aesthetics, sound and some chilling performances by the broad supporting cast. In my opinion the film could have been better served with a leading man who packs a little more punch.
It’s a sad thing, but I don’t think Daniel Radcliffe will ever shake the ‘boy who lived’ label. I hate to be so harsh on the star of the films which illuminated my childhood, but I don’t think Radcliffe is likely to be taken seriously as a thespian – not on the basis of his performance as Arthur Kipps anyway. For me, Radcliffe’s Kipps is unlikeable and in a film which is basically the story of him vs. the titular woman likeability and screen presence are key. And it just seems implausible to me that he could be the father of a four year-old-son and be grieving the loss of his wife… I mean, he’s just a student wizard.
Despite the narrative focus on Kipps, the stand-out of this film us undoubtedly the diegetic setting. The haunted house is undeniably spooky, with countless small touches and details making it utterly convincing. The colouring of the small town terrorised by the woman in black is bleak, grim; and with the tour de force collective performance of the supporting cast serves its purpose as a gripping plot thickener.
Director Watkins achieves a visually-spectacular scare-fest with this film, but I can’t help feeling this film could have been a lot better.
No comments:
Post a Comment