Extended HP franchise (The Woman In Black, reviewed)



Finally, I was able to watch Daniel Radcliffe’s new film, post- Potter—The Woman In Black. Since I’m not much a fan of horror films, I waited for friends to accompany me watch it in a smaller screen (read: laptop). Ginette and RJ have already finished the film and were eager to hear us scream and see horrorstruck faces on us. We tried not to budge, well I, to be exact because Razelle and Jam are horror fans.  

The film started with some sort of a flashback. Three little girls were playing with their dolls inside their room when all of a sudden they were walking like zombies toward the sectioned window. The girls stepped on the ledge, opened their windows and jumped. I was like, ok, what happened. The scene goes black and we see Harry Radcliffe. In the film, he plays Arthur Kipps, a young widowed lawyer—his wife died after giving birth to their only son. Kipps was ordered by his boss to go through the real estate papers of a dead proprietress. Since he had been slacking off for some time mourning for the death of his wife, Kipps was warned by his superior that if he isn’t able to fix the estate’s papers, he will be sacked. So off goes Kipps to a creepy, rural village, Crythin Gifford—where the children are looking at him with eyes void of expression. The innkeeper tells him to leave but he would not bother. Kipps befriends the town’s wealthiest man—a skeptic who doesn’t believe in the superstition that a female ghost portends the death of children in that town.

The next day, Kipps sets off and visits the estate in question—Eel Marsh Mansion located far off the town proper. As soon as the young lawyer sets foot on the scary mansion, bad things started to happen. Child after child dies and people start to blame Kipps for the tragic death of their children. A few more eerie moments—cymbals held by monkey figurines start to clap, black footprints appear and vanish on the wooden floors, rocking chairs start to move frantically, doorknobs begin to clank—and Kipps see that there is indeed something wrong in the small town. With a few hours remaining before his son and his nanny arrives to fetch him, Kipps has to solve the mystery or else something much worse might descend.

While the ghost doesn’t enjoy enough screen time compared to other horror and suspense flicks, the movie was still able to jolt its audience and give them slight screams. I think the eeriness of the location (i.e. Eel Marsh mansion) and the Victorian- era toys inside the rooms contribute much to the horror feel of the movie. The storyline itself is also promising. It moves away from the practice done in more recent horror films—brutal murder, killers with congealing faces and ghosts with unusual physical defects; such a technique makes the story look more authentic and the story easier to absorb since it is closer to reality. The dialogues were a bit scant—on most scenes, the audience would have to rely on Radcliffe’s facial expressions to get the flow of the story.

The movie, as a whole, is efficient, handsome (of course the lead is handsome) and delivers the basics of a horror film. I was scared. My friends weren’t that much. Ate Chael fell asleep by the middle of the film. Also, we felt that the film was some sort of an extension of the Harry Potter franchise. Hahaha. Or maybe we just got excited to see Harry Radcliffe again onscreen. That cannot be faulted—we’re HP fans! We thought that Arthur Kipps was really Harry and that the whole plot was his first assignment as a duly inducted Auror. Hahaha. And yeah, we’re not the only ones who thought about that. The picture below is an evidence. Hahaha!


I recommend you watch it and see for yourself.

4 out 5 stars.

Reviews from the Web:
- Dana Stevens says TWIB is a good old fashioned horror movie
- The Guardian-- TWIB is efficient and handsomely scripted
- The Telegraph's take on TWIB
- Rotten Tomatoes' gives it a fresh rating

Labels: ,

felix felicis: Extended HP franchise (The Woman In Black, reviewed)

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Extended HP franchise (The Woman In Black, reviewed)



Finally, I was able to watch Daniel Radcliffe’s new film, post- Potter—The Woman In Black. Since I’m not much a fan of horror films, I waited for friends to accompany me watch it in a smaller screen (read: laptop). Ginette and RJ have already finished the film and were eager to hear us scream and see horrorstruck faces on us. We tried not to budge, well I, to be exact because Razelle and Jam are horror fans.  

The film started with some sort of a flashback. Three little girls were playing with their dolls inside their room when all of a sudden they were walking like zombies toward the sectioned window. The girls stepped on the ledge, opened their windows and jumped. I was like, ok, what happened. The scene goes black and we see Harry Radcliffe. In the film, he plays Arthur Kipps, a young widowed lawyer—his wife died after giving birth to their only son. Kipps was ordered by his boss to go through the real estate papers of a dead proprietress. Since he had been slacking off for some time mourning for the death of his wife, Kipps was warned by his superior that if he isn’t able to fix the estate’s papers, he will be sacked. So off goes Kipps to a creepy, rural village, Crythin Gifford—where the children are looking at him with eyes void of expression. The innkeeper tells him to leave but he would not bother. Kipps befriends the town’s wealthiest man—a skeptic who doesn’t believe in the superstition that a female ghost portends the death of children in that town.

The next day, Kipps sets off and visits the estate in question—Eel Marsh Mansion located far off the town proper. As soon as the young lawyer sets foot on the scary mansion, bad things started to happen. Child after child dies and people start to blame Kipps for the tragic death of their children. A few more eerie moments—cymbals held by monkey figurines start to clap, black footprints appear and vanish on the wooden floors, rocking chairs start to move frantically, doorknobs begin to clank—and Kipps see that there is indeed something wrong in the small town. With a few hours remaining before his son and his nanny arrives to fetch him, Kipps has to solve the mystery or else something much worse might descend.

While the ghost doesn’t enjoy enough screen time compared to other horror and suspense flicks, the movie was still able to jolt its audience and give them slight screams. I think the eeriness of the location (i.e. Eel Marsh mansion) and the Victorian- era toys inside the rooms contribute much to the horror feel of the movie. The storyline itself is also promising. It moves away from the practice done in more recent horror films—brutal murder, killers with congealing faces and ghosts with unusual physical defects; such a technique makes the story look more authentic and the story easier to absorb since it is closer to reality. The dialogues were a bit scant—on most scenes, the audience would have to rely on Radcliffe’s facial expressions to get the flow of the story.

The movie, as a whole, is efficient, handsome (of course the lead is handsome) and delivers the basics of a horror film. I was scared. My friends weren’t that much. Ate Chael fell asleep by the middle of the film. Also, we felt that the film was some sort of an extension of the Harry Potter franchise. Hahaha. Or maybe we just got excited to see Harry Radcliffe again onscreen. That cannot be faulted—we’re HP fans! We thought that Arthur Kipps was really Harry and that the whole plot was his first assignment as a duly inducted Auror. Hahaha. And yeah, we’re not the only ones who thought about that. The picture below is an evidence. Hahaha!


I recommend you watch it and see for yourself.

4 out 5 stars.

Reviews from the Web:

Labels: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home