Film » Reviews

The Woman in Black: Harry Potter and the deathly shallow

**

by

comment

THE WOMAN IN BLACK

**

DIRECTED BY James Watkins

STARS Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds

Before they largely imploded in the mid-1970s, Britain's Hammer Film Productions spent two decades producing lush, atmospheric horror flicks, in the process re-igniting filmgoer passion for classic monster movies and making genre superstars out of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Two years ago, the outfit returned to screens with the critically acclaimed, audience-ignored Let Me In, followed that with two barely seen releases, and now offer the decidedly more high-profile The Woman in Black, positioned as a true test of Daniel Radcliffe's drawing power outside the Harry Potter franchise. For the record, Radcliffe is fine; the film, on the other hand, is tepid enough to leave Dracula -- the one who looks like Christopher Lee, of course -- spinning in his grave.

Based on a novel (by Susan Hill) that had already been turned into a successful play and a 1989 made-for-British-TV film, this finds Radcliffe cast as Arthur Kipps, a widowed lawyer assigned to visit a remote village in order to settle the estate of a recently deceased elderly woman. In the film's best nod to vintage horror, the country rubes all view the newcomer with suspicion and do little to aid him in his task. The reason, it turns out, is that they believe the stomping grounds of the departed is haunted by the title apparition, an evil entity with a sweet tooth for tragedy and children. Both fascinated by the legend and fearful that it might has some basis in reality, Arthur opts to spend the night at the creepy mansion — and it's here where the film primarily jumps the tracks.

The best ghost stories are the ones that rely on careful exposition and a pervasive sense of mounting dread to unsettle audiences (The Others and The Orphanage being modern examples), but director James Watkins and scripter Jane Goldman abandon that approach shockingly fast. Instead, this is the sort of spook show that tries to manufacture scares by having something rapidly leap into the frame, startling both the protagonist and many viewers. Usually, it's a cat; here, it's everything but. Yet this sort of cheap thrill becomes predictable before long — Arthur investigates, relaxes, LOOK OUT!, investigates, relaxes, LOOK OUT!, etc. — and unlike the aforementioned simmering sort of supernatural cinema, it will have little shelf life (after all, to quote a great president, scholar and humanitarian, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.").

It's certainly nice to have Hammer back in business, but let's hope they nail down more promising projects than this one.

Add a comment