[Movies] Woman In Black (2012)

[Neeshka]

Went to see this movie today; fairly good. Definitely a recommended watch for people that like relatively high brow horror films like the ring, paranormal activity, the innocents or even the others.

The horror genre in hollywood is an utter mess of the same regurgitated garbage slasher flicks, teen-horror and un-funny+not scary "horror comedy", or the mindless exorcism type drivel.

So a mostly period drama psychological haunting type horror movie is definitely a welcome change.

All this being said I did watch the original before and the remake definitely does a few things worse:

-The remake focuses almost entirely on arthur kidd (daniel radcliffe/potter). Not on his interaction with other people but his experiences almost entirely.
-The remake relies a bit more on jump scares and sometimes this is annoying (sea mist scene, window scene)
-All the minor characters in the remake have too little character exposition. A lot of the colorful characters from the original are greatly abridged or even left out.
-The original has the "bustling rural british sea port" feel to it. In the remake it feels like a desolate village filled with weirdo madmen that hate outsiders
-Lack of pub and village scenes in general (these add a lot of flavor to the setting imo)
-The last scene in the TV scene is actually really scary, in the remake it was just a bittersweet resolution.
-The public reactions in the village are a lot less subtle and sometimes over the top. A lot of the things in the film are too hollywoodized, like how the house is like a palace for example.

But the remake did of course get a few things right and improved on some aspects too.
-The suspense is a LOT better.
-Anything involving ghosts or visions which require special effects were obviously better.
-better more detailed sets, costumes, more polish in general.

O and finally, that scene with the rolls royce near the end was badly done. Felt like they had the car in the studio and filmed the moving scenery separately and spliced them together. Seemed kinda shoddy.

Although the movie grossed around 10mil at the box office and is certified fresh (63%) on RT I'm suprised that A LOT of the american critics disliked the movie and almost none of them saw the original at all.

TLDR: Fairly decent and very atmospheric british period movie, refreshingly new horror without the hackneyed hollywood stereotypes. The original is still probably better for a lot of things.

[Gallahadd]

Daniel Radcliffe cannot act, ruined the movie for me, as he's ruined every movie he's ever been in.

just go and see the frakkin play already, same goes for War Horse.

[Wynnyelle]

I don't really get scared by horror movies at all, but this one really got me going for some reason. It was just creepy. The story was kind of... whatever, but that wasn't what I was there for so that can be forgiven. I agree with the above poster though, that Daniel Radcliffe shouldn't act.

[Deleted]

I thought it was alright and watchable, I think I found the play scarier though and although the twist at the end was decent, I preferred the play's differently nasty one.

[Deleted]

I hope this doesn't count as a necro, as this thread isn't very old and it seems silly to make a new one, and I only just saw the movie last night.

I enjoyed it for the most part, having read the book, I feel that they did a pretty good job capturing the inescapable atmosphere of the house and her malicious presence there.

I thought it was alright and watchable, I think I found the play scarier though and although the twist at the end was decent, I preferred the play's differently nasty one.

Yeah, the twist at the end kind of irked me, actually. The whole point of the story, at least in the original play/story (and I think they were also trying to convey the same message in the movie), is that no matter how hard Kipps tried to turn his back on the idea of the supernatural, let alone undead entities that had an affect on the natural world, and no matter how hard the community tried to appease her restless spirit. She was unrelenting, remorseless and would not stop.

So, why, after chanting an angry mantra of, "Never forgive... Never forgive... Never FORGIVE...!!!", would the woman unite the mourning husk of a man, Kipps, and his son with the beloved wife and mother? I don't see how you can equate sending someone into a blissful afterlife with unforgiveness?! o_0

I actually felt much sorrier for Mr.Daily, by the end of the film. He had to watch Kipps and his boy dying and then witness his son and the other children trapped with the ghostly woman, eternally damned to serve as her tools of torture and then saw her malevolently staring at him. Perhaps, the point was that the "Never forgive..." was directed at the town's community and Mr. Kipps had earned himself a unique position of forgiveness, being spared her wrath as he had actively tried to help her and offer her closure, but the town, who sheepishly and actively tried to ignore her plight, would not be spared.

Overall, I liked it, but the ambiguity of the ending was irritating and, I suspect, carelessly sloppy.

[Deleted]

I hope this doesn't count as a necro, as this thread isn't very old and it seems silly to make a new one, and I only just saw the movie last night.

Hmm, I've just got back to this on my subscribed threads and it's been a while...well re: what you said: I wouldn't say it was a movie to write home about. Radcliffe acted well but it was a pretty limited role anyhow. I kind of agree with you on it being a sloppy ending, I think I might have read too much into it meaning something else significant. I assumed that the "message" so to speak was that Kipp's character had release in the form of death, and by doing the right thing and trying to selflessly save his son - unlike the other characters who are "negligent" in various ways. This in a sense would show that the WIB is never forgiving or going to stop, but that she frees the character from the pain she suffered from the loss of the child. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I agree that it seems is a little sloppy and confusing, and I preferred the more detailed, ominous and unrelenting feel of the play.

[alivia]

Woman in Black is a supernatural thriller movie. It is based on a novel written by Susan Hill and novel has the same title. The movie is directed by James Watkins and budget is high. It looks good to me and preview is making me exciting to watch the movie.

[Mormolyce]

I saw this last week. I thought it clumsily threw in a bunch of typical horror movie stuff that didn't fit, the plot seemed to be heading for a twist but didn't actually follow through (what was with the body they exhumed and whether or not the ghost was happy with that? That went nowhere), and it all felt disjointed and kind of pointless. Daniel Radcliffe's performance wasn't the problem, he was fine insofar as anyone could really act with a script like that.

I watched the original movie (I think it was a telemovie?) afterwards and it was much better. One of the main differences is that the protagonist starts out normal and happy, whereas in the new version they felt the need to give him a painful backstory, which kind of defeats the whole character arc. Because in the original you see him go from normal and happy to insanity through the film, that's a lot more interesting than him just being borderline suicidal the whole time.

Incidentally the guy who played the protagonist in the original also played James Potter in the Harry Potter films, which is kind of a funny coincidence.