THE WOMAN IN BLACK - Post-Release Discussion

It's good. Not mind-blowing, but it captures the old Hammer spirit decently. A modest scope and story, so, knowing how obnoxious some theater audiences can be, I don't necessarily recommend rushing out immediately to see it. Then again, most horror opening weekend audiences are the fucking worst.

 

There are a couple of lame fake scares, and a few spooky moments are ruined by the orchestra cranking it up a little too much. But it's got a nice, slow, gothic vibe, and a superb, ballsy ending. Dan Radcliffe's role is underwritten, but he's fine, though I imagine some of you will find it weird his character is married with a three or four year old kid.

Compared to what passes for a horror film in today's market, it's such a welcome change of pace that I would recommend it in spite of its shortcomings.  It's a good, slow-burning, well shot film with lovely deep contrasts, a very good central performance from Radcliffe and some sequences that, while a little too loud, are very well-paced and obviously directed with a reverence for classic Hammer.  It may seem formulaic for some, being the "an outsider walks into a small community with a ghostly history" tale, but it's precisely the right kind of formula for me.

 

It's also noteworthy that the film is a lean ninety minutes or so.  It felt tight to me, never overextending itself by introducing convoluted mythology or extraneous supporting stories, and that's appreciable indeed.

 

Note:  I actually did not mind Radcliffe as a young father, given the time period and the fact that he pretty much looks his age (low twenties, youthful without being overly awkward).  It was after the film that I discovered the kid who plays his son is actually Radcliffe's godson, so in retrospect the nice little authenticity made sense to me.

cool.  I've been looking forward to this a while.

Said it before, but the BBC version from about 20 years ago scared the living shit out of me one Christmas Eve.  Nice choice of remake from Hammer.

I should have a review and, hopefully, an interview for this up on Friday.

I enjoyed it well enough, Radcliffe is good and appropriately haunted and severely melancholy in countenance, but there are problems. When I discovered that James Watkins was the director, I felt a great sense of comfort in plunking down money to see it. Watkins is the goods w/ a sure hand, and he's delivered a nice, consistent piece of spook-house melodrama. Actually, the story of La Llorona (the weeping woman) was something that was ringing through my head throughout the film, as the entire spine of the thing reminded me so much of that particular ghost story. I was also quite taken by a few of the little touches like the dead baby bird and it's squawking (grieving) mother, I always appreciate that kind of elemental thing. 

 

My major issue with the film, outside of the handful of jump scares that don't earn it, is the handling of the "revelations" and "resolution". Radcliffe goes through all of this shit in the service of a spirit too pissed off and insane to ever overcome its own trauma, it kills him and his kid, and they trek their way into the great beyond. Okay, but it's kind of boring, that. I felt it would have been more intriguing if it was revealed that Humfrye, in a fit of insanity, had sabotaged the carriage, killing her own child (sort of a La Llorona thing) or if in someway, Kipps' wife's identity as the "Woman in White" served a stronger function in the narrative. She's there, and it's implicit in that she's a more inviting and soulful presence than the baleful Humfrye, but it's put across rather weakly, even cornily by films end.

 

Is it really and truly Hammer-like? It's a classy piece, as the best of Hammer's efforts generally were, but there was a vivid, if frugal opulence to those pictures that had this odd sort of confluence w/ the macabre and grisly goings-on of whatever the chosen subject matter was. The Woman in Black is a handsome picture to be sure, and I'm perfectly satisfied with that, but it's several stops short of true Hammer Glamour.

 

 

I agree that making the titular spirit more aggressive in her vengeance kind of deflated a lot of the shit that Kipps goes through, since there's really nothing resolved, but I did enjoy the poetic nature of the ending.  The Woman intends to kill his son only, but unintentionally reunites the entire family in death.  Her silent look at them as they walk into the mist was a great shot to end on, and I'm glad that they didn't have her scream at the camera (which I was fully expecting).

 

I would have liked more of that silence in the scares, but a great deal of them were still effective (the sudden ghostly recreation of her suicide, the rocking chair, the banging on the front door and Kipps being reluctant to answer, etc).

This movie might have the creepiest collection of props in any horror film.  All those fucking wind-up toys and paintings, especially the really off-putting portrait of Janet McTeer's dead son were pure, 100% Uncanny Valley.  

 

I liked the movie quite a bit.  Nice balance of slow-building atmosphere and jolt-scares without leaning too heavily on one over the other.  Radcliffe was solid.

The audience I saw this with was annoyingly talkative, but in hindsight their reactions to all the creepy props were pretty funny. They KEPT. ON. REACTING. the same way every time there was a close up of one of the toys, like "WHAT THE FUCK? DID YOU SEE THAT?" even when it would cut back to the same toys over and over. But not in shock like because it was a jump cut to the toys, just in the sense of "look at how weird and creepy!" Every single time. After a while I was sitting there thinking "Okay, the film has firmly established that all these Victorian wind up toys were creepy. You can stop being surprised every time they show another one, or at the very least, internalize these reactions rather than express them verbally." Alas, my psychic imploring didn't work.

Saw it today in an almost empty theatre. Liked it enough for what it was. A simple old-fashioned ghost story. Radcliffe was stiff and unaffected, and a few of the jump scares were pretty cheap, but the great oppressive atmosphere sold the fear. I was expecting some sort of twist and I can't decide whether I'm disappointed or delighted. Solid start for the new Hammer.

I enjoyed this a great deal. It had a grim, beautiful morbidity about it that really spoke to me. That retrieving the dead child from the marsh set piece was a real stunner, as was the brilliant, iconic image of the lonely road to the haunted mansion being slowly swallowed by high tide. That 25 minute sequence of Radcliffe alone at the house overnight about gave me a heart attack with its protracted, sustained tension. My further thoughts, if interested: http://shloggshorrorblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/woman-in-black.html

 

Tim, just popping in to say really appreciated the review. I'll definitely see this, but it'll be a rental,  not an theater experience. 

A good film. If I have a complaint is that it is a bit over-designed in its efforts to scare you. Everything onscreen is so damn creepy that there's no contrast of normalcy, so after a while you get a little numb to it. Beautiful to look at though, and the storytelling was lean and effective. I'd say a must see in the theater for lovers of Gothic ghost stories and old school Hammer fans. I will own it on blu-ray for the eye candy factor alone.

Am I the only one who geeked out at the Hammer logo?

 

I thought it was really good, a nice throwback to movies like "The Innocents."

I liked it, but then realized it was the exact same thing as the Marvel logo.

Don't get the complaints about the ending cropping up online. Kipps ultimately saves his son from the woman's purgatorial Earthbound existence by attempting to rescue him, by caring for his wellbeing. They died, but his protective instincts - those which were absent in her own child's foster parents - freed them from her hold. Did people really miss that aspect and think they were going for a cheap happy ending? It's totally thematically appropriate.

 

I really, really liked this, by the way.

The ending is a bit slight, but that's in keeping with the tenor of the rest of the film. I like your take on it, but it does feel a bit pat. I kind of like the way the book ends, with Kipps not dying, but living the rest of his life utterly haunted.

 

I actually really like the casting of an actor as young as Radcliffe. He's a widower in his early twenties, and seems completely hopeless and numb from the opening scene on. 

 

While the sum total of this film isn't exactly greatness, I could see this being an excellent seasonal rewatch. It's creepy fun and super Halloween-y, which are good things for a new Hammer film to be.

I honestly didn't even think it was a "take". I thought it was fairly explicit, with the constant references to the foster parents not trying to save the boy, and Arthur being the only one to rush into the fire at the solicitor's home.

 

It's obviously not going to be a "best of the year" type film. It's small, contained and very genre-specific. But, as a horror, I can't think of much better that I've seen recently. Maybe that's the freshness of seeing such a delightfully old-fashioned take on the genre after so much gore and found footage and envelope pushing, I don't know. The ending's abrupt, but it works, and I love the William Castle-like final, baleful glare of the woman, directly into the camera. Far more chilling than a scream or jump scare.

Watching that final shot of the woman glaring into the camera, slightly turning as she's watching the family leave, I was worried that they would ruin it by having her abruptly scream before a sudden, quick cut to black.  Nope.  What a relief, and just a wonderfully creepy image, laden with meaning and a sad, thoughtful quietness, to fade to black on.  Probably one of my favorite final shots in a long time.

I finally was able to watch this.  I bought the blu/digital pack this past weekend.  Now, wish I had seen it in the theater.  

 

Thought Radcliffe was more than serviceable.  He surprised me.  Not only was he just good at reacting (which was the biggest requirement from his character), but he did convey the sense of loss at the death of his wife and his renewed sense of fatherhood at the end of the film.  Loved that house.  Spot-on creepiness.  Kudos to the art direction.  Costumes, sets - all fantastic.  And incredibly atmospheric.  

 

Oh,  that ending.  The closing scene.  Chilling.   And the "screaming" woman in black, I totally understand.  Apparently, she was screaming from that window, while watching the death of her son.  So that all made sense that that's what she'd do as a vengeful spirit.  But what was just so effectively creepy was that first glimpse of her.  After Arthur had first entered the house and you see that figure, over his left shoulder, pass the foyer and it begins to slowly turn, revealing that white area of the face......CREEPY.  

 

Glad this is now a part of the home collection.  

Yeah, I bought the Blu Ray too and I must say I'm happy to own it. Such a beautiful and spooky film.