Silent Hill: Edwardian Era Style

Another day, another new release to bring me ever so closer to my goal of fifty movies for the year.

Today, it's a review for the latest Hammer production, The Woman In Black, based on the book of the same name (another one I need to read).

Widowed father Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) works with a law firm that has given him the task of handling the estate of Alice Drablow. Upon reaching her house on an island in the marshes, strange things happen to the children in the nearby town. The more he stays at the house, the more obsessed he becomes to stop the madness.

This review will probably be shorter than most (good news for all of you) as there's not much to say for character development, since for the majority of the film, Arthur is on his own. And on that note, let's start with Daniel's portrayal.

Now, while this is not a flaw of the film itself, the problem Daniel is going to have in his career is shaking off the Harry Potter persona, no mean feat since that's eight films over a decade we're talking here. While Emma Watson has been somewhat on the down-low (though I know she's in My Week With Marilyn, which I will probably buy first week of release on DVD), Rupert Grint's been in a few movies before finishing the Harry Potter series, which might be enough for him to distance himself a little from the Ron Weasley character (especially if you've seen Cherrybomb, though I very much recommend Wild Target, but either film is enjoyable).

Now, while I freakin' love the Harry Potter franchise, this is arguably going to be the first non-Harry Potter film people will think of when Daniel Radcliffe is brought up and you'd be hoping the comparisons will be minimal at worst, non-existent at best. And with the combination of how the film is shot and Daniel's acting, are there comparisons to make? Well... yes, but not really from Daniel's acting and it's not very often. Though, like most people, I am guilty of making a joke or two about Harry Potter (like whenever the woman in black is close by, you could joke that Arthur should just say “EXPECTO PATRONUM!” and that would be the end of it) and the person I saw the movie with certainly made her fair share of jokes. I wouldn't say the film is trying to milk the fact that he was Harry Potter for all its worth but I won't say they weren't trying on some level.

As for Daniel himself, he handles himself really well. Despite how strained Arthur's relationship with his son is, he's still very emotional and protective with children, which serves to make him likeable, not that he's a bastard if you take those traits away. By and large, he IS able to shake off the Harry Potter character, it's just that the fact that there are ghosts and a mystery to solve makes it hard NOT to think of Potter. Nevertheless, I was satisfied with his performance and I hope to see more from him.

That's not to say there isn't another performance I won't give credit to. Ciaran Hinds completely makes up for his lackluster performance in Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance as Sam Daily, a local landowner who serves as exposition for some aspects of the film. He's sympathetic and believable and even though he doesn't believe in the supernatural, he doesn't get angry (well, maybe once) when confronted with the possibility, thus showing he is rational and open-minded.

Nothing much to say about the other characters, most are passable. Nobody else really gets a lot of development, so I can't really comment.

What I can comment on, and praise, is the atmosphere. The film is bleak and drab, possibly to emphasize how depressing the world is without the sound of children laughing and playing; the house where the titular woman is seen most is shrouded in darkness, which the movie takes good advantage of (more on that later) and my absolute fave scene involves Arthur in the fog, hearing noises and wandering around aimlessly, trying to locate the source of the noises. Also, the shots of the drive to and from the island where the home was built? Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful, special credit for the director/camera people/location scouters/however many people were involved with those shots.

On a different note of the atmosphere, one of the most important things for any horror movie not to screw up is how they employ the jump scare tactic. Some movies will screw it up by playing music right before the big scare, with the music getting louder and/or faster, only for it to be a cat or something stupid. But that's the other big aspect I praise this movie for: it understands how to do a jump scare properly. Most scenes play with no music at all, everything's still and silent then BAM! Musical chord and something jumps out. Now THAT'S a jump scare. Granted, I could predict at least half of them because of the long periods of silence but the film made up for it by actually having some gruesome imagery, like a boy covered in mud appearing from out of nowhere, or the woman in black herself. Although, you may notice on occasion that she'll breeze by a mirror, thus setting something up (is that a spoiler? I mean, I noticed it without help, but not everybody's going to notice the exact same things...)

So, a short review but at a little over 90 minutes, with one main character and a lot of silent scenes and wandering around, there isn't much more to say. Well, except that a sequel is already being planned, with the title The Woman In Black: Angels Of Death. I'm glad that the film is doing so well, since it means Hammer is back and here to stay (I certainly hope so, I've enjoyed every Hammer film I've seen so far, especially the Dracula ones). Granted, they had made their comeback years ago but this might be their biggest success since coming back (or Let Me In, which I think is great. When this comes out on DVD, grab this and Let Me In and make a night of it). 3.5/5