MAX: Hey, Mike. Do you see that woman standing over there in the marsh?
MIKE: There's a marsh outside our theater?
MAX: Yeah! The marsh! You never noticed that before? Some kid drowned there one time!
MIKE: I always thought we had a more urban location. Huh.
MAX: It's an urban-zoned marsh. Anyway, you don't see that creepy woman who's standing out there, the woman in black?
MIKE: Uh...no. Do YOU see a woman in black out there?
MAX: Yeah I see her, alright. She's looking right at us. Oh hold on, I got a text message, here. Oh crap, my neighbor's house is on fire and their kid is trapped inside. Isn't it weird that I got this text message right while I was looking at the woman in black? Dude, are you sure you don't see her?
MIKE: No, dude. I REALLY don't see her.
MAX: Well, now that you mention it, I guess I don't see her either. Maybe my eyes were just playing tricks on me again. Oh shit, wait a minute. I know why we don't see her out there.
MIKE: And WHY is that?
MAX: She's standing right behind us.
MIKE: Tonight's feature is one that Max and I have been looking forward to for the last several months. A: It is the return of Hammer (you know, the same company that brought us all of those amazing Christopher Lee, Dracula movies). B: It's a Victorian era Ghost story, so you know it is going to be aesthetically appealing. C: This is Daniel Radcliffe's first role in a film since he wrapped up the Harry Potter movies, so it would be a test of his acting skills to make us not think about that character the entire film. From the very opening scene I was hooked, and I was never let go from the nightmare ride that is The Woman in Black. The story is pretty straight forward, but don't let that lull you into a false sense of security. The premise is that if you see the woman in black (a ghost seeking vengeance for the death of her child) then a child will die. Simple, right? But what the writers do is take this outline and fill it with deep, rich characters, whom fill out their roles and bring depth to a horror movie in an age where horror films tend to lack any sort of substance, especially when it comes to character development. The Woman in Black is an amazing ghost story that grips you with a cold dead hand and sends your flesh quivering in chills.
MAX: If you really love scary movies, then you’re never too old for a great ghost flick, and this one pulls out all the stops. With The Woman in Black, the new Hammer Studios has resurrected their unique blend of gothic sensibility and supernatural horror for the new millennium. From the moment this film begins, we are transported into a rich aesthetic environment, which rivals the beauty of other modern gothic classics like Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow. With creepy close ups on predatory toys, panoramic shots of the sickly marsh, and portrait-esue views of the rotting, old Victorian mansion, the cinematography in The Woman in Black left me completely spell bound. Atmospheric horror is a dying art these days and I found this movie to be a very refreshing breath of cemetery air.
MIKE: Indeed. I haven't seen this type of camera work done in a horror film since some of Dario Argento's earlier work, or the clever subtle shots from John Carpenter's The Thing. Nothing is ever really given away, and the use of close-ups to create that blurry back ground in which the ghost moves freely about in the shadows, just giving us enough to suspect that something might be there, was brilliant. I found myself searching the darkness beyond Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) when the camera was close in on him, because even in the distorted background there seemed to be something lurking just out of sight. I felt that this movie's cinematography was as good as some of the Oscar nominated films of years past, especially better than some of the 2012 nominees.
MAX: I really loved the distorted background that you mention. As much as we feel we can predict when the Woman in Black will show up, we're never really able to, and that's what makes it so god damn terrifying when she springs out of nowhere and presses her palm on the glass of a window pane. While these appearances of hers are used sparingly (she's in the movie enough to thrill and chill the audience, and not enough for us to get bored with her), we can always feel her presence throughout the film, even during the scenes where she isn't technically there. Her tales of superstition rule the entire village like a dark, stormy cloud. That impending sense of dread is never absent.
MIKE: It's funny that you say you feel her presence even when she isn't in the scene, because in Arthur's flash backs to when his wife is giving birth to his son, it almost felt like the Woman in Black was there. That's what's brilliant about the story and the way the movie handles it--the fear that the ghost creates resonates throughout the entire film and in every well-lit corner. What really ties this movie up in a nice black bow, are the characters. I tip my hat to the entire cast for their performances, and especially to Mr. Radcliffe, for making me forget about the Harry Potter films he's been in, and for getting me to believe that he really is mentally depressed, grief stricken Arthur Kipps.
MAX: I agree that Radcliffe's performance was strong. I think my main concern entering this film was that I wouldn’t be able to get past his previous incarnation as Harry Potter, but he didn't seem to carry that into this role. Where the cast is concerned, I was particularly impressed with the performances of Ciaran Hinds and Janet McTeer as Mr. and Mrs. Daily. Hinds plays a refined and likeable English gentleman with a firm head on his shoulders, who makes for a strong supporting character during Arthur's time of need. Similarly, McTeer is completely convincing as his struggling wife, whose possessive fits of writing through the hand of her dead child are absolutely one hundred percent convincing.
MIKE: I'm just going to say that none of the actors in this movie failed to deliver, and that every scene was as good as the next. One of my favorite scenes is when Arthur Kipps is at the police station and he's talking to the constable, after he mentions that he has seen the woman in black the constable disappears into the back room, and then two boys show up with their younger sister, who is looking deathly pale. The girl vomits blood all over Arthur Kipps and dies in his arms. The special effects were great, and the fact that the director didn't shy away from the death scenes because they involved children, was even more brilliant. I'm not saying that I like to see kids get hurt, but so many Hollywood films would cut away and not show you the tragic death as it happens. I felt this helped the film to tug on the heartstrings of the audience--at least those that don't take pleasure in the maiming of small children. Anyway, the make-up, sets, and special effects are handled with a care and precision that a lot of film makers just don't care about anymore--it's all about the gore and nothing else, and though I love a good bloody film, I don't like the sloppiness in which a lot of horror movies seem to handle these aspects.
MAX: This is a very perceptive comment, and I agree that it was quite a bold decision regarding the children's deaths. As soon as I saw the girl throw up blood onto Arthur Kipps, I knew that this was a film that was not going to shy away from the realities of its own subject matter. The deaths that occur in this film are not at all gratuitous, but they are a reminder that children can perish, just like anyone else. The loss of children and the lifelong grief of parents is a very serious matter that this film addresses, and while it's still a hell of a fun haunting movie, I think it is a cut above many others of its kind for the way in which it tackled this delicate and sensitive topic.
MIKE: Is it possible for us to talk about the ending without giving away the ending?
MAX: Probably not. What I will say is that this is perhaps the only area where I took some issue with the film. I think that perhaps they strove to make it a little neater and tidier than it needed to be. But by the time a film like this concludes, I would say that is a fairly minor criticism.
MIKE: It's like I wanted something a little different, yet I wasn't disappointed. I'm not sure if the film could or should have ended any other way.
MAX: Once again, without going too in depth and spoiling it, there were certainly indicators throughout the film that perhaps it would need to end the way that it did. I think they were certainly justified in picking the ending they chose, regardless of how it left me feeling as an audience member. It is certainly not a typical horror movie ending, but at the same time, this is not a typical horror movie, either.
MAX: With that in mind, I think it's time for the both of us to weigh in with our bloody nubs of approval. In my estimation, The Woman in Black was a treat well worth waiting for. The new Hammer studios delivered us a film that harkens back to the time of fun loving, period horror with a dramatic and Victorian flair. At the same time, it manages to tell an actual story, something that is sorely missing from much of today’s fright fare. I give it two enthusiastic Bloody Nubs up. This is a movie that I enjoyed so much I would go and pay to see it again while it's still in the theater. I can't remember the last time I said that about a brand new horror movie. It's definitely been a while.
MIKE: The Woman in Black is a film from start to finish that I enjoyed. I do not remember a horror movie in the last decade that has made me this excited, and this eager to want to pay money to watch it again. I give The Woman in Black two very big Bloody Nubs up!
No comments:
Post a Comment