The Woman in Black
It’s great that a new trend of new horror stories like Insidious and Don’t be Afraid of the Dark are emerging. I was worried that Hollywood was really going to resort to remaking everything. I would rather they try to recreate and not remake. In the case of The Woman In Black, the film attempts to recreate a classic Hammer horror movie. Does it succeed?
The Woman in Black is based off a novel that I have not read. Though from what I have heard, the novel has been adapted into many radio and stage plays. So this would make it the first film adaptation. The film stars Daniel Radcliffe, fresh after finishing the Harry Potter series. Rather then playing a boy wizard, he is now a young adult lawyer.
So Daniel Radcliffe as Arthur Kipps is sent to a small village north to handle the estate of a Woman who’s sister is the “Woman in Black”. Apparently, she takes the lives of children as revenge for not being allowed to care for her own. It looks like we have a female Freddy Krueger. Radcliffe is very good in his first full adult role. Not once, was I thinking "boy wizard". Radcliffe has gotten off to a good start.
This movie provides some great scares for a PG-13. What I respect about this film is that it stays focused on what kind of movie it is. The film successfully recreates a classic Hammer environment. The sets are big. You get a great sense of the size of the story. Everything looks very creepy. From the terrifying toys to the fog that’s thicker then butter, you can tell that the people who designed it spent a lot of time doing research about the more classic horror stories.
I'll give this new Hammer Horror 4 creepy dolls out of 5. This may be a PG-13, but this is not for the faint of heart. If your looking for an original horror film thats not a remake or torture porn, here it is, The Woman in Black