The Woman in Black: Film Review

Visit the film's official website.

Daniel Radcliffe is back on the big screen . . . NOT as Harry Potter. The good news is that he’s believable as someone other than the Boy Who Lived. The bad news is that the movie is pretty . . . eh. Even though it’s supposed to be a thriller, it’s often times less than thrilling. It gets the set-up right, but the payoff never seems to materialize the way it should.

Radcliffe stars as Arthur Kipps, a Victorian lawyer whose wife dies in childbirth. Arthur is consumed with mourning for his wife and pays scant attention to the toddler Joseph who is his son. He is assigned an out-of-town case where he has to manage the estate of a noble lady in the village of Crythin Gifford (I love British names of towns).

When he arrives, things are decidedly creepy: the manor seems to be encased in a permanent fog, it’s filled with furtive figures who do little and say even less, and the staircase creaks at all hours of the day and night. Something (or someone) is in the house . . . a lady in black. What does she want? Revenge, of course, though not against those who wronged her. She wants to torture the souls of children because she lost her own son in life. When all this is revealed, Kipps’s little boy is naturally on his way to the haunted mansion. Kipps will have to fight her for his son's life. You see where this is headed.

The film looks, feels and plays a lot like an attendant subplot from Harry Potter but without any of the magic or fun. Radcliffe does his best with the material he’s given, but at times even he seems a bit tired of constantly having to be surprised. The woman in black is scary, sure, but she ain't Voldemort. She's not even Bellatrix Lestrange!

Final Verdict: Unless you’re an absolute diehard Radcliffe groupie, you won’t be missing much if you decide to skip it.

Comment on this Scandalous entry »