Ghostly encounters

It's the 2012 remake of the1989 film which is an adaptation of the book by Susan Hill and starring Daniel Radcliffe. And breathe. Yes, it's The Woman in Black. Can I please have a show of hands of people who are wary of seeing Daniel Radcliffe in any non-Harry Potter related role? I thought so. I felt the same way when the trailer for this film came out last year. But let me just say that I was spellbound non the less.  

So he plays a mourning widower and father - bleak, yes, and if that's anything to go by, which it is, I think it's safe to say that this film does have a *spoiler alert* bleak outcome. Despite this, his son provides a bit of comic relief or us in the beginning with a drawing of his dad with an unhappy expression on his face. Accompanied by "that's what your face looks like daddy". Well I thought that was pretty hilar.

The first scene hits the spot. It's dramatic, tense, and leaves us wanting to know more. You know what you're getting with this film: creepy 19th century gothic thrills, and thrills there are a-plenty. 

Establishing character scenes are good. There is a substantial amount of information given to the audience without a lengthy voiceover or too many flashbacks. And I don't know how you feel about flashbacks but I love them. I just find them a bit confusing in a film which is already set in the past. Because the film itself acts as a flashback, therefore we essentially get flashbacks within a flashback and now we're just losing all sense of time.  That being said, the flashbacks used in this film were not confusing and were placed at very relevant points making the scene transitions very fluid and graceful.

So the basic plot is that Radcliffe's character is a lawyer and Is sent to this village to sort out the papers of a dead widow who lived, or shall we say still lives, in the house. Cue the creepy incidents which are to follow. That's not really a spoiler guys, we all saw that coming. But what we didn't see coming is anything else. I'm not going to lie to you all, this film will make you jump. 

So with that in mind, emotion of the scenes is good, the character building is great. Acting - I mean the spellbound comment really says is all. I was captivated, not just by Radcliffe's performance, but by those actors playing more minor roles. The pain reflected in their eyes was tangible. As I said, the emotion was spot on. What was important was the ability to portray the misery of the whole village, and James Watkins did this faultlessly. From the dodgy unapproachable villagers, to the dark clothing worn by all the characters, to the misty weather and the crows cawing in the background, a real sense of foreboding and isolation is created. This is what helps the film to attain its thriller status: the sense that Radcliffe's character is trapped from the moment he steps into the village.

Another important element of the thriller genre is the protagonist's inability to follow the signs or to see reason. The film is filled with warnings - from the villagers, the environment, even from the ghost, for God's sake. And like all protagonists, he fails to heed these warnings. But you know, where would we be without the irrational thinking of the Hollywood protagonist? Well I certainly wouldn't be here writing this blog, that's fo' dayum sho'.

The other thing I was impressed with was the music. I felt that it fitted in with the theme perfectly and the sounds used throughout really made the film that extra bit creepy. Flapping, creaking doors, howling winds, blood curdling screams- and there were a lot of those- we're all perfectly placed, in my opinion. 

So all in all, a great film: flawless in its creation of suspense and tension right until the very last scene. This film was great in the cinema and still great at home with the lights off and a solitary candle burning on the mantelpiece, creating ambivalent shadows on the walls.

A solid 7/10