The Woman in Black
The Woman in Black
blaxx
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/05
#1The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 12:55amDid anyone get a chance to see it yet? Good, bad, mediocre? How does it compare to the novel and the play?
#2The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 1:08amI'm seeing it first thing in the morning. I can. not. wait.
blaxx
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/05
#2The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 1:11amYou must report!
StockardFan
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/19/08
#3The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 7:02amYeah, it looks really good. Jordan make sure you come in here and tell us about it.
#4The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 1:57pm
Hmmmmm. I don't know where to start.
It's not a bad movie at all (it's not a great movie, either) but I think overall it succeeds more than it fails. There were parts of this movie that really made me jump, which hardly ever happens. As someone who's obsessed with horror films, I can pretty much count down to any scare that there might be and this film is no exception. Much to it's credit though, even when I knew something was going to happen, the way it was executed was at times brilliant. It's a very atmospheric film which is beautiful and scary but at the same time it's far far too overused. There are only so many shots of old toys, the house, POV's looking outside at a grave, children staring, before you realize it's taking away from plot development (something that would have been nice for them to go into more)
This is the kind of movie that is, for lack of a better word, harmless. There's no blood, no language, no nudity. Of course there's the issue of children dying and things popping out at you which is why it got it's PG-13 rating but you could show this to your kids if they like scary movies and feel fine about it. Now, there's nothing wrong with any of that but I do wonder if they would have just gone a little further with it, if it would have made more of an impact on me.
All in all it's almost a throwback to horror movies of the 50's. If this particular film would have been shown to an audience back then, I'm sure some of them would have had a heart attack, but 60 years later, while it's always nice to see an homage to that style, this film really just needed a little something "extra" to it.
Oh, and that ending.... *eyeroll*
StockardFan
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/19/08
blaxx
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/05
#6The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:26pmDid you see the play or read the novel? I'm curious as to how they compare. It would be sad if the ending doesn't work - the way the play ends, especially, is really effective.
#7The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:30pm
Im not familiar with any other version of this story.
How does the play/novel end?
blaxx
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/05
#8The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 4:35pm
***SPOILERS***
The novel ends with the ghost appearing to Arthur's wife and kid, ending in the death of both.
In the play, Arthur hires a director to help him stage his story. As they both go through it, we also see the figure of the woman. At the end of the show, the director asks Arthur who the lady she saw throughout their rehearsals was. Arthur says she never saw any woman, and then the loud sound of the rocking chair can be heard in the background. It is really scary.
#9The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 4:43pm
****SPOILERS*****
It's like the novel. It ends with Arthur and his son at the train station. The kid sees the Woman in Black and goes onto the tracks as the train is appearing. Arthur jumps in to save him and well, y'know. But we see him holding his son and it turns very hazy so we know they're dead. Then his white shining wife appears, we have a moment of "This is your Mum" then they all walk off into the white light light, followed by one last little "scare". It was a very out of place "happy ending" to the film. People in the theater yelled "OH, COME ON!" and while usually that would piss me off, I kind of agreed with them on that one.
blaxx
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/05
#10The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 4:47pm
***COMMENTS TO THE SPOILERS***
Oh, bummer. The fact that the woman in black gets her revenge at the end is the whole point. That is really sad, wonder why they determined this story needed this sort of ending.
#11The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 4:50pm
*****Comments on the comments of the spoilers*****
I totally get that she's still wanting her revenge. But her "revenge" wa to reunite this family in Heaven. For lack of a better word, that's kind of gay.
blaxx
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/05
#12The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 4:54pm
*****Comments on the comments of the spoilers regarding the gayness of the movie*****
Super gay.
StockardFan
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/19/08
#13The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 5:07pmYou guys are making me giggle with your "comments on the comments about the comments about the spoilers" I'm gonna see if that book is available at my library for my kindle.
StockardFan
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/19/08
#14The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 5:09pm
Nope it comes up "no results" Who is the author Blaxx?
blaxx
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/05
#15The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 5:26pm
Susan Hill
StockardFan
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/19/08
blaxx
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/05
#17The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 6:06pmIt's a great read. I highly recommend it.
pushdabutton
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/2/05
#18The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 10:22pmThanks for the review Jordan. I'm looking forward to seeing this movie as I am also a big fan of horror movies.
#19The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/3/12 at 11:13pmI saw the long runof the play in London--probably the scariest thing I've sen in theatre. I guess it's still running? the play only uses two actors.
blaxx
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/05
#20The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/4/12 at 2:44am
***AND EVEN MORE SPOILERS SPOILING IT FOR YOU***
Well, I just got back. As a stand alone film - mediocre. As an adaptation, BAD.
Obviously, Radcliffe's agent wanted him to follow his Harry Potter success by getting him a film with a lot of on screen time. I bet he didn't even bother to read the kind of character he was playing in this adaptation and went by the size of the role.
Can Radcliffe carry a movie after Harry Potter? Wait until his next film to find out. Between a poorly written character and little direction, he hands down wins an award for Best NOTHING performance. If a single emotion went through him throughout the whole thing, the camera recorded none of it.
If any of you are unfamiliar with the source material, this is not a good adaptation. I'm a big fan of Victorian ghost stories and I think the novel is one of the best modern approaches to the genre. The play, even if now dusty, has managed to terrify audiences for decades.
The fact they focus on the children and give this a puzzling upfliting ending makes little sense. The Arthur Kipps in the novel is skeptic about the apparition, and the manner he refuses to believe but has no alternative as he gradually learns the story is what makes the character so engaging and the environment he is resisting terrifying. There is always a part of him that refuses to believe until the ghost takes revenge for confronting her at the very end.
It is too bad this adaptation doesn't build the tension and instead gives us a nonsensical plot. In here, seeing the woman results in the dead of random children. The villagers are aware of this. Unlike the novel, where they too know down deep of the ghost but refuse to fully believe, the villagers in the film are past the point of doubt - they know the consequence. It makes no sense they will let Arthur go to the house, they would obviously block the way to anyone who could bring her presence.
The fact that Radcliffe showed no horror or indifference, or curiosity, etc. made the terrifying moments in the house inconsequential. He could have seen thirty ghosts for that matter, I'm surprised he didn't turn into the camera and ask if he should at least act scared.
Having the curse presented from the beginning defeats the purpose of the story. I was laughing when the lady at the cemetery explains to him, by the end of the movie, what happens when the ghost appears - Wow, no kidding. I'm glad we haven't seen what you are explaining for the last hour and a half.
The simplicity of the ghost story is what makes it so scary, there was no need for FX moments, like the one with the bed.
And don't get me started on the stupid ending. The vengeful ghost pays his generosity back by reuniting the family? Thanks for nothing.
What really upset me about it all is that it could have been very successful without altering the story like they did. It added nothing, and giving the details from the beginning of the movie makes it feel a lot longer than it really is. After a few minutes you know what it is all about, there is nothing at risk.
If you know nothing of the source material, you might think it is Ok or just bland. There was an 80's made for TV film adaptation that manages to be more effective and scary with a tenth of the budget.
Even if I've seen the play more times than I care to admit, I rather go back once more than trying to digest this unfocused, mediocre version.
#21The Woman in Black
Posted: 2/4/12 at 3:00amStockard, if you can't find the novel, I have the Kindle version. I'd be happy to let you borrow it. :)
Videos