full of clichés, slow and greatly miscast

Rating: 4/10 (4 February 2012)

I am really sorry to have to reduce most of my review about this film to the fact that it all starts with a bad casting choice, but it's really very hard to see past Daniel Radcliffe portraying a father of a four years old boy. I mean, how can I possibly buy into it when the DVD of the latest Harry Potter film is plastering every single window of every store in town right now? It doesn't matter how much facial hair Daniel is growing to disguise his baby face, or how far away he's trying to take his new character from the 'boy who lived', or even how little dialogue he speaks in this film (because let's admit it, it usually all falls apart as soon as he opens his month), I am just NOT buying into it! A grown man (A lawyer in fact!) who's been married, widowed and has a child of 4? That is a big leap of faith...
However I was willing to take the leap and I did really try my best, despite the film itself doing virtually nothing to help me and convince me otherwise: there was not a single mention of his young look from any of the characters and we are just supposed to take it all from granted. At some point in the beginning there was even shot of what looked like the Hogward Express, running through the British landscape, with steam and all the rest (I was expecting to hear John Williams' tune at any point!).
Radcliffe himself does try his best to restrain his usual trade-mark heavy breathing. The film-makers made sure he spoke as little as possible and wisely they even avoided having him standing right next to any other cast members (so that it wouldn't show how short he is which would have made it even more laughable). But unfortunately all this is just not enough and his presence, instead of making the film better, holds it back..
It's probably not very fair to criticise a movie just for his main lead, even less fair to compare it to previous movies the same lead starred in, I agree. But even when you take Radcliffe out of this film, you're actually left very little else.
"The woman in Black" wants to be a film about "mood" and "atmosphere" more than "action" and "twists". It's more about the expectations of the ghost in a looked room at the end of the corridor than the actual reveal of the ghost itself. In a way, it's an old fashion ghost story: it's all about those creaks in a old house, the thick fog hiding a secret and those eerie shadows that should make your skin cold.
On paper all this sounds great and I am all in favour of an old-style good ghost story... If only it was all building up to something... Alas the pace is evenly slow and Daniel is alone for most of the film investigating strange noises around the house for what feels like an eternity; so much so that after a while it all gets rather repetitive and tedious.
James Watkins was probably aware of this and in order to "jazz it all up" decided to pepper it all with several "fairly predictable" loud stabs of cheap scares. I say "fairly predictable" because as an average horror fan I could see most of those "jumps moment" coming from miles away. Of course some of them are quite effective, but I don't think that should be a mark of a good horror film. It's certainly not difficult to scare people with a loud crashes and bangs in the middle of a very quiet scene.
I couldn't help feeling there was nothing in this film that I had not seen before... A haunted house, rocking chairs moving by themselves, spider webs, locked doors, ghosts appearing in windows, a graveyard at night, thick fog and quicksands, old fading photographs ... No cliché was left untouched. Oh look, Daniel is reflected in a window! How long will it take until a ghost appears in the reflection. Not long, believe me.
As for the plot itself, it really feels rather dated, like a story that belongs to a different era, which in theory should be fine, but 10 minutes into the film I really get the feeling that I have already seen it all.
I haven't read the original story, nor seen the stage play, but by watching this film alone I do get the feeling that this is a short story stretched to its limits. Probably OK for a twilight Zone episode, or maybe even or a theatre stage, but as a film, aside from some interesting visual imagery, there was just not enough to keep me intrigued for the length of the film and by the time the ending came I just did not really care who lived or died.
Very very very disappointing. In fact quite laughable. Full unedited review on MovieGeekBlog.com