Let down by Radcliffe

Rating: 7/10 (17 February 2012)

Although I have never read the novel, I have seen two different versions of the stage show which tells the story of junior solicitor Arthur Kipps' trip to remote village Crythin Gifford, to deal with the affairs of the recently deceased Alice Drablow at (even more remote) Eel Marsh House, a creepy house reached via a causeway which disappears under water at high tide. Shunned by the locals, Arthur finds that he may not be as alone as he thinks at Eel Marsh House as he begins to backtrack Alice Drablow's circumstances and the reason why the villagers are so hostile.
The Woman In Back is a decent late 19th / early 20th century ghost story, and the stage adaptation (turning it into a two hander) is very effective. The film is also moderately effective, even though it takes fairly extensive liberties with the original, not least of which is turning Kipps into a widower from the outset in order to shoehorn in an ending which is at odds with the author's original shocking conclusion.
The film is unquestionably atmospheric, but there is a distinct air of trotting out haunted house clichés, many of the early ones of which are somewhat dishonestly manufactured into "Made you jump" moments (carriage driver Keckwick appears behind Arthur accompanied by a massive orchestra hit - "Made you jump!" Yes, because you just played an enormous orchestra chord right in my ear!). Fortunately, there are some genuine scares later on and the film only just stays - perhaps for lack of gore - within its 12A certificate. So there are worse ghost story movies to see, and it is nice to see Hammer Films up and running again. And it is worth mentioning Ciaran Hinds' terrific performance as Sam, local rich man with as many secrets as the other locals.
Now to the criticisms. One is that it is never made clear why The Woman In Black (for - spoiler apologies! - you are left in no doubt that she exists, we the audience see her when Kipps doesn't) exacts such revenge on innocent people who were not involved in her own tragedy: it all seems a bit unreasonable, and doesn't work as well here as it does in the theatre production. The other - and the main one, I fear - is that Daniel Radcliffe simply isn't very good. In performance terms, Arthur Kipps is simply Harry Potter without glasses but with whiskers. He has one expression - earnestly anxious, and this passes for mourning at the start when his wife dies in childbirth, and continues 4 years later as he is sent on this assignment, and remains in place as The Woman In Black appears in the shadows and just on the edge of his vision, winds up clockwork toys, rocks invisibly in a rocking chair etc. etc. - Kipps remains anxious. Radcliffe's one-note performance convinces no more than his one-note Harry did. And his mildly estuary English is so contemporary that it simply doesn't ring true for the era in which the film is set, and ends up being distracting.
By the way, given that Crythin Gifford is a tiny village in the back of beyond, drowned with rainfall, obscured by fog, with a population of miserable souls who are hostile to strangers, how come the inn is so fully booked that Kipps can't get a room?