Old school ghost story for a new audience.

Rating: 8/10 (25 July 2012)

I have not read the original novel by Susan Hill on which this movie was based on, but I have seen the play numerous times and I have also seen the movie from 1989 starring Adrian Rawliffe (who eerily enough also plays Daniel Radcliffe's father in the Harry Potter-films). Based on how hauntingly wonderful and terrifying those experiences were to me, the 2012 adaptation definitely had a lot to live up to. While it does not really reach the same heights as the above-mentioned, it did turn out a lot better than I expected.
The story involves Arthur Kipps, a London-based lawyer who is suffering from the loss of his wife in child-birth several years earlier, and is now send to a remote village in which he is tasked with settling the estate of a deceased woman. At the arrival he instantly feels unwelcome and it is clear that something darks lurks in the mind of the villagers. When he arrives to the estate it doesn't take long before he starts to feel a dark, supernatural presence around the premises that in some way is connected to a dark past.
The first thing that struck me was how great the visuals were. You have mist, darkness, creepy buildings and an overall dark atmosphere that permeates the whole movie. Many horror movies have this, but The Woman in Black really succeeds in drawing you into its dark and haunting world. The great sense of the visuals also shows itself in how scenes are built up and shot and how the actors appears on the screen. A simple thing as the image of Radcliffe's character with rolled up sleeves, an axe in one hand and a lantern in the other standing in front of the camera with a terrified expression on his face is presented in a very striking and memorable way.
The story is simple and effective, basically just a simple ghost story. As is it often in the horror film genre, it is not so much about how original the premise is as how it is told. The build-up is nicely done. The movie does not rush, it gives you time to get to know the environment and characters, a long with the feeling that something is definitely not right about this place. When the scares do start to come, it is subtle at first just so it can release the big guns later on, just as a good horror film should be.
The acting is overall great. Radcliffe takes an important step in this movie to shake off the Potter-curse. There was never a moment of thinking "oh, it's Harry Potter out there" or "use the expecto patronum!". You really believed it was Arthur Kipps on the screen. The supporting cast does their job as well, especially Ciarán Hinds who plays one of Mr Kipps few friends in the village and who are wrestling with his own demons as well.
However, as much as I like this movie, it still falls short of the 1989 version. While this movie was scary, it didn't reach the levels as to give me nightmares, and I feel that it relied a bit too much on jump scares. The 1989 version was a very amateurish and low-budget production, but the scares were so well done that it had my heart racing all the time. The 2012 was a very "pimped" version of the story, but it didn't scare me as much as I had hoped.
Still, I did not leave the theaters disappointed. If you want a solid and spooky ghost story in the year 2012, this is were to look.