A decent return for Hammer but take 2 stars off for the UK version

Rating: 7/10 (4 March 2012)

To start off I'd like to say how annoyed I was to find out that the producers of this movie where so eager to put their greed before art in insisting om making cuts (essentially making the film less scary/threatening) in order to make this a 12A film in the UK. What they failed to see in their blind rush was that certificate probably put off a lot of adults such as me from watching the UK version. I could go on to say that I think certification these days is almost pointless but this is not the place. Take two stars off for the heavily cut UK version.
Fortunately I was lucky enough to see the US version of the is film. I was happy to see a return of Hammer Horror at last and this was a decent, if not great edition to the collection.
Good stuff:
It is quite scary and their are a few really good jump out of your seat moments. It's not overly long and the story moves along briskly towards it's end.
The setting in history is a good one (I mean if that had a been a torch our hero was carrying and and not a lantern it would not have had the same effect) and the set design, wadrobe and even the countryside all fit well to a feeling of foreboding horror.
Bad stuff:
As many other's have pointed out Radcliffe is too young for the part really and his acting skills and his accent are a little clunky at times. Especially when he's the same scene as the excellent Cieran Hinds. Radcliffe obviously brings along a fan base but I hope in future Hammer take a bit more of a risk and perhaps use lesser known actors without baggage.
It's scary but not terrifying, opting for 'jump' moments which can become a bit of a gimmick.
All in all it's a solid 7 movie. I hope future Hammer productions take more risks and stray from this path of safe and certainly profitable productions. Of course they need to make money, but horror films can make money by trying new ideas.