Radcliffe keeps magic going in The Woman in Black

daniel radcliffe, film review, issue 16, Viviana Bravo, woman in black, Entertainment - By Viviana Bravo on Thursday, February 9, 2012 - 03:03

Despite the Harry Potter fans who are still rereading the books and watching the movies over and over again, it seems that Daniel Radcliffe has officially moved on. In his first feature film after playing the famous wizard for 10 years, Radcliffe has proven that he can act in roles other than “the boy who lived.”

Before this feature film, he played the main role of J. Pierrepont Finch in the play How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. In this play, one can see that Radcliffe can act without cameras in his face or the familiarity of the Potter role. But now, in The Woman in Black, one can also see that he can play pretty much any role.

The Woman in Black, based on the book by Susan Hill, tells of life after death. Arthur Kipps, played by Radcliffe, has just lost his wife, Stella Kipps, played by Sophie Stuckey, and is trying to save his career as a lawyer. His task at the moment is to go to the house of a woman named Alice Drablow, portrayed by Alisa Khazanova, in the village of Crythin Gifford and sort out her paperwork that has been left over from her death. Once he arrives, Kipps finds that no one wants him around. Unfortunately for Kipps, he is unable to do so since he has already sent a telegram to his nanny and son for them to meet him out in the village, in addition to sorting out the paperwork. Because of his lingering, children begin to die and he is to blame, for he has seen the woman in black and whenever someone sees her, a child dies. In order to save his own son, Kipps sets out to solve the mystery of the woman in black and stop the murders of the children.

This film is directed by James Watkins (Eden Lake), who does a great job of creating suspense and allowing the audience to see the whole picture of what is happening at the current time. Most of the film is dark and therefore follows the usual standards for a horror film. Another aspect is the music. Every time the woman in black appeared, a specific sound came along with her. So if you were extremely scared and decided to just not look, the sound of Jennet, a.k.a. the woman in black, would tell you the moment has passed and you can look now.

On another note, the film has rearranged some of the scenes from the original novel. In the beginning of the film, Kipps has lost his wife from childbirth and plans on moving on and getting back to normal, but in the novel Kipps’ wife dies at the end, and the woman in black’s mystery is never solved. These changes make up most of the movie. He continues to refer back to the death of his wife when talking to people. Somehow this changes the whole film. Despite this, most of the actors acted well. Each made the movie feel scary and kept up the mysterious feeling floating in the air. There were a few things that I did have a problem with. One was that Kipps’ character has a child of four years.

Now I know that Radcliffe is 22 years old and could possibly be a father if he wanted to, but as for this movie it seemed unbelievable. Perhaps it was the fact that he has been in the Potter films for so long, or maybe it is his appearance and high voice, but compared to the other characters that had kids, he seemed like a joke. Another complaint I have was on the point that some of the characters were going with the flow of Kipps being in their village. Their words did not match their actions. The characters simply did not follow through with their threats, which also made it unrealistic. I blame the screenwriter, Jane Goldman, and casting director, Karen Lindsay-Stewart for these faults. I understand that Goldman was just trying to go along with the book, but they changed other parts, why could they not just tweak the personalities of the characters?

And true, Radcliffe did do well in everything else other than the fathering parts, but it still bothered me.

Without giving too much away, the film’s ending left me satisfied. Some will feel as if it is clear and justified, but the woman in black’s actions will probably confuse others. Nevertheless, I say that Harry Potter’s new film is one to see, whether you rent it or watch it in theaters.