Harry Potter and The Woman In Black

[Noodle Lizard]

What a piece of shit.

Discuss.

[Small Man Big Horse]

No!

Mainly as I plan never to watch this. I've seen the play and thought it was okay, but nothing special, and have no urge to watch the film version at all. Is Radcliffe any good though, out of interest?

[Noodle Lizard]

I'm a big fan of the play (I trust you watched it in the Fortune Theater?) and that may have made me more cynical in my approach to a nu-Hammer 3D film with a mainstream American demographic starring Harry Potter written by Jonathan Ross's wife ... but no, I think can objectively say the film was dire.  Bad jump scares tied together with pointless embellishments on the simple plot of Susan Hill's story and some truly cheesy CGI.  But I could go into far more detail.

Radcliffe was there (along with James Watkins, the director) to introduce it (which basically meant run out like a motivational speaker, tell us it made a bunch of money in America last weekend and we're all going to be terrified and then run off again).  I don't hate Dan, I think he's probably a really good-natured guy whose heart is in the right place ... but he simply cannot act.  I saw him in Equus all those years ago (so I saw his bollocks), as well as December Boys and he pretty much plays each different character the same as he would play Harry Potter.  Hell, he even did it whilst playing himself in Extras.  This is no exception - a horrific miscasting anyway, I found it very difficult to believe that he was meant to be a father of a four or five year old boy, and he isn't good at looking frightened.

I'm tired so excuse the rambling nonsensicalness.

[BlodwynPig]

Was this a TV drama many many years ago, with the woman in black standing on a beach or some rocks and then a truly terrifying reveal of her face or something....that was good....the trailer for this looked C.R.A.P.

[Dead kate moss]

You're not thinking of this? I don't think Meryl Streep is that hot, but I wouldn't say 'terrifying'.

[BlodwynPig]

1989

[The Duck Man]

I have seen half of The Woman in Black in the theatre. The safety curtain came down at half-time and they couldn't get it back up again.

So there you go.

[danyulx]

The '89 version put the fear of Christ up me when I saw it when I was about eleven. Me and my mate next door couldn't sleep for nights afterwards.

Shit scary stuff. I've never watched it again. That and 'IT' fucked me right up.

[The Duck Man]

I just realised I call the interval "half-time".

Football expands to all parts of my brain, it seems.

[Jerzy Bondov]

I don't understand why there isn't a nice new DVD/Blu-ray of the '89 Woman in Black (adapted by Nigel Kneale, no less), complete with misleadingly similar cover art, to tie-in with the release of the new version. You'd have to go on some sort of illegal naughtyman site to get it now, but it's worth it. Some images from it are permanently etched on my memory.

The play left me a nervous wreck. I don't think anything has made me feel like that for years, since before I numbed myself with countless horror films. I slept with the lights on. Still, a lot of what makes the play so great wouldn't work on film - it's got this extra meta-textual layer that ensures the ghost is going to follow you around after you leave. The book is great, but it took the '89 TV movie to remind me that it's a chilling and refreshingly straightforward story without that added layer.

It's safe to say I'm a big fan of the story in all of its first three forms, and I've been looking forward to this film for a while. There's definitely room for another version. Well, that's how I feel going in anyway. Sad to hear that it could be a piece of shit.

[Noodle Lizard]

I don't understand why there isn't a nice new DVD/Blu-ray of the '89 Woman in Black (adapted by Nigel Kneale, no less), complete with misleadingly similar cover art, to tie-in with the release of the new version. You'd have to go on some sort of illegal naughtyman site to get it now, but it's worth it. Some images from it are permanently etched on my memory.

Susan Hill (author of the book) owns the rights and she doesn't like it because it changed too much of her story, apparently (i.e. the sex of the dog).

Although she fully gave her support for this 2012 version, which completely rewrites half of the story ...

Basically, she likes money.

[falafel]

Radcliffe was there (along with James Watkins, the director) to introduce it (which basically meant run out like a motivational speaker, tell us it made a bunch of money in America last weekend and we're all going to be terrified and then run off again).  I don't hate Dan, I think he's probably a really good-natured guy whose heart is in the right place ... but he simply cannot act.  I saw him in Equus all those years ago (so I saw his bollocks), as well as December Boys and he pretty much plays each different character the same as he would play Harry Potter.  Hell, he even did it whilst playing himself in Extras.  This is no exception - a horrific miscasting anyway, I found it very difficult to believe that he was meant to be a father of a four or five year old boy, and he isn't good at looking frightened.

He was very humble and impressive on the Kermode show this week, saying things basically to the effect of (very paraphrased) "I've never really learnt how to act properly, all I do is make sure I'm standing in the right place, I'd really like to learn some proper technique" and "I was a bit worried because all I was doing in this film was reacting and I had to get the director to reassure me that I wasn't being completely crap".  Actually a very forthright and interesting interviewee, I thought. Never been convinced by his performance but I think the fact that neither has he is quite oddly encouraging and he may well progress, who knows.

Film looked quite good, I thought. Apart from Radcliffe was there nothing redeeming about it?

[Noodle Lizard]

He was very humble and impressive on the Kermode show this week, saying things basically to the effect of (very paraphrased) "I've never really learnt how to act properly, all I do is make sure I'm standing in the right place, I'd really like to learn some proper technique" and "I was a bit worried because all I was doing in this film was reacting and I had to get the director to reassure me that I wasn't being completely crap".  Actually a very forthright and interesting interviewee, I thought. Never been convinced by his performance but I think the fact that neither has he is quite oddly encouraging and he may well progress, who knows.

Film looked quite good, I thought. Apart from Radcliffe was there nothing redeeming about it?

Yeah, I do think Daniel really does seem to care about what he does, and seems a lot more grateful than others of his generation, but the boy simply isn't very good at it.

I'm known to be overcritical of films, especially modern horror films, and maybe even moreso of this one because it's an adaptation of a play/story I'm very fond of and all pre-release talk threw up a lot of red flags ... but no, I genuinely think it's a bad film.  What possibly irritates me more is the fact that loads of people on IMDb and such are saying "OMG IT'S SO SCARY!!! I JUMPED SEVEN TIMES!"

Basically, it is just jump scares - but the fact that it has some fog once and is set in Victorian England qualifies it as a "classical horror" film to some dimwitted folk.  It may be a case of the reactions irritating me more than the film itself, same with Black Swan.

[non capisco]

Basically, it is just jump scares - but the fact that it has some fog once and is set in Victorian England qualifies it as a "classical horror" film to some dimwitted folk.

The one BIG jump scare in the supremely creepy Nigel Kneale version is the only thing I've watched as an adult that has made me actually stand out of my chair and retreat from the screen, the way you sometimes see people pretend to do in promotional 'hidden camera' footage trailers for modern horror films. if you haven't seen it suffice to say it involves a window in some capacity. Now, there's a bit with a window in the trailer for this new version, and it's just so utterly by-rote and lame in the way it slavishly follows modern Hollywood's overused scare tactics manual. It completely put me off seeing it. The bit in the Kneale version was so effective because it came at a point in the story when you weren't expecting it. I assume this is the same scene in the new one and it was all "oooh, he's going over to the window....he's at the window....he's looking at the window....BOO!" Just made me suspect that it's all going to be joylessly telegraphed scares using the same old tired techniques, with no effective grasp on why the story is such a creepy concept.

[Noodle Lizard]

The one BIG jump scare in the supremely creepy Nigel Kneale version is the only thing I've watched as an adult that has made me actually stand out of my chair and retreat from the screen, the way you sometimes see people pretend to do in promotional 'hidden camera' footage trailers for modern horror films. if you haven't seen it suffice to say it involves a window in some capacity. Now, there's a bit with a window in the trailer for this new version, and it's just so utterly by-rote and lame in the way it slavishly follows modern Hollywood's overused scare tactics manual. It completely put me off seeing it. The bit in the Kneale version was so effective because it came at a point in the story when you weren't expecting it. I assume this is the same scene in the new one and it was all "oooh, he's going over to the window....he's at the window....he's looking at the window....BOO!" Just made me suspect that it's all going to be joylessly telegraphed scares using the same old tired techniques, with no effective grasp on why the story is such a creepy concept.

And you're pretty much right in thinking that.  The jump scares really are phoned-in - it's as if someone has gone through the script and thought "Well, there hasn't been anything overtly scary for about five minutes, let's make a crow suddenly fly out of a fireplace ... TWICE.  In the same scene".

But it's not as bad as the baffling additions to the story they've thrown in there -

Spoiler alert

his wife being dead at the start (which means we don't get the naive, cocky young accountant being confronted with the unexplainable, rather a mopey guy who claims he thinks his wife is constantly watching over him), zombie kids, a possessed woman, a truly awful sequence where Harry Potter dives into the mud to retrieve the dead body of the Woman's son to "reunite them", and an embarrassingly bad ending which completely misses the point of the story

[close]

... I could go on.

[Jerzy Bondov]

The one BIG jump scare in the supremely creepy Nigel Kneale version is the only thing I've watched as an adult that has made me actually stand out of my chair and retreat from the screen, the way you sometimes see people pretend to do in promotional 'hidden camera' footage trailers for modern horror films. if you haven't seen it suffice to say it involves a window in some capacity.

It's such a great scene because it starts out as a jump scare, then it cuts away, then back again and it's still there and still fucking scary, and then away again, and then back again and it's fucking STILL THERE and getting worse and worse. It gets you three times, and after the initial jolt it still maintains a constant level of terror. You think next time it cuts back the scary thing will be gone, but no, there it is, shitting you up. It's so skilfully done and, you're right, that level of skill is far above the BOOOO! GOT YOU! shit that's used to generate night vision footage of audiences jumping to put in TV adverts.

[Harpo Speaks]

He was very humble and impressive on the Kermode show this week

Interesting to note that it was going to be originally rated as a 15, but a number of 'tweaks' were made in order to get the rating down. Things like the sound being toned down, that's not something that immediately comes to mind when you hear a film has been altered for the sake of the classification.

[BlodwynPig]

Some lovely posts there. Truly creepy stuff from the Kneale version - I just must have blocked it out as I don't remember much about it - just that beach scene. But the descriptions above are enough to make me never watch it again.

Harpo - my fear is taken over by anger - these fucks do not know anything about cinema - or at least classical cinema. Actually you could probably make a decent horror in the vein of those classic understated ghost stories, without ANY gore or Jump scenes - would they allow that to be PG rated? I mean, if its just chilling rather than monsters and ghouls? Or is there some other criteria involved - like Psychological Damage.

[Harpo Speaks]

I believe they do take the psychological effect into account to a certain degree. Radcliffe was effectively saying that the BBFC had perhaps rated it incorrectly by giving it a 12A, even in this slightly altered form.

The fucks in this case appear to be the people putting the film out - they could have had the film passed as uncut but with a 15 rating, but it seems they wanted the 12A purely to capture a few more Potter fans who will see this just because of Radcliffe.

[BlodwynPig]

Children will never know the true meaning of Terror unless they discover some of the old VHS tapes (and player) under some dust in Daddy's attic.

[Noodle Lizard]

Actually you could probably make a decent horror in the vein of those classic understated ghost stories, without ANY gore or Jump scenes - would they allow that to be PG rated? I mean, if its just chilling rather than monsters and ghouls? Or is there some other criteria involved - like Psychological Damage.

I actually e-mailed the BBFC when I was a kid about this (I used to obsessed with ratings/censorship) - and also whether toilet humour was taken into account, since there never seemed to be any actual criteria for it.  I don't remember their reply, but it wasn't substantial - probably written by an office bod who had a copy of their manifesto lying about.

Anyway, it does seem to be the case that they take psychological effect into account (I think they call it "peril") - The Others, for instance, doesn't have a drop of blood, a single swear word and one very tame "love" scene, but that still got a 12.  Likewise The Innocents, upon reclassification (I assume it got an A when it first came out, but I can't be bothered to check).

The fact that The Woman In Black had to be cut down from a 15 was a huge red flag to me before seeing it - there's absolutely nothing in the story that would warrant such a high rating.  But yes, even in the cut down version I saw we had

Spoiler alert

a child vomiting blood, setting fire to themselves, jumping out of windows, bloody zombie kids, the Woman hanging herself to scare Harry Potter, a decomposing corpse

[close]

and probably a few other things I'm forgetting.  Completely unnecessary, all of it.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Ebert liked it

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120201/REVIEWS/120209996

It's generally received pretty good reviews, so I might give it a go when it comes out on DVD.

[BlodwynPig]

It only got good reviews to boost Radcliffe's profile as an actor away from Potter. If you want to challenge me on this, oK, i will have to go and see it, but I am not looking forward to it, having seen the trailers.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Why would critics and the general public want to boost Radcliffe's profile??

[BlodwynPig]

Why would critics and the general public want to boost Radcliffe's profile??

Critics because they are in the industry's pocket.

The public because (like with The Beatles) they can't get enough of the Big Thing.

[Noodle Lizard]

Anyone who likes Insidious and stuff like that will probably like it.  It's got sudden loud noises and CGI scary faces.  And creepy kids being all creepy and that.

[Beagle 2]

Pleased to see that it wasn't just me who shat myself at the 1989 version, I very clearly remember watching that with my sister and actually screaming like a girl at the face bit, which even at that age I never did (I NEVER). Be interested to see it again.

I saw the play a few years back and it was all good fun. Didn't find it that scary as I was sat next to the bloke operating the special effects (cheap seats) but enjoyable nonetheless. I really want this to be good! I'll certainly give it a go anyway.

[BlodwynPig]

Pleased to see that it wasn't just me who shat myself at the 1989 version, I very clearly remember watching that with my sister and actually screaming like a girl at the face bit, which even at that age I never did (I NEVER). Be interested to see it again.

I saw the play a few years back and it was all good fun. Didn't find it that scary as I was sat next to the bloke operating the special effects (cheap seats) but enjoyable nonetheless. I really want this to be good! I'll certainly give it a go anyway.

Perfect Valentine's Day viewing while you are on your lonesome. >:)))))))

[Noodle Lizard]

I agree with this talk of "the face bit" in the 1989 version ... it really is horrible.  I mean, if you were to watch it out of context I'm sure it would look a bit daft, but coming when it does - even though I now know when it's coming - it still makes your bollocks jump (not sure what the female equivalent is - makes your tits sneeze?)

I'm a big advocate of the play, and recommend sitting in the stalls, preferably central, for the best experience.

[ColonelVolestrangler]

The "face bit" in the Kneale version caused me to spill coffee all over myself, since I'd looked away to pick up my cup and, when I looked back, there it was! I still rate that production up there with "A Warning to the Curious" and "The Signal Man" as amongst the scariest things ever on television.

I'm not long back from seeing the Hammer version, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Yes, there are a few jump moments - as there are in the play, whose script specifies raising the sound levels to make folk jump and scream - but also some very nicely handled 'corner of the eye' moments, which I particularly like. A few whispers of, "Oh... God," and intakes of breath from the audience I saw it with.

Given Susan Hill's hatred of the changes Kneale made, she should, by rights, be slating this, as it deviates wildly from the book. In many ways, it's been Hammer-ed up, with unwelcoming visitors near-enough muttering about 'goin' up t'the big 'ouse', a bar that should have had Michael Ripper as a landlord, and a house whose interior says 'haunted' at every turn - unlike the book, which specifies clearly that it's NOT like that ('no shades of Miss Havisham'). Also, given Hill's annoyance that the previous version 'even changed the sex of the dog', poor old Spider here has very little to do.

All the same, I enjoyed it enormously. It's well acted - Harry Potter never even crossed my mind in Daniel Radcliffe's performance - it looks stunning, full of atmosphere, and those 'corner of the eye' moments are nicely handled.

My favourite version remains the play, however, which I've seen several times and whose script I've read many, many more times. I particularly love how the adaptation process of transforming the story into a play is incorporated so beautifully. A real treat for anyone willing to exercise their imagination. I'm just glad I don't have a rocking chair in the house.