The Woman in Black

I probably shouldn’t have watched this movie so late at night, but not for the reasons you’re thinking. I was falling asleep about 30 minutes in. I awoke for the more scary and chilling parts, but this movie really was your typical, “run of the mill” horror

A “dad” on a mission.

movies. It has the traditional elements (haunted house, ghosts and evil hags) you always see in films, but I think it attempts to rise above the others with one simple element. Daniel Radcliffe.

The Woman in Black is the story of Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe). Somehow a father at 22 (were they trying to pass him off as older with the facial hair?) but playing a 24 year old, I guess it’s not too far off to

The horrors pop up in places you wouldn’t expect…

assume this relationship was possible. A godfather to the son (Misha Handley) he has onscreen? That’s a bit weird… Anyways, Arthur is a lawyer sent to a small town out in the boonies (or British equivalent) in order to settle some business with an abandoned house that was recently vacated (or death-cated, wow, didn’t need to say that…).

While there, Arthur is shunned by the village folk, noticing a

Must… resist… eye…. twitch…

mysterious hint to the air around the town and what they’re trying to hide. With the help of an older gentleman, Mr. Daily (Ciaran Hinds), Arthur attempts to discover what’s wrong with the house and what The Woman in Black truly is. And, I’m telling you, it ain’t all pretty…

They killed Cedric! Wait…

As a whole, the movie isn’t that bad. It has it’s jumps and scares throughout in dark corners and at times you wouldn’t expect. In true haunted house fashion of the 1800’s, there are creepy old dolls (my favorite), squeaking chairs, and ancient vibes that make you feel unsettled because it is a time period so far removed from our own. I like that it chills in the traditional way. Doesn’t mean there aren’t its share of problems.

Daniel Radcliffe was picked, I feel, in order to raise buzz about the film. Plain and simple. It’s a damn shame that movies do this, but I don’t think this movie had anything else going for it anyways. In my opinion, I would’ve picked an older actor to portray a dad, because every fan of Harry Potter that went into this film was anticipating teenager Potter. I did too. And I was

One of the creepier parts of the film…

waiting for his lackluster acting and twitchy left eye to kick in as well… (Watch the HP series, you’ll see it all over every movie.)

The ending was sort of a dud of a twist, or a crappy cop-out. Arthur does what he needs to do. He sympathizes with the Woman in Black and lost his wife, all things that should’ve made him a worthwhile hero in this tale of horror. You were thinking man who conquers true life fairy tale. You get a relentless terror that doesn’t even know when the movie’s actually over. Arthur conveniently finds the clues he needs to solve the puzzle, moving quickly and not allowing any time to ruminate on the conundrum of the film. It’s a straight and away chiller with only a handful of good thrills. You know what’s going to happen

It’s not such a wonderful Wizarding world after all…

before it happens, leaving the plot as crap and the scary moments as the only things holding the film together. I don’t like to judge that harshly, but I have to put my foot down here.

So watch The Woman in Black if you’re not expecting much from a horror movie. If you are a horror fan, I would say steer clear of this one. You only feel disappointed by movie’s end. I give Daniel Radcliffe props for attempting to break the mold, but this wasn’t the movie to start it on. Better luck next time. 4.7 out of 10.

Creation: The “A Beautiful Mind” of the 1800’s

So I just finished this movie and, I have to say, I was blown away by its simplicity. I’m pretty sure this movie had about 5 shooting locations, and this simplicity alone was touching and dramatic. This film about the entity that is Charles Darwin and the theory that changed the world through conflict, was one of anguish, inner turmoil, and alienation. This movie may have been pure speculation about the life of Darwin and his quest to write “Origin of the Species,” but it is rare to encounter a film that makes you believe that the actor who is Darwin must have known Darwin. Must have been Darwin.

I had heard about this movie a year or so ago and have always had an affinity for Paul Bettany. All of his

Paul Bettany as Darwin with his Wife Jennifer Connelly as, well, his wife.

work is top shelf stuff. And Creation is no exception. Another amazing piece from across the sea, and it kept me entranced in Bettany and those around Darwin. The 1850’s was a time of religious dominance and this film portrayed that quite clearly. It is this conflict between science and religion (still ongoing) that frames the film. It is not all encompassing of the purpose, but gives substance to the interactions between work, family, and the past.

Martha West as Emma Darwin. What a relationship they had.

There are two amazing relationships that also frame this movie. The first is between Darwin and his daughter Annie (Martha West). The conflict between the live Annie and the memory of her past self haunts Darwin throughout the film. Annie loves her father and his dedication and fervor for life. And at the same time, she loves her mother and the devotion she shows to her religion. As Bettany says ever so touchingly, “I thought we were making the perfect child.” But it is this child that causes the loss of faith as well as the devotion to his soon to be world changing book. And, with every painful interaction, Darwin is forced to face the demons of his past and the issue that this creates with his family, most importantly his wife. And therein lies the second best relationship portrayed in the film. Between Darwin and Emma (Jennifer Connelly), there is an ocean. Emma’s religion and Darwin’s science seem to be the issue at the heart of the problem, but in a surprising and touching twist, it is the daughter that causes the rift. And the resolution is worth the watch in itself. It is rare in films that a leading man and lady would be married in real life. This is one of them. And I give that credit to whoever cast a married couple in a role like this. It’s absolutely amazing to watch two people with chemistry that is based in life to interact on film. Every scene with their interaction is so fluid and natural that I was blown away by how wonderful it must be to be those two in love. Quite literally the best part of the film.

Quite similar.

And there are a few notable mentions to make about minor acting parts. Freya Parks does a great job as Etta, the oldest of Darwin’s children, fighting for the attention of her father who is perpetually focused on the memory of his dead daughter. Her scenes are touching and tragic in the way that she tries and seems to flounder without any affection from her father. The last scene, something to see. Benedict Cumberbatch (BBC’s current Sherlock) gave a great minor performance as Mr. Hooker, one of Darwin’s confidantes and emotional support in his hour of need when it comes to writing his book. And Martha West, bless her heart, gave it her all as Annie, the focus of Darwin’s obsession and past regrets. Having to play a protagonist and antagonist simultaneously must be quite hard for a child, and she pulls it off with aplomb.

You may have noticed the title of this blog. And I would have to say this plot reminds me of A Beautiful Mind, the great Ron Howard award winning story of another theorist who could see figments of his imagination, John Nash. All of the dramatic elements are there and its done with the same grace. I gotta give credit to Jon Amiel, a director who I’ve not seen do anything like this before, directing with all he has. Throw in some scenes straight out of The Fall with their exotic nature, and you have a recipe for a great movie. 9.5 out of 10.