This post is part of my movie-a-day challenge in which I will watch a film every day for 365 days. Today is Day 80. You can see all the posts for this challenge HERE. To see the original Movie-a-Day Challenge post, click HERE.
Hey there, friends!
Buckle up for a tale of chills and thrills! Today’s cinematic adventure delves into the murky marshes of “The Woman in Black,” a 2012 flick that sent shivers down my spine faster than a Victorian kid catching the vapors. Remember Harry Potter? Yeah, well, guess who swapped his wand for a lawyer’s quill? None other than our boy Dan Radcliffe, stepping into the shoes (or should I say, boots?) of Arthur Kipps, a widower (cue the sad violin) with a face as pale as a freshly-starched collar.
Kipps gets sent to a creepy-crawly mansion called Eel Marsh House to settle the affairs of a recently deceased eccentric (because of course he’s eccentric, it’s practically a haunted house requirement). But little does he know, this ain’t your average fixer-upper. The place is crawling with whispers of a vengeful ghost lady in black, known for snatching children like a particularly enthusiastic babysitter. Now, Kipps isn’t exactly Indiana Jones, but the guy stumbles upon enough spooky shenanigans to fill a haunted museum. Doors creak open on their own, rocking chairs rock without rockers, and the wind moans like a banshee with a bad case of the sniffles. ️
Radcliffe nails the role, going from wide-eyed newbie lawyer to full-blown ghost whisperer. He’s got this air of nervous determination, like a chihuahua facing a dragon (except, you know, with less barking and more existential dread).
But the real star of the show is Eel Marsh House itself. This gothic monstrosity is basically a character in its own right. All creaky floorboards, peeling wallpaper, and dusty trinkets that whisper forgotten stories. The camera lingers on its shadowed corners, making you swear you see something flutter in the darkness. It’s the kind of place that makes you want to light a thousand candles and barricade yourself in the linen closet. ️
Now, Radcliffe’s performance is pretty solid. He’s got that whole tortured soul thing down pat, and you can tell he’s trying hard to shake off the Harry Potter shadow. But sometimes, it’s like he’s wondering where his wand went. The supporting cast does a good job of looking scared and suspicious, but it’s really the house and the ghost that steal the show.
Now, the scares in “The Woman in Black” aren’t all jump-in-your-seat screamers. It’s more about slow-burning creepiness, the kind that gets under your skin and makes you check the locks on your windows three times before bed. There’s a palpable sense of dread that hangs over the whole movie, like a foggy mist you just can’t escape. ️
But here’s the thing – while it’s spooky, it’s also kind of… not? It’s like the film can’t decide if it wants to be a horror movie or a sad story about a ghost who needs a hug. And let’s talk about that ending. It’s like the director went, “How can we wrap this up with maximum drama?” and just went for it. No spoilers, but it’s a mix of “aww” and “huh?”
So, what’s my take? “The Woman in Black” is like that spooky ride at the amusement park – it’s fun, a little scary, but you know you’re not really in danger. Radcliffe does a decent job, but he’s no wizard here. The film’s more about mood than outright terror.
So yeah, “The Woman in Black” is a decent watch if you’re into foggy marshes, creaky houses, and Daniel Radcliffe not playing Quidditch. It’s not going to give you nightmares, but it might make you think twice about buying a house in the countryside. Till next time, keep your lights on and maybe check under the bed, just in case. 😜👋
P.S. Remember: never trust a rocking chair that rocks on its own.