So, how do you follow up one of the biggest financially successful film franchises in history? You make a generic, unoriginal horror movie of course. Such is the case with Daniel Radcliffe in "The Woman in Black." First off, the bad. As with most horror movies, this is unoriginal, both in story and style. You have the same scare tactics, the same tension build up, the same "I'm dead and was wronged in life and death and will therefore haunt you and drive you to the same or similar death because that somehow avenges me and brings me peace" story line. I don't think I can necessarily write a better story, but I for sure know that I can write one equal to it. The only reason this movie has a larger theatrical release and viewing audience is because of "The Boy Who Lived in His Last Movie But Not in This One"* starring in it, which is another problem. Not that Daniel Radcliffe was bad, he was just fine. I just have a problem with him playing a widower with a 4 year old son. The guy just got out of Hogwarts last year and I'm supposed to believe he has a 4 year old son? I understand it takes place in a time where people got married at a much younger age than today, but I'm not buying it. But with all that said, this is a horror movie and I love being scared, even if it is cheap thrills, so I enjoyed it. The sets, time period, costume, overall feel of the movie was fantastic. As contrived as it might have been, the location of the house of the Woman in Black was eerie and effective. The same scare tactics that are used in every other horror movie worked to scare me in this one and the segment where Daniel Radcliffe stays the night in the house of the Woman in Black was awesome. The ending was not necessarily for me, and getting out of the movie at midnight and going straight home and to bed in a dark basement alone and sleeping just fine perhaps shows that this is not a scary movie that sticks with you, but overall it was a fun movie with good scares.
*Oops, spoiler alert.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596365/
