On May 22, 11:39 pm, moviePig <
pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> To longtime horror fans, a Hammer Films production brings to mind
> heaving Victorian bosoms languishing beneath fangs gliding from a
> lunar-lit mist. As the new face of Hammer, however, THE WOMAN IN
> BLACK delivers a rather straightforward Victorian ghost story. Its
> chief box-office asset is Daniel 'Hogwarts' Radcliffe, playing a young
> widower -- a character that's, unusually, older than than the actor,
> but Radcliffe pulls it off. Also, this is a visually sumptuous flick
> (even on dvd) that nicely weaves mood and shocks. What comes up
> surprisingly short, though, is a thin plot that resembles some
> outdated short story rather than its actual modern novel.
But the original novel is more of an outdated short story than it is a
novel anyway, and it's that way intentionally. As an adaptation of an
existing work, I'd say The Woman in Black is pretty succesful. The
ending, different from the novel, is perhaops dodgy and maybe that's
because it owes more to J-horror tropes than Victorian era
conventions. The author of the novel said she didn't much care for
the ending either but it was the best they could manage after
struggling with it.
But this is PC-era Hammer isn't it? No heaving Victorian bosoms but
no stakes between those heaving Victorian bosoms either, so if nothing
else The Woman in Black manages to avoid the leering and very British
mix of bawdiness and barely repressed sexual hostility the Hammer
films trafficked in, much to Jess Franco's dismay.