THE WOMAN IN BLACK

Young London lawyer Arthur Kipps is sent to the village of Crythin Gifford to handle some legal matters regarding the sale of Eal Marsh House, whose owner has recently died without leaving heirs. There are many rumors in the village about Eal Marsh House, superstitions about its former owner who, dressed in black, would return from beyond the grave to take the village children with her. Arthur, during his first exploration of the villa, indeed sees a figure dressed in black and the same day, a little girl dies. From that moment, the young man decides to investigate the past of the "woman in black," discovering tragic facts about her family and her son. The Hammer Film Production is back but a bit limping. The main feeling is that the historic British production house wants to keep up with the times, so it has started with a remake of a recent film (the good "Blood Story" derived from "Let Me In") and a condominium thriller – "The Resident" – which turned out to be a wasted opportunity. Now, Hammer is back with a gothic ghost story that is a clear attempt to bring the viewer back to the suggestions of the glorious Hammer films of the '60s. Something must have gone wrong, and "The Woman in Black" is once again a missed opportunity because there is a difference between making a film inspired by old products and making a film that seems like an old product. The starting point for "The Woman in Black" is the eponymous novel by Susan Hill, which had already become a film in 1989 for an English TV production directed by Herbert Wise. This time, James Watkins is at the helm, known in the horror landscape for directing "Eden Lake" and for having written the screenplays for "My Little Eye" and "The Descent: Part 2"... a "strong" one, therefore, who here is just a mere executor of a well-made but pale and extremely forgettable commission job. "The Woman in Black" is a repository of déjà vu: all the ghost cinema of the last 50 years is compressed into this film, and in the end, in addition to finding yourself in front of a product that tastes of already seen in every camera cut, you have the annoying sensation of widely anticipating every event and narrative twist. But the mystery is soon revealed: in the film's pressbook, we can read a statement from producer Richard Jackson according to which their intention was not to make a film for the usual horror audience but to aim for a much broader target that would also include those who usually do not watch scary movies. Clear, therefore, that the occasional viewer of this type of film will find themselves in front of a relative novelty, or in any case a film that manages to capture and surprise them, while those who are accustomed to such stories will find themselves yawning at the predictability of the narrative and stylistic choices. And this explains many things, from the moment of "The Ring" (one of the most-watched horror films of recent years even by the non-horror audience), to the partly comforting ending, to the choice of Daniel Radcliffe in the role of the protagonist. And let's talk precisely about this casting choice which, in the opinion of the writer, is highly debatable. Radcliffe, who - for those who might be wondering - is Harry Potter, is very good, attentive, diligent, involved, perfectly inside the character, and capable of carrying a nearly two-hour film entirely on his own shoulders... but there is a problem: Harry Pott... that is, Daniel Radcliffe was 21 years old when he filmed the movie, and this is very noticeable. Okay, a hint of unkempt beard and formal attire, okay that the film is set in the early 1890s and at the time one became an adult quickly, but Radcliffe is not credible in the role of a lawyer, widower, and with a 4-year-old son to support! However, to read this review, "The Woman in Black" would seem almost a disastrous film. Obviously, it is not, because it still has its good moments, and the very long central part in which Arthur Kipps spends the night in Eal Marsh House is a small manual of cinematic tension, things from another time really. Then, the film still has a rich and appetizing appearance, with beautiful gloomy music and perfect sets for a film of this kind (the old mansion seen from the outside really scares!). Here, the reprimand goes to everything that is inside, to this lack of commitment, to this continuous repetition of things seen in all sauces with extreme and shameless nonchalance. The character of the "woman in black," moreover, who on paper had the potential to become a nice icon of horror cinema, is too little emphasized in this film... it is obvious that the screenwriter Jane Goldman cared little about creating a scary icon, but the attention was all focused on Arthur's drama, but this confirms once again that "The Woman in Black" is a horror not for the horror audience. Come on, Hammer, it will be for next time.