Rev Stan's film blog

Woman in Black and why it works better as a film

I saw the stage version of The Woman in Black a few years ago, before I started going to the theatre again properly and couldn’t help thinking how much better it would work as a film.

There is something you can add to the whole horror/suspense genre on film with music, fleeting glimpse, sudden appearance and well, just the fear you see in the actors face and hear in their breathing when they are up on the big screen.

And this version starring Daniel Radcliffe and Ciaran Hinds proved me right. Radcliffe is not the best actor in the world but solid enough to pull off the young, bereaved and terrified Arthur Kipps contending with a vengeful ghost while trying to sort out the affairs of a bereaved client.

Director James Watkins employs every trick at his disposal to create a creepy and suspenseful drama that chills and even had me jumping out of my skin a few times. It is well done ghost story with a delicious twist to nicely round it off. 

Somethings work better on stage  - I just can’t bring myself to watch Carnage on the big screen having seen the stage version because even the trailer feels wrong but this is definitely a case of screen winning over stage.

I’m going to give it 75%, on IMDB it's got 71% and a Meta Critic score of 62%. While over on Rotten Tomatoes it has a critics score of 64% and 65% of site visitors gave it three and a half stars or more.

Oh and Mr Radcliffe himself was at the screening I went to, to introduce the film, here's a (not great) pic I snapped of him with James Watkins, there are a couple more over on my Flickr page:

Here's the UK trailer (the US one has a dreadful voice over)

 

Pics: Daniel Radcliffe introduces Woman in Black

Found out about this by chance last week and when it said screening 'introduced by Daniel Radcliffe' I thought perhaps it would just be a recorded video. But no it wasn't, he was there in person - very, very briefly with director James Watkins but still a treat nontheless.

He bounded into the spotlight from a side door said a few words about enjoying working on the film, it being scary and made a passing joke reference to Harry Potter being a small indy film series. And then he bounded off again to hysteria from a few fans.

In fact I'm curious as to why the cinema, Empire Leicester Square, wasn't busier - it was barely two thirds full. Harry Potter/Radcliffe fans are obviously losing their touch when it comes to stalking their idol.

More of my thoughts on the film itself to follow but in the meantime here are some pics that I hastily snapped - excuse quality, lighting wasn't great and the appearance was very brief.

 

Troll Hunter at Fright Fest

I do hope the people behind Norwegian film The Troll Hunter had their tongues firmly in their cheeks when they were making it.

Bought a ticket on a complete whim when I found myself at a lose end in Leicester Sq at 10.45 this morning (head into town to get day seats for a play and end up seeing a film at the Film 4 Fright Festival). I had vague recollection of a trailer  with people running around in dark woods in a Blair Witch-style but other than that knew nothing about the film.

Now I scare easily but fortunately having spent a chunk of my life going to rock and heavy metal gigs, the presence of a predominantly male audience mostly wearing black didn't worry me. What did were the trailers - some french horror torture flick had looking into my lap almost immediately. The Woman in Black trailer seemed positively Disney after that but a worrying thought did start dancing through my mind: 'What the hell have you booked to see?'.

With visions of having to be enticed out from under my seat with a bag of marshmallows at the end I gritted my teeth and prepared to be scared.

But despite the fact that a large part of the film is set in woods at night - one of my biggest nightmare scenarios - I quickly started to wonder what nature of film I was actually watching.

It's mockumenatry style about a group of student film makers who stumble on national cover up, that there are trolls living in them there hills and there is one man, the troll hunter, who is employed to keep them under control, killing them if they get too close to civilisation.

They persuade the troll hunter to let them accompany him mainly because he's got fed up with the long, unsociable hours of troll hunting. Do you see where this is going?

The Heartless review

If you read the earlier post, you'll know I had some viewing problems with Heartless which may well have influenced how much I did or didn't enjoy the film. So with that said, here goes....

Firstly, Heartless is horror film, not a genre I would  go for but as a Philip Ridley-film starring Jim Sturgess and with a number of large cameo's filled by noted Brit actors such as Timothy Spall and Eddie Marsan, I was a bit curious.

*POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS* It's set in familiar Ridley territory, London's East End, and centres on Jim Sturgess' character Jamie who has a large birthmark on his face. Bullied, teased and stared at he is withdrawn, quiet and self conscious seeing little good in the world, a view that is confirmed when his mother is brutally murdered by a local gang. 

He then meets a Papa B who claims that nothing is random and violence creates a necessary suffering from which beauty can be appreciated. Jamie does a deal with Papa B who gets rid of his birthmark in exchange Jamie will commit some random, mild act of chaos at some point in the future.

Heartless experience

Back at the beginning of the month Mark Kermode did a vodcast on his blog about whether a film being released simultaneously on DVD, pay per view TV and at the cinema made you think any less of that film.

The film that sparked the comment was Philip Ridley's Heartless and Kermode is a bit of a Ridley fan (vodcast is at the end of this post).

I'm also a bit of a Ridley fan, familiar more with his plays than his films, but really wanted to see Heartless so the debate interested me. Yes for me there is a type of Pavlov dog reaction when films are announced as going straight to DVD, a bit of snobbishness comes into play, there I've admitted it. But now I've actually seen Heartless it has changed my view slightly.

You see I really wanted to see Heartless on the big screen. I like the experience of sitting in the dark with no distraction. But Heartless was perhaps a victim to it's simultaneous release and was only on at a very few screens here in London for a short period of time and at silly times for those of us who have a day jobs.

I did try to see it, dashing out of the door of the office like a greyhound after a rabbit at the stroke of 5pm one day only to find my cinema of choice was closed for premiere that night.

So I was forced to watch it on Sky Box office at home, yesterday afternoon.