So I went to see “The Woman in Black” the other day.

I’ve seen the theatre production which was wonderful and spooky, and I’ve also read the book by Susan Hill on which both the movie and play are based on.

All-in-all… really excellent film.

Its a genuinely frightening in places and suspenseful film, that makes you jump and made everyone in the cinema I was in scream aloud at least twice. It held your attention with the pacing and the storyline, so much so, very little dialogue was needed, and considering quite a lot of the film is Daniel Radcliffe alone in a big, creepy house, occasionally with a dog, he did very well to keep the audience’s attention.

I scare quite easily, so my opinion on this is obviously bias, but I think it needs a higher rating than a 12A. The reason it has that rating is there’s no gore or blood or disembowling, that kind of thing. But the whole premise of it, that there is a ghost of a woman so hell bent of revenge that she causes innocent children to kill themselves, is a pretty deep and disturbing tack.

But wow… wonderful film, very well done. And enjoyable (even if I watched most of the scary bits from behind my fingers).

Some of it was different to the book and the play, mainly the dredging the trap out of the marsh, “reuniting” Jannet with the boy, and also the ending was different.

In the book, Kipps is recounting this story to his children of his second marriage, he’s an old man and I believe its Christmas and the children want to hear ghost stories.
In the play, its told from his perspective, and he see’s what happens to his child and wife at the end happen (it also happens in the book as he recounts the tale). But I can see why the film makers made the changes they did, obviously to tie things up and leave little question for ‘did he, didn’t he’ etc.

Radcliffe was, as I said before, very good. I didn’t once think about Harry Potter while watching the film, didn’t want him to bring out a wand or cast lumos or something silly, I think people who keep going on about that are the people who are most going to hinder Radcliffe and his career, like they’ll compare everything he does to Harry Potter, and expect there to be throw backs to the films - which annoys me but meh.

He only made one dialogue slip up, which I wish they had reshot. Where he says ‘okay’ to his little boy before leaving London. Its the Victorian era, I don’t think they would have had the phrase ‘okay’ so I wish that slip up wasn’t there, but I can over look it for the rest of the film which was very enjoyable.

But terrifying.