#83 -- The Woman in Black (2012)

Director: James Watkins
Rating: 3 / 5

My boyfriend knew that I would not want to see a romantic movie on the most romantic day of the year (Valentine's Day), so for our special V-Day date, we saw The Woman in Black. I'm kind of a late bloomer when it comes to popular things, so I am just now reading the Harry Potter books. I found it difficult to restrain myself from screaming "Harry Potter! Harry Potter" (like on the Potter Pals) when Mr. Radcliffe first appeared. But I was able to direct my attention to the movie and his new character (Arthur Kipps) rather quickly.

Years ago, a woman adopted her sister's son because she found her to be an unfit mother. However, the young boy was killed in the marsh around their home, and his birth mother was very unhappy about it. She'd been trying to get her son back, or at least be able to see him once in a while (they wouldn't even give him her birthday cards), to no avail. She blamed her sister for his death, and soon after took her own life.

In the present, that sister has died, and Mr. Arthur Kipps has been sent to her home to arrange all of her things. He is warned by several villagers that the house is very haunted and very dangerous, but he doesn't believe it at first. After he arrives and takes a look around the house, children start to die. It seems that the villagers don't like him at all, and somehow blame him for the children's deaths. He soon finds out (after he's trapped in the house with no way of leaving) that the suicide victim is haunting the house. She is angry about her son's death, and takes other people's children as a way of consoling herself. One villager told Kipps that, once she is spotted, a child is killed. They're not actually killed, though; The Woman in Black appears to them and convinces them to take their own lives. Children can be seen jumping from windows, lighting themselves on fire, or drinking lye in order to get the job done. Kipps knows he must do something (perhaps reunite the woman with her son), or none of the town's children will be safe. There's only one problem...His own son will be coming to visit him very shortly, and he must find a solution before his child's life is in danger as well.

There are definitely some spooky parts in this movie, and it did make me jump a couple of times. But I think it relied to much on the startle factor, rather than actual fear. We all know the scenes in "ghost" movies, where the spirits pop out of nowhere, or appear in mirrors, etc. These were used to the fullest extent, almost to the point that it seemed overdone. The story was pretty good, and I thought it was filmed beautifully. But was it a great movie? No, but it wasn't awful either. I think Daniel proved himself a pretty good actor outside of his safe zone, and I wish him all the best with his future projects. But overall, this one could have been much better. I think I will have to look into the original film (which I didn't know about until after I'd already seen this one), and see how it compares.


A New Toy and Some News

I guess lately I'm using my blog as a way to update on the status of my little horror collection. I promise it won't be like this forever. But I went back to my new favorite place on Wednesday and bought this cute little guy. The lady laughed at me when I took it to the counter. She said she couldn't believe how popular he still is. Really? He's fucking awesome; what do you expect? But I digress. I believe I'll try to go back every weekend to get something new, and hopefully I'll get a wonderful collection going. I'm pretty proud of it as it is, and it will only continue to get better. I found a Nightmare on Elm Street matchbox car to match my F13 one, and I shall get that one next time. And then...I'm thinking an Evil Dead action figure, so that I can remember Ash as he was and always should be.

Which brings me to my next topic. Some news for you guys. BloodyDisgusting posted an article about the Evil Dead reboot, which has just cast its first character - the male lead. They're going with something a little bit different this time, as they are not using the Ash character. Yes, that's right. So we'll have an Evil Dead movie without Ash. It just doesn't make sense to me, how they can take away a series' most important character. It's like F13 without Jason, or NOES without Freddy. It's just not right. So, although Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell are producers on the film, I'm not quite as excited as I thought I'd be. I honestly think they should just skip the reboot and do a fourth movie, with Ash, played by Bruce Campbell. The after-years, or something. I understand Bruce is getting a bit old for the character (at least if they want to start up where they left off), so I guess it's a good thing they chose to exclude him. Because NO ONE else could pull that character off the way he did. But still, I'm not digging the idea. But I will still be seeing the movie, and who knows...Maybe it'll be good.

So what are your thoughts on it? Is it right to take Ash out of the Evil Dead?

To read the full article, go to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/28187