PXC i've done that, so frustrating isnt it. I try to write my posts in Word so its auto saved but sometimes I am too lazy and write the post and then lose the damn thing, happens so many times to me but I guess someone up there is sparing all of you from reading my boring posts!
So we can review the film now? I wrote this unsent post when we saw the early preview 2 months ago or so, so I am just copying it :) :
At the Q&A, the director and screenplay writer talked about how they wanted to get to the root of telling a scary story in a the traditional British sense like the old Hammer productions...
....pity then they didn't make that film. For those of you (myself included) who was looking forward to a film that takes us back to the basics of supernatural story telling that has been lost since the vintage days of Hammer Horror (this is actually a Hammer production), you'll be half dissapointed. I say half because, they actually do take it back to basics part way but unfortunately, they overkill the suspense with your standard cliched BOO moments which becomes incredibly tedious and laughable. It actually saddens me to say it. This film had the potential to really bring back proper supernatural storytelling to its glorious British roots.
Having said that, there were clearly a large part of the audience who kept jumping out their seats a few times and at the end of the movie, everyone applauded pretty enthusiastically. If you want cliched ridden shocks and Boos, like say Insidious, then I recommend this film to you.
The core of the Woman in Black story remains but they made some bad choices with the narrative structure. I expected large modifications, as required for film adaptations, and I expected it to be different to the original 70s film too. But bizarrely, what they did was give the story away in advance from the beginning. In fact it begins totally off the wrong foot. I cant understand why they did that. Takes away much of the suspence from there on. As for the scary moments, they went for overkill. There isnt any CGI, thank god, at least give them credit for that. But my god was it cliched and VERY repetitive I just had to laugh. I can be easily spooked. Sixth sense, The Others and many old classics spook me. But here, I only jumped once. It was a big jump, I have to admit. But even then it was cheap (crank up the volume type)
But despite my above scathing remarks, this is not a bad movie, its an ok movie because it does some things right. There is a chilling atmosphere, its just the damn cheap scares that spoil it. The cinematagrophy is splendid and colour tones are perfect.
Dan Radcliffe plays his part well, and I am very glad to see him in a non Potter movie (he even says so himself during the Sattelite link q&a). I really admire the boy, he has come a long way with his acting and his drive will make him become a stellar actor (well I hope, he deserves it). Its clear how much he has learnt and improved in the Potter movies. But he's not there yet, he doesnt have a wide enough range. And unfortunately as I watch the film for the first 20 minutes, its clear he that he is learning the role as he goes along. However, (and I know films are not shot in on screen sequence) it seems Radcliffe gains more confidence in his role later on and he turns out to be quite commanding and I enjoyed that.
Its just very dissapointing, given that the opportunities was there for it be a great one. I have seen the play twice and the original British film. The play is 10 ten times scarier. The original film scarred me for life but this film was just your standard Friday scare night at the cinema where you might throw your popcorn in the air a couple of times.