MovieReviews101.com Latest Blog Posts

LOVE FAILURE movie review: A treat to watch

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:39:52 GMT

Actor Siddharth’s maiden production venture made under the banner of Y Not Studios is a well-made movie with a good breezy narration and trendy presentation. Love Failure is a sincere attempt that has no room for a cinematic and melodramatic narration. The screenplay is tight and dialogues are contemporary and it makes the film connect with the audiences. The honesty of the producers and director is apparent in the film that’s made with good quality content and without using the usual commercial elements in the script. Director Balaji Mohan‘s creativity shows as he narrates the story in an ultra cool fashion. The film is backed by tight and interesting script with no illogical sequences and the focus remains on a realistic presentation. One can relate the sequences with what’s happening around us.

The film starts with hero, Arun who trying to explain how his affair with his engineering college friend Parvathi ended. Then the narrative shows sequences, which lead to their break up. Meanwhile, Parvathi has another problem to cope with. Her parents are on the verge of getting divorced. Later both Arun and Parvathi realise they are made for each other.

Siddharth shines as Arun. His style, his dialogue delivery – all look quite natural. Amala Paul, who made a sensational debut through Tamil film Mynaa, proves that she is a hugely talented actress. She is a perfect choice for the role and has given an impressive performance. Most of the actors are new faces, which has given a fresh look to the film. A few veterans like Suersh have filled in their roles effectively. Another high point of the film is its technical strength. Nirav Shah, who is also the co-producer of the film, presents stunning visuals in this film. His camera work is perfect. Thaman, known for his fast paced music, churns out soothing compositions that suit the film’s story element. Even the lyrics are well-written. Love Failure is a trendy romantic film, which is a treat for the young, urban audience.

Movie Review: Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:15:16 GMT

Johnny Blaze is literally on the run from himself, or more precisely the demon inside him known as the Ghost Rider. He's found himself in seclusion in a non-descript area of Eastern Europe. Simultaneously, a religious order is under attack by a group of men seeking to take a young boy from them who's under their protection. As the attack occurs, the boy, Danny, and his mother Nadya go on the run and manage to escape their pursuers. Moreau, a member of the order, tries to find them but has little luck. One thing that Moreau is aware of is the fact that the Rider is nearby and he knows he could persuade Johnny Blaze to search for Danny and Nadya.

Moreau finds Blaze and explains why the boy is so valuable, and with the offer of being able to release Blaze from his curse, Johnny Blaze soon joins the pursuit.

"Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" is the second film to use Marvel Comics' superhero/supernatural character and all it has in common with the first movie is Nicolas Cage playing Blaze and the broadest of aspects of the character's origin. It's both a sequel and a re-boot, which of course for most are already two strikes against it. But under the able directorial team of Neveldine/Taylor (Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor who have previously made the "Crank" movies and more recently "Gamer" with Gerard Butler), there's a lot of new life here, but it's hard for me to say if it will be embraced. For myself though, I had a ball with this.

Neveldine/Taylor and Cage are basically embracing all of the "B" movie aspects of the Ghost Rider and just playing them to the hilt. Just about every part of the film is over-the-top fun. Neveldine/Taylor's hyper-kinetic shooting style just fits this thing to a "T." I've already read complaints of the style for this film from others as being too fast and shaky, and it is fast and shaky, but honestly I just didn't have any trouble following the action in the slightest. I think the choice of setting this in a non-descript area of Eastern Europe was on point. The locations are both bleak and beautiful and add a bit of surreality that for me harkens back to such horror movies as Wes Craven's "The Hills Have Eyes" or Robert Fuest's "The Devil's Rain."

The attention to detail is terrific and really on focus with the background settings and in the re-design of The Ghost Rider himself. The new look of the Rider is evident in his skull visage and close-shots of the leathers he wears which are both charred and boiling due to the intense heat caused by the Rider. Neveldine/Taylor are directors who were made for 3D and their use of the effect is extremely entertaining both for its immersion and its moments of being in-your-face. One of the better uses of the technology is also one of the more quiet scenes in the film. This scene is a split screen phone call that takes place between Roarke (the man in pursuit of Danny) and Carrigan (Roarke's lead in the pursuit). When the screen is split, it offers up two completely different planes of depth that's just really fascinating to watch.

Nicolas Cage looks like he's really having a ball with this one. In the first movie, I thought his quirks worked a little against the story that was being told (though in general, I like the film), but here, Neveldine/Taylor really play that up to a point where it's funny to watch, but still entirely suitable to the story. When Cage is in action as the Ghost Rider, he adds some jerky movements to the character that can imply two things; either Blaze still trying to contain the character or the demon being uncomfortably confined to a human host -- either way it works. I tend to think Cage is at his best when he's making "B" movie fare and I certainly enjoyed him in movies like "Drive Angry" and "Season of the Witch." He certainly plays with that here, but there's also a little bit in common with his work with Werner_Herzog in "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call-New Orleans" as well.

Violante Placido and Fergus Riordan play Nadya and Danny, and they're the most "normal" parts to the whole film (though Placido is over-the-top gorgeous in her part). Johnny Whitworth plays Ray Carrigan, who later gets transformed his own self into what should be a worthy opponent to the Ghost Rider, and in general, he's a fun character. Idris Elba plays Moreau, and it's a character that to me certainly has a lot more life to him than others that Elba has played. Much like Cage, Elba looks like he's having a ball making this film.

The biggest surprise to me in the cast though was Ciarán Hinds as Roarke. Hinds has always been one of those guys who for me has always been a little on the stiff side in his parts (though don't get me wrong, it's worked for some of those parts as well). Here, he's positively animated in a way that could suggest that's he's some sort of strange mix of Moe Howard, Shemp Howard, Ernest Borgnine and the Devil Incarnate rolled into one. Now I know that mentioning two of The Three Stooges here could sound detrimental and it's not meant that way at all. There's something that's just both fun and funny about Roarke and Hinds looks like he's lapping it all up and just enjoying every single minute of it.

I suspect I'm going to be a minority on this one, but I just had a terrific time with "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance." Neveldine/Taylor's visual style is a perfect fit for the character and their use of 3D is both inventive and immersive. The performances, in particular from Nicolas Cage and Ciarán Hinds are over-the-top and not meant to be taken seriously at all, and much like the visual style of the film, they fit. All this really needed to further its embracing of "B-movie trash" (and I say that with great love for "B" movie trash) was adding some of the scratched and warped film effects that Robert Rodriguez used in his portion of "Grindhouse, Planet Terror." This was a lot of fun and I look forward to eventually seeing it again down the road.

Movie review: 'This Means War'

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:14:47 GMT

“This Means War” is a victim of high expectations. Or maybe it’s just not a very good movie. Oh, it’s OK, but you would think that with Reese Wither- spoon, Chris Pine and Tom Hardy on board for a romantic comedy, some sparks would fly. They don’t, unless you count the acerbic asides uttered by Chelsea Handler as Witherspoon’s best friend. These are all nice people to look at, great in some of their movies but set adrift by McG’s direction and a sloppy screenplay here.

Pine and Hardy play FDR and Tuck, respectively, two CIA operatives who also are best friends. But after a sort of James Bond-light mission in Hong Kong in which they are supposed to bring in bad guy Heinrich (Til Schweiger) in clandestine fashion, goes loudly awry, they are given some time to cool off. FDR is a ladies’ man, while Tuck is separated from his wife (Abigail Spencer), with whom he has a son. They decide to work on finding Tuck a girlfriend, or at least maybe a date.

An online dating service pairs Tuck and Lauren (Witherspoon), a beautiful, successful woman who naturally, in the grand romantic- comedy tradition, cannot get a date. They hit it off at lunch but take things slowly. She walks to a video store nearby and, as fate would have it, reaches for the same movie FDR has chosen. Witty banter ensues (as opposed to the more early-stage lovey-dovey patter she had with Tuck).

These guys being spies, it doesn’t take long, thanks to illegal surveillance on both their parts, for them to figure out they are dating the same woman. They agree to a competition. They will both court Lauren, and she — not knowing about the contest — will choose the man most right for her.

Of course, they also throw the services and manpower of the CIA into invading her privacy with cameras, hidden micro- phones, the odd raid on a cozy moment on the couch, etc. Meanwhile Heinrich, who has sworn revenge on FDR and Tuck, makes his way to the United States.

“Meanwhile,” however, implies this is an actual subplot. In reality, the Heinrich business just pops up here and there, as if to remind us these guys have jobs and what they are.

Movie review | ‘This Means War’

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:39:00 GMT

Presumably, there are more depressing prospects in the world than watching Reese Witherspoon once again jut her chin forward and screw her face up in concentration to play yet another control freak in desperate need of a rakish man to loosen her up. For now, though, I’m hard-pressed to think of any.

In the dire action comedy “This Means War,” the often excellent, presently rudderless actress plays an unlucky-in-love product tester who simultaneously falls for two very different men – who, unbeknownst to her, happen to be best friends. Lest that’s not enough contrivance for you, they both happen to be CIA agents trying to bust an international crime ring led by a European-accented bad guy, played by Til Schweiger (“Inglourious Basterds”).

What’s most dismaying isn’t necessarily the vulgar comedy, the hyperactively edited action sequences, or the sheer inanity of the script, which asks us to believe that these two men would then employ the surveillance resources of the CIA to spy on each other’s dates.

It’s the sight of Witherspoon straining so desperately to capture that mixture of ditziness and steeliness that made her famous in “Legally Blonde” and “Sweet Home Alabama” – even though, 10 years on, she has long since outgrown such parts. Didn’t she learn her lesson when she played virtually the same character in the 2010 turkey “How Do You Know”?

Whether it’s the fault of Hollywood, which rarely knows what to do with actresses in their mid-30s, or the fault of Witherspoon for not knowing when to say when, is open to debate. But the sight of her here, acting alternately “exasperated” and “turned-on” as two rascally male rabbits race around her, is a drag. Her Oscar-winning work in “Walk the Line” notwithstanding, this grown-up woman seems unable (or perhaps just unwilling) to play actual adults.

Despite being gorgeous and fabulously successful, Witherspoon’s Lauren – like the comedy heroines of all contemporary comedies, especially the ones starring Katherine Heigl – is fundamentally incomplete because she doesn’t have a man. She’s predictably appalled when her foul-mouthed best friend Trish (Chelsea Handler, delivering less a performance than a sour talk-show monologue) signs her up for an online dating site.

Even more predictably, she agrees to give it a try, and – you guessed it – falls head over heels for the first guy she meets, a British hunk named Tuck (Tom Hardy). Still more predictably, she proceeds directly from her date with Tuck into a video store, where she bumps into Hunk No. 2, FDR (Chris Pine), whose name appears to be some sort of ironic gag in search of a punch line.

What’s a lady with options to do? No one goes to a rom-com expecting a lecture in feminist politics, but, seriously, did “This Means War” need to be so resolutely demeaning? (The screenplay is credited to three men, Timothy Dowling, Simon Kinberg and Marcus Gautesen.) The guys immediately realize they are chasing after the same woman, and decide to turn it into a competition. Lauren – who has no idea the men know each other – decides to date both of them. As she and Trish endlessly debate which guy might have the bigger penis, and which might be capable of “dirty sex,” the movie even flirts with affording her a measure of liberation.

But this being a PG-13 affair, one that insists its heroine remain pure, Lauren doesn’t actually get to have sex until the movie is nearly over.

As the alternating dates unfold, FDR and Tuck each decide to place her under surveillance, bugging her phones and installing video cameras – one of those insanely creepy, only-in-a-rom-com plot twists that we’re somehow supposed to find charming. As we wait for the inevitable third-act twist, when the European-accented bad guy will turn up to kidnap Lauren, the movie is periodically interrupted by busy car chases and loud gun fights. The director, McG (“Charlie’s Angels,” “Terminator: Salvation”), has never been known for his visual elegance, but his work here is a desecration – a series of incoherently edited action sequences that seem to have been cut-and-pasted from another movie.

The three leads are all pleasant to look at, but there’s no chemistry among them – how could there be in a story so cynical and stupid? All three will likely bounce back soon enough. But a movie as dreadful as “This Means War” should be a cautionary tale for all involved: When you pander to what you think the audience wants to see you do, and when you keep looking to your past in order to blaze a path into the future, you’re almost certainly going to stumble.

Movie Review: Safe House

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:45:04 GMT

“Safe House” is the overeager General Education teacher of action thriller films. Almost everyone has or knows a friend that has had to deal with that one boring class where the teacher tried to make it “more” than just another Gen Ed. When in reality, it would have been so much better if they just accepted the course for what it was–nothing special.

It’s that class where you say, “Great, I’m going to get a B in here just because the teacher decided to make it unnecessarily hard. All my friends got easy A’s when they took this class, but of course, I get stuck in this one.”

This is “Safe House” in a nutshell. It has a simple plot and purpose, but it tries to be “more” than what it really is: an average “popcorn action” flick. The film is set in Cape Town, South Africa, and centers around two main characters: dangerous, rogue ex-CIA agent Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) and the young CIA “housekeeper” assigned to watch him, Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds).

Things quickly spiral out of control as the safe house Weston is stationed at is invaded by a group of armed men looking to capture Frost for unknown reasons. Weston and Frost escape, and a series of crazy chase scenes through South Africa occur.

As the story progresses, Weston has to figure out who he can really trust: his CIA bosses, who seem to have their own agenda, or the manipulative Frost. Washington and Reynolds are both incredibly talented actors and their skills shine in these roles.

They each bring a unique aspect to each character, particularly Washington. He’s definitely at his best when playing the bad guy/bad ass type, like in “Training Day.”The same can’t be said of Vera Farmiga (The Departed, Up in the Air) and Brendan Gleeson (Mad-Eye Moody in the Harry Potter series).

Their abilities are almost completely wasted in minor supporting roles. They really just don’t have much to do. My main source of frustration with this film comes from the fact that it could have been a very straightforward action thriller with two awesome actors showing their skills, and I would have left feeling satisfied.

Instead, I left not really caring too much about what I had just seen. The movie was over complicated and the twists were fairly obvious. I won’t go so far as to say it was a complete waste of money, but it certainly didn’t deserve the $8 I shelled out to see it.

Although they try their best, Washington and Reynolds simply can’t elevate this film out of mediocrity. They’re let down by the several flaws in the script and the sometimes awkward pace. Just like that Gen Ed class, you’ll be glad when it’s finally over so you can move on to something better.

MOVIE REVIEW: THE VOW

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:01:37 GMT

As Valentine’s Day nears, a plethora of romantic movies swarm cable television and theatres designed to put us in the mood for love. The Vow, starring Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum, is a romantic drama based on true life events about a married couple dealing with the trauma of a car accident. After watching The Vow, I left the theatre feeling melancholy rather than cheerful in hopes for the year’s biggest day of love.

The aforementioned car accident puts Paige (McAdams) in a coma and when she awakens she is suffering from severe memory loss and doesn’t remember the last five years of her life, which unfortunately includes her life with her husband Leo (Tatum), who tries desperately to help her remember their marriage and struggles to win her heart again. In the opening scenes, I quickly fell in love with Paige and Leo and admired their loving relationship. Yes, there were clichéd, cheesy moments of how boy meets girl and how boy gets girl to go out with him but I couldn’t help but smile when Leo brought Paige a get well box full of medicine (and lingerie) or laugh when they played chocolate roulette. I was definitely behind both Paige and Leo at their wedding at the Art Institute of Chicago, as they declared their vows (which were written on menus) and were subsequently chased out by museum security. And my love for them didn’t waver when Paige woke up not recognizing Leo since I just knew she would eventually get her memory back and they would be happy again…the end! Well, that didn’t quite happen.

Leo struggles to earn Paige’s heart while I simultaneously struggled to like the person Paige has become and the life she has returned to. Paige embraces her old life before Leo, and reverts from a bohemian, down to earth chick to a prissy, J. Crew wearing snob. It was awkward seeing Paige and Leo interact while they are dealing with this trauma. Leo is doing all he can as he fights for his marriage, but nothing is working as Paige moves out to live with her estranged family and hangs out with her old friends and her ex fiancé, Jeremy (Scott Speedman). This side of Paige is unappealing as she enters a world from middle class to upper class with an overbearing father (Sam Neill) and her uppity mother (Jessica Lange) who do their best to exclude Leo from Paige’s “new” life. This is where I began to root more for Leo, as Paige disregards the effort Leo is putting in to save their marriage and her memory while she barely seems to put in an effort herself. There is a slight moment of hope for them when Leo reenacts their first “first date” and the couple I fell in love with rekindles their spark, but that spark is crushed after Leo assaults Jeremy at a wedding. Paige then declares that it’s not working between them and a reluctant Leo is forced to sign their divorce papers. The two go on to live their separate lives, as Leo adjusts to a life without his wife and Paige deals with an identity crisis and a family secret that has her reverting to her somewhat old self but still no Leo until the very end.

The plot of The Vow is a common theme that has been seen in several movies before (some parts of the movie made me think of 50 First Dates) and I enjoyed the various shots of the city of Chicago, but it was the chemistry between McAdams and Tatum that made the movie endearing. Their chemistry is nowhere like the chemistry that McAdams and Ryan Gosling shared in The Notebook, but it was believable and heartfelt. The ending will have you thinking what would you do if the love of your life forgot who you were and to what lengths you would go to help them remember?

Movie Review: ‘Safe House’ is Bourne again

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:08:37 GMT

Can’t wait to see the next “Bourne” film? Don’t worry. It opens in theaters Friday. It just happens to be called “Safe House,” a film with so much in common with the “Bourne” films that you’d almost think it was an intentional rip-off. But Hollywood would never do that. Let’s see. “Safe House” features a rogue CIA agent with incredible skills. Instead of Matt Damon, he’s played by Denzel Washington.

CIA honchos looking for the agent include a woman who acts a lot like Joan Allen. She happens to be played in “Safe House” by Vera Farmiga. Looking for a Brian Cox character? He’s played by... Oops, don’t want to give anything away because, as in the “Bourne” films, there’s a whole lot of betrayin’ goin’ on here. There’s just not a lot of originality.

Oh, did I mention plenty of high-speed car chases and crashes? It’s all here. Now for the hook. Ryan Reynolds plays Matt Weston, a low-level CIA operative who works as a ”housekeeper” at a safe house in Cape Town, South Africa. He yearns for a higher-profile position, but his boss, David Barlow (Brendan Gleeson), says no, telling him to be patient. Weston gets more than he bargained for when Washington’s Tobin Frost is taken to the safe house for interrogation. Bad guys soon raid the safe house, forcing Weston to flee with Frost. The remainder of the film shows Weston trying to get Frost to another safe house. Easier said than done since Frost just might try to escape.

And then there are those aforementioned bad guys who keep popping up and killing people. It seems Frost has a microchip they want in the worst way. What could be on this device? Maybe information about who told the bad guys where the safe house was. Who could this traitor be?

For a little added complication, Weston has a girlfriend, Ana Moreau (Nora Arnezeder), who doesn’t know that her boyfriend is a CIA agent. When things gets messy with Frost, what will Weston do? Didn’t Bourne have a girlfriend, too? In “Safe House,” the relationship appears tacked on, possibly paving the way for a sequel. A sequel? How shocking.

Anyway, director Daniel Espinsoa and screenwriter David Guggenheim do prove adept at cinema Xerox. Still, even if the “Bourne” films hadn’t existed, “Safe House” earns points as a decent action-thriller, and any film with Washington in it benefits. The film even tries to give his character some dimension. For example, he appreciate a good bottle of wine.

One of the film’s better scenes has Frost visiting Carlos Villar (Ruben Blades), a past acquaintance who’s in the forgery business. Their reminiscences come tinged with melancholy. And then the bullets fly again.

Reynolds holds his own here, though you may wonder how a rookie agent could outduel veteran villains. But it’s best not to think too much watching this film. It exists as a mildly entertaining diversion in the movie season’s dead zone. Like far too many Hollywood films, “Safe House” plays it safe.

Movie review: The Vow

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:36:26 GMT

Seriously, this kooky romantic drama has a happy knack of wrong-footing viewers the right way, time and time again. There are some scenes where it is miraculous that the cast were able to remain upright, what with the huge nuggets of guilty-pleasure gold littered everywhere.

You just haven’t lived (or laughed uncontrollably to yourself) until you’ve seen Channing Tatum playing a too-cool-for-school record producer - I could stop right there, couldn’t I? - unsticking the minds of stuck-up snobs by raving about Radiohead and Elvis’ original bass player.

Or what about the scene where Rachel McAdams demonstrates her undying love for her partner by winding up an open car window after he passes gas in her presence?

But we are not here to marvel at the healing powers of good taste in music. Or the hallucinogenic qualities of farts. No, we are here to be reminded of how much fun any movie with amnesia in it can be. You, know, in case we suddenly forgot. Sorry, but accuracy or sensitivity towards the actual nature of this very real condition is not a strong suit of The Vow.)

Reputedly based on a true story, the piffle-perfect premise of The Vow pitches Rachel McAdams as Paige, a funky sculptor who copped a knock to the noggin while snoggin’ her spouse. In a parked car. In the snow. By a garbage truck with bad brakes, and no chains on its tyres. But the accident is nowhere near as important as the aftermath. Once she awakes in hospital, Paige no longer recognises her hunky, mixing-desk maestro of a hubby, Leo (Tatum).

While Paige reverts to an earlier phase of her life as a strait-laced law student, Leo has no choice but to fret upon how to re-write a marriage that could already be history. Lunk-headed Leo calls on every shred of evidence he can to jump-start Paige’s memory, but nothing - and I mean, nothing - rings a bell.

Love letters? Nope. Sexy voicemails? Nada. Intimate knowledge of her favourite foods, bands and clothes? Nyet. Surely the wedding video would do the trick, I hear you cry? After all, they got married in an art gallery in front of a gaggle of ironically admiring hipsters? Nope.

It gets worse for Leo once Paige’s former fiance (Scott Speedman) and her pushy posh parents (Sam Neill and Jessica Lange) enter the picture. And it is here I can assure you that the fun is only just getting started. Definitely one for both avid chick-flickers and, of course, the SBIGBOG crowd.

Movie Review: "The Woman in Black"

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:55:54 GMT

"The Woman in Black" is a good old-fashioned horror film with an actual storyline and cinematography to set the mood. The film revolves around loss and throughout the entire movie this is set with the darkness of every scene. The colors, the setting, the use of black crows and the play on superstition all combine to form a sadness the movie focuses on.

The horror did not come from shocking images of blood or gore like many horror movies lately, it came from the darkness.At last, a scary movie has been made without the use of the "found footage" technique and I praise "The Woman in Black" for going back to good cinematography.

The noises in the night and the question of what stood just around the corner built suspense and thrill. The movie actually showed what caused the noises unlike "Paranormal Activity," where audiences are expected to just jump at the sound. "The Woman in Black" caused me to jump a few times, but it did not leave me jumping out of my seat with how scary it was either. I, however, felt that the scare was not the main purpose of the movie.

The story and the characters had depth to them, making the audience care about what happened in the end.
"The Woman in Black" also brought much anticipation about finally seeing Daniel Radcliffe act on the big screen in a movie other than the "Harry Potter" series. I am not a big fan of Radcliffe as Potter. His acting in the first movie was not the best, but I do admit he has improved throughout the series.

Radcliffe in "The Woman in Black" proved that he could move on to other films without having to be stuck as the face of Harry Potter. It might be hard to imagine him as anyone else at first, but he did a stellar job at portraying his character and made me forget the idea of him as Potter. "The Woman in Black" had a good story that sets a dark mood, but if you are looking for a scare, it might not be the movie to see. I still think the movie is worthy watching, but I would suggest waiting until it comes out on DVD.

Movie Review: ‘The Woman In Black’

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:33:22 GMT

The Woman in Black’ is a traditional ghost story that has a slow start, but the setting, sound and a solid performance by Daniel Radcliffe creates a film with an interesting story filled with tension and frights. This review does not discuss major plot points, so no worries about spoilers.

The film is set in the early 20th century, during a time when the automobile was new and séances were endorsed by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) lives in London and has to travel to a remote village to settle the affairs of a recently deceased client. The village is murky, wet, foggy and sullen. The village is remote and electricity is unavailable, so the filtered sun and candles are the sources of light. The sun is hidden behind a thick veil of overcast clouds, which can be attributed to the English locale. The lack of direct sunlight gives the village and its residents a dour appearance, and colors are muted; the film is so drained of color that it feels like a black-and-white movie. The use of the weather and other natural elements allows for moments of confusion in the fog and makes deep and black shadows, where vengeful things dwell and fester. The setting of the film provokes a sense of foreboding that is perfect for a ghost story.

Another key factor in establishing the tone is the house. Saying the house is remote is an understatement. The house is outside of the village on an island in the marsh. The tides block the solitary road to the house, so for long stretches of time, one is cut off from civilization. The house is shot from a low angle, making it tower over everything and infusing a sense of dread into the film. Filled with cobwebs, mounted animal heads, and dolls, the house screams, “There’s a ghost inside!” Knowing this only intensifies the tension that continually builds throughout the film.

The story is about Arthur Kipps, and he is a man wallowing in desperation. He is still distraught over the death of his wife. Being a single father who is battling depression has brought him to a point of losing of his job. He has to complete the task assigned to him or he will be fired, and this explains Arthur’s insistence about staying on at the village and going to the house. Radcliffe’s demeanor and the haunted, wounded look in his eyes express Arthur’s state of fear of losing everything since he has so little left. Radcliffe uses his slender body well. Arthur carries the weight of death and grief, so he rarely stands or walks with confidence, and Radcliffe draws in all the energy, appearing smaller than he actually is. There are scenes when Arthur has bursts of life and urgency, but to discuss those scenes in detail would reveal plot, and knowing the plot of this film robs the impact of the scares.

Many have wondered if Daniel Radcliffe can carry a film post-‘Harry Potter.’ He can. Loss is common in both characters, but Arthur’s reaction to his circumstances is completely different than Harry’s. I never thought of ‘Harry Potter’ during this entire film. I only saw Arthur, and this demonstrates that Radcliffe, if he makes the right choices, has a long film career ahead of him.

Sound is used very well. There are long stretches of quiet that heighten the suspense. Music comes in at the right moments and is not intrusive. The sound, setting, and Radcliffe’s performance come together to tell a ghost story that had me clutching my armrest. This film reminds me of old Vincent Price movies; the film is scary without being gory or vulgar. So if you are in the mood for a creepy and chilling time at the movies, then ‘The Woman in Black’ is a film you should see.