Daniel Radcliffe plays lawyer Arthur Kipps. Leaving his son behind in London, the widower travels to a remote English village to settle the affairs of Alice Drablow. Ms. Drablow may have shuffled off this mortal coil but the locals are convinced she still haunts her old house. Worse, because she still mourns her son Nathaniel, a toddler who drowned on her estate, whenever she is seen, a village child dies.
Richard: ****
Mark: ** 1/2
Richard: Mark, I really like haunted house movies and as haunted houses go, this is a doozy. It’s remote, old and rambling. Doorknobs turn by themselves, faces appear in windows and there are stuffed monkeys and creepy Victorian children’s wind-up toys everywhere. With toys like this to play with it’s a wonder Victorian kids weren’t scared half-out-of-their-minds all the time. Did this movie creep you out?
Mark: Creep me out? Definitely. The movie is a masterpiece of atmospheric dread. It’s not so much about what happens onscreen, but what is about to happen onscreen. Let’s face it, there’s something creepy about Victorians to begin with. Did it scare me? No, I just don’t have a fear of the supernatural. And although I loved the look and feel of the film, with its peeling paint and fog that you can sense at the nape of your neck, the creaky plot, reminiscent of those remakes of Japanese ghost films of the mid-90′s, did not excite me. But let’s talk about the 800 lb wizard in the room, Mr Radcliffe. Richard, was this film a good choice for him?
RC: Well, once again Radcliffe finds himself butting heads with the supernatural. It’s not exactly Harry Potter Meets the Woman in Black, but it’s almost as entertaining and I think it will act as a smooth transition from child star to adult. He’s giving people what they want, a heroic figure, like Harry, but one with added dimensions -he’s a widower and a troubled soul who finds a new lease on life through adversity. A smallish gothic horror film might not have been the obvious choice for Radcliffe’s coming out party, but it was a good one.
MB: I’m glad he chose a film so very British to do; it keeps him true to his roots. But if there’s any doubt we’re dealing with a true star whose talents will last, it’s Radcliffe’s 20 minute dialogue-free set piece in the middle of the movie. He holds our attention with only his physical presence and expressions. Impressive, don’t you think?
RC: He really anchors the film. It’s difficult not to see Harry Potter in his face but here he takes a good stride to step away from the typecasting of his most successful role.
MB: Loved Radcliffe, loved the meticulous direction; just wished the storyline weren’t so thin and derivative
