Quote:
Originally Posted by Scissorman
I was promised this mind-blowing, completely new and original approach to the complete horror genre, but I ended up checking on imdb if it was the right movie. Sadly, it was.
|
That does seem a bit exaggerated. I wouldn't call it a completely original approach as I think it uses all those tired clichès. It just does it in a very self-conscious and somewhat parodic way.
It's like calling Shaun of the Dead a completely original approach to the zombie genre. I don't think so - again all the clichès were there, it was just refreshingly humorous.
I can see how it could only disappoint if those were your expectations.
edit :
The Woman in Black
On a different note, I've seen the new Woman in Black starring Daniel Radcliffe or however his name is spelled. I'm already quite fond of the made-for-TV movie from 1989 which was both spooky and engaging and so of course I can't help compare the two. What the new one has is that modern big budget polish and all the scary things are definitely spooky. I feel sorry for the little kids who saw this because their favorite Harry Potter actor is in it because it has some very effective scares. However, that's about it, I think. Compared to the old film, this is very one dimensional. The soundtrack and general mood is always dark and spooky, even when there's nothing wrong going on. There's just no light here to deepen the shadows and that sort of one dimensionality feels fake in a way. The world is not like that. Neither is the old movie which feels more real as a result.
I also felt that the dramaturgy worked much better in the old film. There are a couple of things I can point out that I think were better in the old, but I guess I should do so in spoilers :
Spoiler for The Woman in Black, old and new:
In this new version, protagonist Arthur Kipps is a widower and the movie starts with him contemplating suicide. The old Arthur Kidd (slight namechange) was a struggling family man, married with children. He was not suicidal. The new Arthur Kipps has less to lose - so what if he dies? He's already suicidal. Overall, I worried more about what would happen to the old Arthur Kidd.
Another thing I like a lot about the old is that while working in the haunted house, the old Arthur Kidd records the story of his work on wax tubes which was an early recording medium. The film is made so that he himself becomes the narrator of his own horror story, sharing his terror with the viewer. This worked very well and was highly effective, but for some strange reason, it seems they didn't want to do that in the new movie.
Finally, in the old film, Arthur does make it back to London and tries to get back to his old life while hoping for his dear life that all the horrors are behind him. Of course they aren't. That terrible sense of overhanging doom is gone from the remake as Arthur never makes it back to London.
Add to it more unbelievable stuff like a very exaggerated psychic character and it was a worse movie overall. Still, it was entertaining and worth watching for horror movie buffs.
This one-dimensionality (as I call it) is a real plague in horror films these days. I get tired from people wanting me to be scared all the time. It's like if there's a children's birthday in a horror film these days, they set the mood in such a way that you'll think there's a killer clown hiding in the cake. Personally, I just get tired of it. A movie is more vibrant and believable if happy occasions are presented as happy and spooky as spooky and sad as sad, etc.