Patrick Ogle

_ The Woman in Black is not a particularly memorable film. But that doesn’t mean it is a bad film either. If you walk into the theater expecting something other than what the film is you will be disappointed. If you walk in with no preconceptions and are a fan of old style ghost stories you will be entertained. The film looks good and is paced well, even if it is allowed that it is quite slow, but what really matters is Daniel Radcliffe. He makes the movie work and he does it with very little dialog, with nervous looks and a stiff, Victorian, upper lip (distinct, of course, from a Georgian or Elizabethan upper lip).

It is to be hoped that Radcliffe will take a few more shots at the genre as well. He is a solid actor and he has a certain “gravitas” about him. It is a different sort than when that term is generally used, however. He seems like one of us; he isn’t a giant of a man, he doesn’t come off as a movie star. He seems like a regular person. He is the sort of actor you want tossed into a supernatural maelstrom.

_ One of the problems with a film like this is its marketing; how it is presented in ads and trailers creates an expectation. And marketing nitwits often don’t seem to get that tricking people into a film is less desirable than just telling the truth about it. The truth about Women in Black is that it is a moody, old fashioned, slow moving ghost story. It has more “creeps” than “leaps” in it. But the film’s promotion shows a woman sitting in the theater with patrons as if to say “This movie will scare the crap out of you.”

Not even if you were five.

Again, that doesn’t mean it is bad. It does a solid job of creating a mood and a place—rural Britain in the late Victorian era (more or less). The mood is heavy, dreary and palpable. As noted, the only character that really matters, played by Radcliffe in his first post-Harry Potter role, is well developed. We know who is; he is a grieving man with a small child. His career is in tatters and his last chance is to sort through the papers of a deceased woman in an old, scary-ass house. The locals are leery of him and jittery. No one wants him there but he has no choice.

That is all we need to know. The other actors in the film are fine. They just are given very little to do. We know what is coming; we know who they are without too many details.

Some of the scenes in the house where Radcliffe moves from room to room seeing a parade of creepy scary things (man, Victorian-era parents gave their kids some spooky-ass toys) go on a little longer than they should. But really what ELSE is the movie going to do? The more detail given the sillier it would get. This never gets silly. It never seems overlong but it never quite 100 percent satisfies either.

In the past year two other horror films spring to mind when watching The Woman in Black. One of these is Don’t Be Afraid of The Dark. It features Guy Pearce and Katie Holmes (who does a fine job) and has the Guillermo Del Toro cachet as well. It is nominally better than The Woman in Black.The other is Insidious, the silly, fun, also old fashioned (but from a later period) horror film released in February 2010. While I am sure Daniel Radcliffe was paid more than Insidious’ entire budget, again, I have to say Insidious succeeds SLIGHTLY better in what it intended than The Woman in Black.

Part of the problem, and it can be debated whether this is actually a problem, is that this has been done before. Really what hasn’t? The trick is for a filmmaker to FOOL us into thinking we haven’t seen it before. That is why they make the big money. That is why we remember a film. You will be entertained by The Woman in Black but it is unlikely you will recall much about it—excluding Radcliffe.

Horror movies always require complete suspension of disbelief. Because, really, there are no vampires, ghosts, zombies or demons--with all due deference to the exorcists of the Catholic Church. To accept the premise of ANY horror movie is to step outside the bounds of reality.

But once outside of those bounds the horror movie needs to give something back. They have to creep you out, make you jump or make you think about it later when you are in bed in the dark. Insidious delivers on the first two at least. There are creepy moments and there are several “jumps.” I am also fairly sure this movie has convinced me that baby monitors are the primary mode of communication for evil entities with the living.

The music and title that bracket the film hearken back to horror films of the 50s and early 60s; think Vincent Price, think Peter Cushing, think grand ideas, hammy acting (juxtaposed against FINE acting) , grandiose ideas and low budgets. In this case you can (mostly) leave out "hammy acting." Insidious’ acting is understated and professional. They seem like real people which contrasts nicely with the more otherworldly characters.

The “other world” is where the movie sort of moves a bit into the silly. It is hard to imagine this wasn’t intentional. The “other world” itself looks a lot like the dream sequence from a Mexican soap opera. The film also has the least scary demon ever to be put on screen. He looks like someone who couldn’t remember if the casting call was for Darth Maul or an extra in Cats.

BUT, again, no way is this not consciously done. This is camp by design so accept that before you see the movie and you will be fine!  I’d say demons and ghosts and the like are always scarier when you catch just glimpses of them rather than a clear look (especially when you want to keep the budget down). That is also when Insidious makes you jump. You do not jump when you see a puppet-loving demon sharpening his (or her) claws while listening to Tip Toe through the Tulips (although that song creeps me out on its own). You jump when you hear loud bangs, when forms slip by in the background or when ghosts (or whatever) appear for a split second. It is those sorts of things that, in real life, make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. It is the same in the movies.

The early part of the movie recalls (for obvious reasons) the Paranormal Activity films.  There is creaking. There are shadows. But UNLIKE the two "Paranormal" movies, Insidious moves on from this rather quickly and into ghouls of a more corporeal sort.  You see them in the background and then BAM; they are in your face. Some of the creepiest parts of the film are, literally, snapshots the characters look at.  I wouldn't frame any of those family pics in my house if I wanted to be able to sleep again.

The movie doesn’t try to explain the rules of the supernatural much. That is mostly a good thing. Knowing specifically how a demon can be defeated is a good thing in a movie.  But it can also be bad. When the explanations are stupid you wind up with Poltergeist 3. They can also be long winded. So, unless you have a succinct, coherent set of rules? Leave that shit OUT.

Insidious delivers on the basics of horror and gives a little more with the use of ACTORS. I tremble to think of this movie with a cast incapable of understated performances. I also tremble to think of it with writers who felt the need to explain everything or directors/producers who felt that they needed to have a JUMP every ten seconds instead of allowing tension to build. In this movie sometimes you get wound up and nothing happens, which makes the next time, when something DOES go bump in the night, seem much more alarming.

And the bumps are not all in the night. I liked the fact that the ghosts were daytime active too. Why wouldn’t supernatural beings that can astral project come out during the day? That always sounded like bullshit to me in ghost stories, reflecting our fear of darkness. Why would our disembodied souls be the opposite of US? I make too much of this but I am pedantic. What can I say?

In most ways Insidious gives all you can ask in a horror movie (but not in ALL ways). The self-conscious kitsch may not appeal to all.  But you probably will jump here and there, catch references to other recent horror films here and there and learn a tad more about how not to dress as a demon next Halloween.

Last weekend I went to see the film Red. I didn’t write anything on it because it really only made me think of two things. First I thought of how my love for Mary Louise Parker is undimmed despite what appears to be extensive “work.” I think I love her voice or something like that. Second, I thought about how I pitied movie reviewers who had to write about a film like Red. There is just so little there: so little humor, so little plot, so little action and so little room for good actors to spread their wings.

So I gave it a miss.

This weekend I saw Paranormal Activity 2. I was inspired, sitting in the theater to think of an old Crosby, Stills & Nash song.

“Teach, your children well, teach them to shut the fuck up in the movie theater…”

It goes something like that right?

I do not mind people screaming in a horror movie. I do not mind the odd “Oh my God!!!” But I do mind “talk talk talk….giggle giggle giggle…talk talk talk…giggle giggle giggle” through the entire movie. When something happened there was even louder talking and giggling. Hell, I would even be less irked if I hadn’t seen that the kids were with their friggin PARENTS. They irritated my 13 year old so it isn’t just old fogey-ism (not that old fogeys cannot be irritating too. I also saw Hereafter in an audience full of geriatrics some of whom were incessantly hacking things up).

Paranormal Activity 2 doesn’t make a big mistake that other sequels of low budget films often make. It doesn’t try to go too far beyond the first. It is a unique sort of prequel/sequel that dispenses with unnecessary dialog. Most films would feel the need to explain what is happening which is totally pointless. Most of the audience have seen the first film and do not need much explanation. Even if you haven’t seen #1 you will get what is going on pretty quick (unless you have never seen a horror movie). It is sort of surprising that mainstream audiences like this movie, or the first one, because they are so subtle. No zombie with blood spewing from its mouth leaps out and bites off anyone’s face in this film. There are no vampires languidly pondering their immortality while fighting werewolves. The scares are more spine tingling. You see a door move. You see a shadow creep over a sleeping girl. You hear loud BANGS that cannot be explained.

I also marvel at the use of a very young child in this film. It must have required extraordinary patience to shoot the scenes with the child alone. Everyone who has been around a young child will feel a chill because kids that age do stare off at things that are “not there” all the time. Who KNOWS what they are reeeallly looking at!

A movie with this basic plot could easily turn into Poltergeist 5, The Spawning. It doesn’t. It maintains its rather slow pace throughout. It ends and leaves room for an immediate sequel without having to do back flips with the plot. Paranormal Activity 2 isn’t the scariest film I have seen in the past few years (that honor goes to the Spanish film, Rec. I broke my TOE watching that movie). But it is a rare horror sequel that changes from its predecessor subtly but remains true to the vision of that film. I am curious as to what the third installment brings because it cannot be more of the same; for one how do you, for a third time, justify the presence of cameras? Maybe it could be a documentary about the various disappearances?

Regardless I am looking forward to finding out.

On the weekend when Social Network appeared (and I am a big Aaron Sorkin fan), I went to see Case 39, which turns out to be a fairly tough movie to write about. Even getting an impression of the movie that remains with you, a day later is tough. And this isn’t because it is bad.

It is a slow moving, old fashioned, suspense movie that is reasonably well acted. Renee Zellweger does a very good job as the social worker trying to do the right thing. Most of the other grown-ups are not given a great deal to do (except die). But Jodelle Ferland, as Lilith, the troubled young girl is very good. In one particular scene with Bradley Cooper, she makes the hair of on the back of your neck stand up. That scene is the best in the movie and points out some of the movie’s big issues. One of these issues is the insertion of several disconnected “by the numbers horror movie” scenes that are yawn inducing.

Hornets coming out of a guy’s nose? Not scary. Steely-eyed, soulless pre-teen, scaring the piss out of Bradley Cooper? Scary. Ferland is an excellent young actress who will hopefully be doing more than just horror films like this, Silent Hill and an upcoming appearance in the Twilight series.

And then there is the jump from “disbelief” to “belief” in this movie. People go from not believing there is anything supernatural going on to feeling murder is justifiable based on static-y phone calls.

There is no attempt to establish supernatural rules. What can a vampire not do? How do you kill it? We all know-- stake to the heart, chop off the head. Everyone is aware vampires do not like garlic or holy water. But what about ghosts, demons, possessed people? They can read minds? Is it all the time? What is their weakness? How do they do their evil? If they can smash one door to splinters why not all doors?  If they need to call some people on the phone to get to them or need to hear a person’s fears to do the same, why not ALL people? It is the little things that make a tolerable horror movie good or a good one great.

This film is somewhere between tolerable and good and if they had kept this a little less Hollywood they could have made it really creepy. Some of the CGI stuff looked pretty silly. Remember Angel Heart? Where, at the end, they make Robert Deniro’s eyes glow, just because they think some portion of the audience might be too stupid to have realized yet that he is the Devil? There is some of that in this film, especially in the final scene. If the evil creature in question had retained its habitual form it might well have added a disturbing ambiguity to the film.

One thing that is really irritating is how misleading the previews are. Even after the release they seem to include statements that are not in the movie. Before the release the previews included clips that wound up on the cutting room floor. Misdirection previews are fine but lord; I hate the ones that include cut footage.