Most Anticipated Movies of 2012!

Well this year will mark the end of human kind as we know it. Damn those Mayans! So looks like I only have one more year of movies left to enjoy myself with! 2012 has a lot of big movies...so here are my most anticipated flicks of our final year on Earth!

The Dark Knight Rises
July 2012

It goes without saying, The Dark Knight was one of the best movies of 2008 and personally, it's one of my favorite movies of all time. It was HUGE at the box office, and I fully expect this film to break some box office records when it is released in July. The film will be without Heath Ledgers Joker for obvious reasons, and that was an aspect of The Dark Knight that got a LOT of attention. Ledger had died a few months before the film's release so that created some major buzz and it won him a posthehumous Academy Award and deservedly so, because he was spectacular. Now we have Tom Hardy as Bane and we also get Anne Hathaway as Catwoman and Joseph Gordon Levitt is in here too. Christopher Nolan is back as director so on paper and judging by the epic trailer, this is going to a power house of a film, and I cannot wait.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
(Part One)

December 2012

There is perhaps no movie I have been looking forward to more thank this one. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is probably my favorite movies of all time. There was a time when Peter Jackson was not signed on to make this film due to some legal issues, but thank God that's solved and he is in fact doing the films. I'm a total nerd for these movies and I still have to wait until freaking December to see it, but I must be patient. Ian McKellan is back as Gandalf and the ubber talented Andy Serkis is back as Gollum. There are more returning cast members as well as a slew of newbies. This movie will be beautiful and epic and I'm SO looking forward to this adventure!!

Silent House
March 2012
I'm sure it won't be good, and maybe you are thinking it's silly to look forward to some random horror movie, but the movie looks good, I'm sorry. It's based off a foreign film that came just a year or so ago of the same title. It's about a father and daughter who become trapped and terrorized in their vacation home. It looks sort of like The Strangers in a way, and they even say it's inspired by true events. Which is a marketing tactic, because it was probably very loosely based off several events that once happened. However, the cool gimmick to this movie is that they claim the entire 85 minute running time is all in one continuous take. Which means it's done with one camera and never once cuts. So it all one fluid, 85 minute long shot done in real time. To me, that seem pretty damn cool. The film this is based off did the same thing. Are they tricking us or is it legit? Who knows and who cares, I'll be there to see it.

Jeff Who Lives At Home
March 2012
I just saw this trailer the other day and I think it looks really good! It's not summer blockbuster obviously, but those aren't the only movies I look forward too. It's about a deadbeat son who lives with his mom who spends the day with his more successful brother as they follow his potentially adulterous wife around town. It looks like a dark comedy and it has Jason Segel and Ed Helms (both known for their funny man abilities). Also stars Susan Surandon and Judy Greer.

Mirror Mirror

March 2012

Don't you dare laugh at me! I know how silly it sounds for me to look forward to this movie. Only reason being it looks similar to the Amy Adams film Enchanted and I loved that movie. I don't honestly expect to like this flick, but I will go see it. It looks like Julia Roberts is trying to get back in the game after not really being in much of anything lately.

The Avengers
May 2012

Well we have seen all the set up films: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America, and now it's time to put them all in one film and watch a bunch of cool stuff happen. I was a big fan off all the lead up movies with the exception of Captain America which bored me to death. This film looks pretty awesome though. I'm not normally one who nerds out over comic book movies, but I am looking forward to this one. Should make a grip of money.

The Dictator
May 2012

Sacha Baron Cohen is back to his weirdo ways with The Dictator. Look, I know this movie will probably be dumb as hell, but honestly it looks really freaking funny. So you bet your patootie will be in that theater when it comes out. I was a big fan of Borat, gross as it was, it was damn hilarious. Hoping this one does not disappoint, because I love to laugh.



Dark Shadows
May 2012

I actually don't know much about this movie and haven't seen any trailers for it. All I know is, it has Johnny Depp and it is directed by Tim Burton. That tandem rarely lets us down. It's about vampires, witches, monsters, etc. Has a large ominous mansion as the backdrop...stuff I life. So I'm very interested to see how this one turns out.



Men in Black III
May 2012

I loved the first movie, and really did not like the second movie. So I don't really know what to think of this new one. I think it looks pretty good, more on par with the first movie. I think since it's been a long time, they've had time to regroup and get back on track so hopefully we will see a solid movie this time. Fingers crossed.



Prometheus
June 2012

A movie about the possible discovery of the origins of mankind, directed by Ridley Scott and stars Charlize Theron and Patrick Wilson. It's rumored to have some ties to the Alien series and possibly even Bladerunner. So that should be interesting. I haven't seen a full trailer for this film either, so I don't know a ton about it. Sounds like a cool idea though and it has a reliable director, could be good.



Brave
June 2012

Well Pixar appeared to have had their first bomb with Cars 2 in 2011. I didn't see it, it's the only Pixar movie I didn't see. We are all hoping that it was a one time slip up because Pixar makes some genuinely amazing movies for the whole family. To be honest, Brave doesn't look like that stong of a movie to me, but I'm still very much looking forward to it. I won't let one mistake by Pixar taint their image forever. It's their first movie with a female charcter as the hero, so they are making a ballsy switchup.

The Amazing Spiderman
July 2012

I still don't understant why they are rebooting a very profitable film series that just came out a few years ago. The old movies are still very fresh in our mind. I loved Spiderman 1 and 2 but really hated Spiderman 3. It doesn't mean they have to start all over again for goodness sakes. At any rate, I'm still looking forward to see this one, and see if they Dark Knight it up by making it a more dark story. I have a slight crush on Andrew Garfield as well...so I won't mind seeing him zip around in that spidey suit. Our little secret though.

I'm sure there are more movies coming out later in the year I will want to see, but they aren't all listed yet or don't have release dates. But for now, this is a pretty solid list of upcoming flicks I can't wait to see!

2012 Oscar Nominee Reviews & Predictions

The 2012 Oscars seem to be big on celebrating the movies. The two big front runners in the best picture race seem to be the black and white, silent film "The Artist" a film about the transition from silent films to the talkies and "Hugo" a film about the general invention of cinema. The other 7 nominees can probably just be honored to nominated at this point. But no matter which way you cut it, this will more than likely be the year of "The Artist". It has slowly become the awards juggernaut and I can't see how any film, even "Hugo" or the ever so popular "The Help" can bring it down. I've seen 7 or the 9 best picture nominees and I thought it might be fun to do a mini review on each of them. The film's I have not see are: "War Horse" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" (A movie that no one, fans or critics, seemed to like at all so this nominee is a bit of a surprise). Anyway, these won't be in depth reviews, just a simple take on what I thought.

"The Artist" - I'm pretty sure this is the first silent film I've ever seen. I didn't know how this experience would go, but after seeing this film, I'm glad I "suffered" through it. It's amazing to me that so much emotion and character can be brought out without uttering a single word. It has a wonderfully charming story as well. It's about a vibrant silent film star who is pushed out of the business when the talkies are born and a young new female star takes the spotlight. The movie manages to be sweet, funny, sad, and full of energy and it's all conveyed through the actors facial expressions and actions. It's a beautiful film and certainly deserving of it's nomination and I can see why it will probably win this year. Not my choice though.  MY GRADE: A

"The Descendants" - For a while, George Clooney looked to be the favorite for best actor and this film was the one to beat for Best Picture. Those hopes have all but faded with the recent surge of The Artist. That being said, I really liked this film and I can honestly say I'm not the biggest fan of the Cloonster. The film is pretty dark but has some great subtle comedic moments. The story is about a man who lives in Hawaii with his two daughters and has to deal with his wife dying from a boating accident. He's also the main trustee on a piece of land that he is trying to sell and also has to learn about his wife cheating on him while she's in this coma. So yeah, it's not a happy film. Clooney is superb in the film. I've never seen him better. I loved the writing and just thought the film was great. MY GRADE: A-

"The Help" - The best part about The Help for me is the incredibly lovable and engaging cast. Led by the fantastic Viola Davis and the adorable and funny Octavia Spencer (both who will probably win Oscars this year). It also features a wonderful performance from Jessica Chastain, Emma Stone and Bryce Dallas Howard. I was completely into the acting in the film, but I wasn't into the story all the way. Not to say the writing wasn't good, but I guess I just didn't get in to the movie as much as other people did. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this movie. But it was more of one of those one time viewing movies for me. This isn't something I could probably ever watch again. MY GRADE: B

"Hugo" - I'll go right out and say it: Hugo was the best movie of 2011 in my personal opinion. I never could imagine Martin Scorsese directing a kid friendly, PG rated, 3D movie and doing it well. But he beat the odds in a brilliant and wondrous way. I loved every single moment of Hugo. The movie is a tribute to film, especially early film. The story is so well told and this world he has created is enormous and magical and you can't help but fall in love with everyone and everything in this film. Asa Butterfield plays Hugo and such a fantastic young actor and he is helped along with the always reliable young actress Chloe Moretz. The two of them bring forth this adventure with innocence and charm and I believed them as children. Ben Kingsley is the adult male focus of the film and he carries every scene he is in. OK, I don't want to ramble to much, these are supposed to be short. But I'm telling you that I freaking LOVED this movie. LOVED it! Best movie I saw last year. I would want it to win Best Picture, but I know it won't. Shame. MY GRADE: A+

"Midnight in Paris" - This is one of those very random movies that came out early in the year that I never would have pictured as being nominated. It's a good, cute little movie but nothing about it screams best picture to me. Then again, this is a Woody Allen film, and he's been nominated over 20 times...so that is probably the answer right there. It has an odd premise. It's about a man (Owen Wilson) about to get married to a pretty terrible woman played by Rachel McAdams and they are visiting Paris. Wilson's character dreams what it would be like to live in Paris in the 20's because that's where he believes he would have belonged. Well he starts to go on some midnight strolls through the streets of Paris and somehow time warps back to the 20's and gets to meet some famous characters such as Hemingway and Gertrude Stein. It's a funny, quirky little movie and I did like it. But it's one of those movies I tend to forget about a month or so later. Just didn't pack any punch for me personally. Again, another solid one time viewing. My Grade: B-

"Moneyball" - Next to "Hugo", this was my favorite film of 2011. I'm a huge fan of baseball so going into this film, I already liked it. The movie is about the 2002 Oakland A's and their incredible run to the playoffs after Billy Beane implemented a new scouting tactic using computers and putting scouts in the back seat. Everyone believed he had lost his mind until they started winning. I already know how their season turned out and I already knew about the phenomenal 20 game winning streak (which is unheard of!) but somehow this movie still made it seem like I was watching it for the first time and it was so tense. Solid writing and directing. Brad Pitt gives his very best performance of his career in my opinion, and he would actually be my preference for Best Actor...but alas, that won't happen. Jonah Hill is also nominated for an Oscar for his role. He was very good, but I wouldn't say Oscar good. I think he's been so typecast as the fat friend funny sidekick, that when he does a serious film, and does well in it, people are just taken aback and have to give him some credit. He was very good, don't misread me. I liked him a lot in this film. He's actually the only best supporting actor nominee I've seen this year. GO JONAH! HA! But yeah, Moneyball is a brilliant movie. Loved it, loved it, loved it! MY GRADE: A+

"The Tree of Life" - I'm keeping this one short. You can call me artistically challenged or stupid, or whatever insult you want to throw my way, and I won't care. I did not like this movie. I did not get it (I understood what it was about but I mean I didn't get it as a whole if that makes sense). It was freakishly bizarre to me. I seriously wanted to walk out of the theater. I will say it had some amazing cinematograpny and some good performances even though there wasn't much talking. I'm leaving it at that. I didn't like it. Sorry art house snobs.  MY GRADE: D+

The winners are basically very predictable. In fact, here are my predictions in most of the major categories:

BEST PICTURE:
"The Artist"
    Possible Upset: "Hugo" or "The Help"

BEST DIRECTOR:
Michel Hazanavicius for "The Artist"
    Possible Upset: Martin Scorsese for "Hugo"

BEST ACTOR:
Jean Dujardin for "The Artist"
    Possible Upset: George Clooney for "The Descendants"

BEST ACTRESS:
Viola Davis for "The Help"
    Possible Upset: Meryl Streep for "The Iron Lady"

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Christopher Plummer for "Beginners" (LOCK)
    Possible Upset: Nick Nolte for "Warrior"

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
Octavia Spencer for "The Help" (LOCK)
    Possible Upset: Melissa McCarthy for "Bridesmaids" or Jessica Chastain for "The Help"

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
"The Descendants"
    Possible Upset: "Hugo"

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
"Midnight in Paris"
    Possible Upset: "The Artist"

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE:
"Rango"
    Possible Upset: "Puss in Boots"?? (No Adventures of TinTin...kind of weird)

Noticeably omitted from the Best Picture list was Bridesmaids, a movie that was nominated at the PGA and SAG Awards...usually means a Best Picture nomination. Also left off the list was Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part II.  But the Oscars once again changed their rules and were able to nominate anywhere from 5 to 10 movies. They decided to go with 9 this year and nominate a film "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" that no one seemed to remotely enjoy. You have to wonder where these things come from. But whatever, it's just a silly awards show that ultimately no one truly cares about. But I decided to kill some time and write about it. Billy Crystal is hosting this year, so it should be fun to watch.

!

2012 Review #6: Chronicle

Chronicle

Rated PG-13

1 Hour 24 Minutes

Starring
Dane DeHaan
Alex Russell
Michael B. Jordan

MY GRADE:
A

I love reading reviews for "found footage" movies and have to read how people knock them down for not having goals or solid stories. I don't think people realize that when it comes to found footage movies, typical movie format kind of goes out the window. The idea being what we are watching is raw footage from one or more cameras with a series of events that was not planned out (story wise) or edited. We are watching people experience these events for the first time just like us, the audience. Because it's a movie, there of course, has to be a point, but you should not expect a big, complicated story because as common as these films are these days, the format is still different than regular films. Point is, watch the movie with slightly different eyes and stop being so snobby for heaven's sake.

Now onto the actual film in question, Chronicle. This very well may be the biggest surprise of a movie I've seen in the past year or so. I was not expecting the movie to be this entertaining. I didn't think the idea of teenage superhero mixed with found footage could come off as fresh or original, but I was wrong. No, the hand held, shaky camera thing is not original, obviously. What I mean is, this gimmick has been done over and over and over but Chronicle managed to make it something new and cool. It wasn't just one camera the whole time. There were many cameras involved, mainly towards the end though. Also, you see characters asking the character holding the camera "why are you filming this?" a few times. After a while, the main character becomes obsessed using the camera, so it's all explained. The camera is basically a character in the film. It's used in cool ways too, because these guys have telekinesis he is able to move the camera without touching it.

The "story" here is about 3 teenagers who discover some weird underground tunnel and there is a strange glowing rock at the end. They interact with it, and next thing we know, they have these crazy powers. The main kid, Andrew played by Dane DeHaan, is constantly bullied at school and at home by his drunk abusive father. His mother is also dying a slow and painful death. He has a lot to be angry over. Anger plus these new powers does not equal anything remotely good. At first, the three teens use these powers for small, funny things. Spooking people at retail stores, moving a strangers car from one spot to another. They then learn they can fly because they can essentially move themselves. Andrew starts to become popular, but that only lasts for a moment when he is quickly humiliated and we get a very explosive final act.

Chronicle is basically a super villain/hero origin story. So it's not jam packed full of action. This is definitely primarily a story based film and most of the intense action comes in the final act. The writing here is fantastic. Obviously this is not a believable film, but the writer managed to make these characters relateable...to a certain degree. I was bullied in school, so I know how our main character felt. I can tell you that that aspect was done quite realistically. And there's nothing more gratifying then seeing him snap and get some revenge. This is like a fantasy for all kids in school who were bullied. Andrew has a great quote in the film basically saying that no one cares when you squash a fly or when the lion eats the gazelle. It's dark, but true. It really puts the film in a nutshell. This is a very dark story, it's not your typical flashy superhero movie with silly dialog. In a sense, this a story about real kids with real problems who gain a super ability and do not always use it for good. It shows that anger plus power (super or not super) is always a bad combination.

The three stars of the film are all very very good. It's nice to see young actors who are all fairly unfamiliar in the industry pull off such realistic and deep performances. Especially in a movie about super powers. They were believable as a trio of friends and acted like actual teenagers. It was Dane DeHaan though who shines here. He pulls of a very raw and almost creepy performance as the main troubled teen. I believed him, and that's important in something like this. It's not common you get any level of depth in a hand held camera film. So for me, it was totally refreshing to have that here. I mean, the movie almost comes off as one of those indy flicks that snobs like me enjoy.

This movie may not even be for everyone. I don't think this is a movie for the typical summer super hero movie going crowd. You aren't going to see scene after scene of fighting and explosions. With this movie, you have to be patient. It's about the story, and it has to unfold before you get to the big climatic fight sequence at the end. And it's a big scene. Very loud, very fast paced, very explosive and very intense. Well worth the wait in my opinion. The visual effects were really well done for the most part. I thought the scenes of them flying above the clouds were kind of silly, but it wasn't that bad. A lot of it though was really impressive. Even the little things like the bear levitating in the store (which was a funny moment!). The really cool stuff though was all the action at the end. Cars were flying everywhere, buses thrown through mid air, people flying, things go boom, helicopters are tossed around, glass shatters all over the place. It was super cool to look at.

I was thoroughly impressed with Chronicle. It was well done, has great writing, solid performances and just fun to watch. I love movies like this that just entertain the hell out of me. Chronicle was a blast, and the best movie I've seen so far in 2012.

2012 TV Spotlight: ABC's The River

I thought I might expand past movie reviews and dabble in the world of television. Considering I have no life and watch a significant amount of TV on a daily basis, when I'm not working or playing XBOX that is. Ha, it all sounds so depressing, but I enjoy it. Anyway, I wanted to comment on the new ABC horror/thriller show "The River". It was brought to us by Oren Peli (Paranormal Activity) and little known film maker Steven Speilberg has his name slapped on here with a producer credit somewhere. It stars Bruce Greenwood, Joe Anderson, Leslie Hope, Eloise Mumford, Paul Blackthorne, and Thomas Kretschmann.

The pilot episode aired on Tuesday, February 7th on ABC. The story follows a documentary crew who treck through the Amazon looking for a famous TV adventurer who went missing about six months prior on a top secret expedition. The documentary crew includes the TV hosts wife and son. Most believe all hope is lost and that the explorer and his crew are long dead, but his wife has other plans. The deeper they follow his path, the more they learn they are not dealing with a simple rescue mission. They encounter strange creatures and mysterious ghost like entities who wreak havoc on the crew.

But there is a gimmick of course. Found footage films are all the rage right now. The Blair Witch Project came out back in 1999 and the whole lost footage scenario was "cool" back then. Then there was a bit of a lull where we didn't see this. Now, we get a few films a year with this trick. Some work, some don't. That's life. TV shows are not new to the documentary style either. There are a few comedies on TV such as "The Office", "Parks & Recreation" and "Modern Family", among others that do this. None of those, however, are as dark as "The River". The show blends found footage with documentary style. The pilot episode focused more on the rescue team then it did on letting us into the footage they discovered upon the abandoned ship.

So does The River live up to the hype? I mean, they plastered "Oren Peli, creator of Paranormal Activity" and "From Executive Producer Steven Speilberg" all over the ads of this show. So you know they were trying to grab our attention and also imply that this was the new "it" show and it's going to be great. So was it? Well I've read a lot of mixed reviews on the show today. While I value all opinions, I have to agree with the people who enjoyed the pilot. I noticed that people who don't care for hand held camera work, don't typically care for shows and movies like this. To them, it seems to distract from the story and the performances, and I can understand that. I however, am completely indifferent towards the gimmick. I will never object to watching something like this based on that fact, and will not hate or like a project based on that. I tend to notice everything else, such as the writing, the acting and the overall production of the work in question.

To me, The River was a fantastic pilot episode and I was totally invested in it from the opening shot. I love the whole idea behind it. This could potentially be a "Freak of the week" type of show where the cast is terrorized by some new mysterious creature and I'm OK with that as long as they still stick to the mythology of the show. The X-Files did this brilliantly for 6 1/2 seasons. I chose to forget the last few seasons of that show. The River is something that could be chalk full of deep mystery. Some people look at this and don't think they can go to far with the story. People said they same thing a few episodes into "Lost". It's possible these days folks. But it's also not hard to fathom that this story could wrap up by the end of the 7 episode run and we get a whole new tale next season. "American Horror Story" is doing this (an amazing TV show by the way). Anyway, I'm enjoying the story so far. They didn't give away to much, but gave me enough to be thirsty for more.

As for the camera work, I thought it was well done. It wasn't even that shaky, so I don't know what people are going all crazy over. Some have mentioned how all the cameras on the boat are so conveniently placed and the audio is so crisp even though they are in the Amazon. If the camera's weren't so conveniently placed, we wouldn't have a very good show would we? Would you like all the camera's to be in more "realistic" and far away spots so that we could not see or hear what is going on? Should there not be a plethora of cameras around so that we only have the same few shots? They explained why there are so many camera's but if your looking for realism in a show about the supernatural, maybe you shouldn't be watching TV. If the unrealistic existence and placement of certain camera's is really the biggest concern, then I don't know what to tell you. Yes, I'm aware they want us to believe this as much as possible and they are the ones who threw the hand held camera gimmick at us. But they are also making a big budget TV show that they don't want to have cancelled, so a few things have to be above the norm.

I apologize for the rant. If you haven't read my reviews on the past, you should know one of by BIGGEST freaking pet peeves is when critics and movie goers throw around words like "implausible", "unrealistic" and "laughably unbelievable" to criticize a movie. To  me, those are just things said by people to make themselves sound smart to explain why they didn't like a movie. Most of the time, those can't be valid reasons, I have to believe that. You are in a theater watching a movie, or you are at home watching TV. You are watching something that already isn't in real life. The beautiful thing about film and television is it lets us immerse ourselves in far out worlds or stories so far from reality that we can forget about our problems, at least for a few hours. I find it funny that people are OK with movies like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings but when a movie about real human beings in a normal present day setting get involved in something out of this world it's completely unbelievable. They are all movies are they not? If you want reality, go watch the news or Jersey Shore. Now, if I'm watching a movie about lawyers and all of a sudden, at the end one of them starts to fly and shoot lasers out of their nose, I might laugh at that. Not for it being implausibly, but because it would be silly.

Wow, I ranted and raved again. Damn, sorry. But it's all relative to my review of The River. These are things people are saying about the show that I find funny or disagree with. But that's the beauty of opinion. We all have them, and should not judge one another for having different ones. I may not agree with people who say these things about film, but I will respect them. This is only one opinion from one man. Back to the show...I loved it. The first hour was perfect set up for the whole season, and by hour two we really got into the freakiness of the show. I hate dolls, I will say that right now. I find them to be scary as well. I don't care if that's funny to you. There is a LOT of attention towards little creepy dolls moving on their own or darting their eyes around and I found it to be quite eerie and unsettling. The far away sounds of a little girl laughing would send a shiver down anyone's spine. Was this the scariest 2 hours of television ever? Eh, no. But I don't get scared that easily...other than the doll thing. It's hard to really put the fear of God into me and give me nightmares at night. That's only because I watch stuff like this all the damn time so I'm used to it.

The show was put together really well and I for one enjoyed the cast, the performances were all really good. However, the characters themselves were all pretty flat and I didn't care for them either way. Didn't hate them, didn't like any of them either. The development wasn't all that special for these guys, which tends to happen in things like this. The focus is more on the story and the scares, and the characters take a back seat. But this has a big cast, and a few of them have some potential big personalities, so I would have liked to see more from that. But we have 6 more episodes left this season, so there is time.

So yes, I liked The River, and I look forward to seeing where it goes next week!

2012 Review #5: The Woman in Black

The Woman in Black

Rated PG-131 Hour 34 Minutes
Starring:
Daniel Radcliffe
MY GRADE:
B+

Whenever children are involved in this creepy spookfests movies, it tends to make it a bit scarier. At least for me it does. But the REALLY involve kids in the new movie The Woman in Black, and in a very disturbing way. The opening scene of the film shows three little girls playing, like little girls do, then suddenly the three of them approach a window, and jump out to their deaths. It sets a very dark and grim mood for the rest of the movie. This is not your typical, cliched haunted house flick.

This is what I call a classy ghost story. I haven't seen one like this since "The Others" back in 2001 with Nicole Kidman. The Woman in Black has a simple premise: A young lawyer is sent to collect paperwork for a recently deceased client at her home. Her home however, happens to be the largest, creepiest, manor in all the land and the towns people believe there is a curse on this house. When the young lawer, played by Daniel Radcliffer of Harry Potter fame arrives to investigate he learns that the town's children have been dying off. When he starts to investigate the house, children in town start drying in suicidal ways and the town begs him to leave and stop what he is doing at that house. He doesn't believe this at first, and he knows he has a job to get done. But then things go bump in the night in the house and one things leads to another, and he believes! Then we get that typical story of the main character looking into the past of the house to find out what's really going on and he digs to deep and gets to involved and things get personal.

OK so I won't go on about the story anymore. Just know it's not some complicated tale and yes, it derives from films we have seen before so it's not entriely original. The film though, is based off a play of the same name. We don't see anything to new with this movie, but it also isn't a copy of all other ghost movies. For instance, the vilolent nature this entity has towards children is a bit of a shocking twist for me. It adds a level of intensity that I haven't seen in a movie like this. It's also refreshing to have a horror movie that ISN'T filmed with a hand held camera. Of course, given that the film takes place well before the invention of HD cameras, it woulnd't make sense for that here. We get standard filming here though, but the creepy factor is JUST as effective, if not more. Was it scary as hell like some critics say? Well, not for me no. But what isn't scary for me, could be terrifying to others. Fact is, I see a lot of scary movies so I've become immune to jumps and spooks. It was unsettling though. The few scenes where he is walking through the house in utter silence did get a bit tense at times. They also held back on the computer effects, at least until the end, which I liked. I'm a fan of the saying "what you don't see is actually more frightening" because it's so very true.

I've heard a lot of talk about Daniel Radcliffe and people giving the director a hard time for choosing him to play the role of a lawer with a four year old son. The fact is, he's 22 years old, so it is possible for him to have a 4 year old. I think the issue people have is that he is fresh of the Harry Potter franchise where he played a teenager the entire time. The final Potter film JUST came out last summer so most movie goers can't get that out of their heads and accept that Radcliffe is going to have to do other movies now. This is his first major film release since he started doing the Potter movies back in 2001. For what it's worth, I think he did a good job leading the film. He doesn't have a ton of lines, it's more about his actions. Could a slightly older actor benefited the movie? Yeah, probably, but Radcliffe did just fine.

The movie is more about the story, and the environment, and that is why you should see the film. The whole movie has a sense of foreboding and this gloom lingers the entire time. The set design of the house was perfection. They created an atmosphere that gave off the right about of spooky without going to overboard. Movies that take place in this old timey estates in England are always so fun to watch. It makes me want to find a house like this and walk through it...but not sleep there...I'm not that crazy. Anway, I found The Woman in Black to be the almost perfect ghost movie of the year so far. The one drawback I had was that it was a tad to slow and moved a bit like molasses pouring out of a jar. Usually I'm OK with slow films, but this one seemed off in terms of pacing and I had a bit of a hard time getting into it all the way. Other than that though, this movie has a good, simple story and the creepy factor is up there. I thought The Innkeepers was maybe a better haunted house flick, but it wasn't to far off. I liked this movie as well.