A disappointing post-Potter debut from Radcliffe, barely breathing in this musty, creaky chiller.
It seems that as soon as the movie started previewing in America, the negative reviews came in. I am really not surprised. We're used to horror films that have blood, gore and a monster in them. It's like we're desensitized to anything else. So, for a horror movie to not have a monster, blood or guts-and only gives you freaky chills, it's like it's nothing.
Feb 4 - 12:18 PM
The movie is a bit slow in the beginning, but that is just to give Potter some acting room I believe. So I will let that go. Still this movie puts itself out there as a scary movie, then therefore that should be the attempt. I guess I've seen so many of the same, so this movie probably was dead on arrival for me as far as the fear attempt.
There were many random parts in the movie that will definitely get your attention, but that's mostly because of the volume will be turned to the max at that given moment. Then I had quickly adjusted and peeled away the movie for what it was. A waist of time and money. I'm not one of those people that need monsters and blood and such to appreciate the film, but at least lengthen the scare tactics and expand the environment. I actually loved the environment. The mansion was rather detailed and creepy looking, and it's location was amazing to me. Yet throughout the film, Potter continued to explore the same areas over and over, which made the movie so confined and if only he had explored a bit more of the creepy environment I would have appreciated it a bit more. The story is what kept the film interesting, and the idea of the woman in black is what I came to see, but her face is the most of what I've seen, and the rest was over in a blink of an eye. Basically there were many build ups to fear but then it stops and says "Sike!" Hollywood is taking our money. Curse you t.v. commercials with your tempting movie trailers.
Feb 7 - 11:25 AM
Who is "Potter"? Do you mean actor Daniel Radcliffe? Or the character Arthur Kipp whom he plays?
Feb 13 - 09:38 PM
He means Harry Potter. The role Radcliffe had prior to this film. A film series that grossed almost $8 billion in total. That Potter.
Can't believe you've never heard of Harry Potter.
Feb 15 - 01:01 PM
I don't think you should assume he hasn't heard of Potter. He may just be being facetious, since it's pretty facetious to call Radcliffe Potter in the first place anyway.
Pro tip Michael C: Spelling errors make your entire pseudo-intellectual post look a whole lot less pseudo-intellectual.
Feb 20 - 11:42 AM
I'm a huge fan of Radcliffe. I've seen him in all of the Harry Potter movies. I think I've seen each one at least 4 or five times each. I have quite a few dvd's as well. I've paid my way into the theaters, so I think I can call him whatever I want. I can call him Billy Bob if that suddenly roles off my tongue.lol.
About the spelling errors, give me a break. I barely have any or enough to say I'm dumb as a door nail. Not one of you that responded to my comment actually commented on the movie except "Stelios P" which makes me think you haven't see it yet and just love trolling.
In my next comments I will do a serious spell check so that the readers avoid getting angry and turn into the incredible "---"
Thought I was going to say Hulk? You fill in the blanks.
Feb 24 - 07:38 PM
I agree with Michael C about the location. The site and mansion the movie was filmed in couldn't be better. As for Mr. Radcliffe, I personally quite liked his performance, which I found emotionally charged as well as a good guide through this metaphysical world of the director's imagination. I was quite impressed frankly.
Feb 11 - 03:24 AM