The Woman in Black - wait, I saw a play called that once...

So here we go then, Daniel Radcliffe's post-Potter film career starts here with a Hammer films adaptation of the popular horror novel and play 'Woman in Black'. Unless you've been a in a cultural backwater for over a decade now, you'll know Radcliffe from his role as the wand-toting teenager Harry Potter. With the final film out of the way last year it's time for the lad to move his career on. I can't think of another young actor who as ever been as type cast as Radcliffe must be right now. I'm not sure that ever in the history of film has anyone been cast into such a well-known role at such a young age, and then spent a decade of his formative years playing the same character across 8 feature length movies.  The world has literally watched Radcliffe go through puberty on screen. If he can get on with the rest of his life in any sort of normal way it will be a minor triumph for him.

His first major role after Potter is an interesting one for him. I can imagine the thought-processes of him and any advisers he has - get away from the fantasy genre & play a non-teenager. Hammer films might traditionally sit in the fantasy genre, but not here as The Woman in Black is a ghost story similar in feel and setting to the recent 'The Awakening'. Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps, a young man eager to prove his worth to his firm by travelling to the spooky reaches of the English North East to sort out the estate of the isolated house of a deceased family. Certainly not an awkward teenage character by any means. Kipps spends time at Eel Marsh house and has a variety of other-worldy encounters, eventually becoming convinced that the dead ex-resident Jennet Drablow is the mysterious Woman in Black - who haunts the house and kills local children.

There's a way to make a horror film and I am surprised that whoever had the vision for this doesn't seem to get it. Surprised since the film was made by Hammer studios - who are sort of well-known for horror films. The biggest problem that a horror film can have is if it isn't scary, and endless scenes of Daniel Radcliffe tiptoeing around a house with things going bump isn't particularly frightening. From the first time we see the Woman in Black, it's obvious she's a ghost, there's no mystery. For all the too-ing and fro-ing around the house, the bumps, the lights going out, the rocking chair and unexplained gusts of air, at no point does Kipps seem like he's in any danger. If he was that worried wouldn't he run out of the house or something? All he does is carry on wandering around waiting for the next weird thing to happen. And when the guy who's actually in the haunted house isn't scared enough to try to get out of it, I'm not scared either.

What of Daniel Radcliffe's performance then? I thought he does very well and I think that overall he is a pretty good actor. I guess the people who cast him as Harry Potter over 10 years ago now knew their stuff. It's a shame then that he is miscast in this film. I can believe that he is a young man trying to make a name for himself at his new firm, but I struggle to believe that he is a father of a 5(?) year old boy. When he's interacting with his son in the film's opening scenes you can't help but think about how he's nowhere near old enough to have a child of that age. It's an unnecessary reminder that you're watching an actor playing a role, which only serves to undercut the character's set up and make it a less-effective horror. Having said all this though, Radcliffe is a good actor and I expect his post-Potter career to be full of plenty of good work.

The film doesn't work anywhere near as well as the stage adaptation of the original novel, it's neither as atmospheric or frightening and has a pretty weak ending (in my opinion). For that the film suffers and probably shouldn't have been made. Radcliffe on the other hand looks like he has a big career in acting if he wants to grasp it. I think he just needs to be a little cleverer about the roles he accepts in the future.