With the exception of a few movies here and there, I generally avoid motion pictures in the horror genre. Something like Vampires and Lycans is okay, but dead people popping out at me with sinisterly loud music flaring up in the background always results in my screaming and covering my eyes, no matter how stupid the scene may be. One of the main reasons I try to avoid this category is that nowadays directors and writers seem to have misplaced the definition of “scary” with the definition of “gory”. Thankfully, that isn’t the case with the movie my friend and I went to see just a couple nights ago.
I know Harry Potter and the Haunted House The Woman in Black has been out for a while now, but I only just saw it recently. My sudden urge to go see this wasn’t actually brought about by wanting to see it, so much as it was the only thing playing that I thought I would be remotely interested in. My distaste for horror was coupled by my friend hating me for the nightmares this movie caused her, and the two of us did sit near the front row, clutching each other in fear.
I feel as though “fear” is a bad word, because while I may scare easily, I found that whenever I could bring myself to look at the supposed scary parts I immediately burst out laughing every time. Sure, there were a few good jump scares, like the scene in the window, and the only part that I found to be really frightening was when Harry Potter, now called Arthur Kipps, sees all the dead children standing out in the rain in front of the haunted house.
Though this movie did scare me, that means nothing, as I scare easily, but I did like how it broke away from the haunted house every once in a while to focus on the town and what effects the ghosts have on the villagers. In the end, though, the reasoning behind Kipps going to the house every night seemed pretty flimsy. I know that he needed to look over all the paperwork, so why didn’t he just carry it all back to his room and work there? Did he really need to stay overnight in a big creepy house?
And let’s talk about the house. In the world of movies, I feel as though some people plan to come back and murder everyone after they die. I couldn’t help but think the entire movie, “who the hell builds a house in such an inconvenient and dangerous location?” Then, I thought, “did the owners of this house go out of their way to make it look that bleak in life, or… hey, I think we sell that frame on the wall where I work. Huh, small world.”
I’ve certainly seen worse scary movies than this. At least I wasn’t laughing the whole time, but while I did get scared, I wasn’t actually experiencing nightmares after seeing this, either. Jump scares are what frighten me, but I always thought horror movies should be scary for other reasons outside of a face quickly appearing in the window and screaming at the audience while the music does its best to drown out all other sounds.
I think I was partly distracted during this movie because of the actor himself. No, he wasn’t Harry Potter in this, and I didn’t wait for him to just expecto patronum the ghost away. But while Radcliffe played someone much younger than himself in Harry Potter, he kind of has the opposite problem here. I realize that this takes place a good hundred years ago, but he still felt a little young to be a parent, and his height compared to the other adults doesn’t help his case. I do like him in the role, however. I think he did a good job with what he was given, and maybe someday he’ll be able to live down the role of Harry Potter. I’m sure that if he keeps this up, he’ll get there eventually.
Overall, though, I think the movie has a good setting. The atmosphere is nice for what they were going for. I just expected more from a horror film. You know, like being really scared of it.