- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Featured Post
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
With this weekend's release of his first post-Potter movie, I would imagine that Daniel Radcliffe has one goal in mind and it has nothing to do with how good Woman in Black is or how much money it makes. Radcliffe just has to get rid of the Potter that insists on tagging on to his name as a preposition, adjective or whatever!
So far the critics are fairly lukewarm - the Rotten Tomatoes rating is 63% - the public is kinder with 73% - but most blame the filmmaker as opposed to Radcliffe. They call his performance 'solid' while also drawing attention to the fact that he is a bit young for the part - he plays a widow with a four year old son.
On the other hand, the box office is being reported at $8.8 million opening with $20million expected for the weekend. Much better than anyone suspected was possible!
The movie, based on Susan Hill's book, is also praised for its production design and spooky atmospherics. It takes place in Victorian England. Here's what Todd McCarthy, who weighs in on the plus side, says in The Hollywood Reporter
This first production to bear the venerable Hammer imprint since 1979 so enjoyably revives the old dark house trappings of deep shadows, creepy noises, haunted attics, unwelcoming villagers, now-you-see-them-now-you-don't apparitions and shrieking music cues pegged to startling cuts that it makes them seem new again, or at least so they'll seem to the gaggle of young Daniel Radcliffe fans who have rarely, if ever, experienced them before. Curiosity about the actor's first adult screen role and first part since leaving Hogwarts behind should ensure healthy returns for the CBS Films release. And the good news is that the former Harry Potter carries the film quite capably.
Have any of you seen it? Would love to know if I should see it although even more than crying in a movie theatre, I am really embarassed about screaming!
Apparently there is a two-character London stage play also based on the 1982 book which has been running since 1989! It's the second-longest-running play in the history of the West End, after The Mousetrap. Have any of my UK readers seen it????
So far the critics are fairly lukewarm - the Rotten Tomatoes rating is 63% - the public is kinder with 73% - but most blame the filmmaker as opposed to Radcliffe. They call his performance 'solid' while also drawing attention to the fact that he is a bit young for the part - he plays a widow with a four year old son.
On the other hand, the box office is being reported at $8.8 million opening with $20million expected for the weekend. Much better than anyone suspected was possible!
The movie, based on Susan Hill's book, is also praised for its production design and spooky atmospherics. It takes place in Victorian England. Here's what Todd McCarthy, who weighs in on the plus side, says in The Hollywood Reporter
This first production to bear the venerable Hammer imprint since 1979 so enjoyably revives the old dark house trappings of deep shadows, creepy noises, haunted attics, unwelcoming villagers, now-you-see-them-now-you-don't apparitions and shrieking music cues pegged to startling cuts that it makes them seem new again, or at least so they'll seem to the gaggle of young Daniel Radcliffe fans who have rarely, if ever, experienced them before. Curiosity about the actor's first adult screen role and first part since leaving Hogwarts behind should ensure healthy returns for the CBS Films release. And the good news is that the former Harry Potter carries the film quite capably.
Have any of you seen it? Would love to know if I should see it although even more than crying in a movie theatre, I am really embarassed about screaming!
Apparently there is a two-character London stage play also based on the 1982 book which has been running since 1989! It's the second-longest-running play in the history of the West End, after The Mousetrap. Have any of my UK readers seen it????
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps