Ace of Spades HQ

February 25, 2012

Woman In Black Review
— Ace

The bad: You've seen it all before.

The good: Some things are just plain scary, no matter how many times you've seen 'em.

Three Stars.

The Woman in Black is comfort-food horror. Even though the point of horror is to make the audience feel unsettled and uneasy, the film is oddly comforting for feeling so familiar.

Imagine, off the top of your head, the things you might expect to see in a Victorian-era Gothic ghost story movie, and they're all here. Isolated, crumbling mansion in a remote location? Check. Local villagers who are strangely unfriendly and determined that the hero go away as quickly as possible? Check. Creepy old photographs? Check. Creepy mechanical toys and even creepier dolls? Check.

The rocking-chair-rocking-by-itself gag? Creepy children? Young lawyer sent on mission to isolated, creepy location? Suicide by hanging? Scary threats written in blood beneath the wallpaper? Exploration armed with candle and hatchet? Check check check check check.

Cliches? They're cliches only when they're misused. When they're used right, they're classics for a reason.

There's something just fun about a ghost story set turn-of-the-century England that wins a lot of immediate goodwill (like seeing old-timey trains chugging across the moors), and that goodwill is not strained, because within thirty minutes you're up to you eyeballs in serious scariness.

(An extra bit of goodwill got earned when I saw the "HAMMER" production credit- - apparently this is a (revived?) Hammer Studios effort. I doubt "Hammer Studios" existed, in the current age, as more than a zombie franchise brand-name to be bought by a new company, but seeing "HAMMER" on a horror film has a certain attraction for horror fans. In this case, it's very nice branding, because if there's going to be a British horror studio called Hammer this is the kind of film they should be doing.)

The plot is so simple and traditional it barely merits mention: A young lawyer named Arthur Kipps is still broken by the death of his wife, raising his four year old son alone. Apparently his prolonged grieving has cost him on the job, because his unpleasant and imposing boss (Roger Allam) tells him that he's about to be fired, but has one more chance to prove he's more to the firm than a mere "passenger." He'll have to travel to the north of England to a mansion in order to go through the paperwork of an old widow who just died, to ensure the draft of the will they're executing is in fact her final will.

Two trains later and he's in a cold, rainy hamlet, where the locals are tight-lipped and hostile to his presence -- we learn later there have been a number of deaths of their children through the past decade, and they think -- due to their Angry Villager superstitious ways-- that it has something to do with creepy and mouldering Eel Marsh Mansion. Let the dead lie with the dead and so forth.

Then he visits the house. And the haunting begins.

The mood is kept tense enough to keep an audience on edge without seeming slow or oppressive. Just tense enough that when you see that awful Woman in Black gliding in background, you groan.

The middle forty five minutes of this is nothing but one big scare after another. The ending is a let-down -- How do you actually confront a ghost, in the way a villain is typically confronted?

Physical weapons won't work. Psychological ploys might; drive the ghost crazy by confronting it with reminders of its death or past suffering. But that often comes off pretty silly (the remake of Haunting at Hill House had an especially unconvincing "kill the ghost with the power of love and joy" ending, IIRC).

Appeasement sometimes works, by performing an action it demands, and thus "setting it at peace." But then, the ghost actually profits in the exchange, which is its own kind of unsatisfying ending, especially here, where the ghost is a truly vile specimen who just needs killin'.

That leaves an exorcism, but an exorcism movie is its own subgenre with its own rules.

Anyway, as great as ghosts are as monsters in the first two acts-- you never really risk breaking the rules or physical laws because ghosts can teleport or make walls bleed at will -- they're a problem in the third act, the climax, for the same reasons. They can pretty much do anything. So what are you realistically going to do to "kill" them?

Moreso than with any ghosts I can remember, the Woman in Black is a particularly vile creature, and I wish they'd come up with a satisfying answer. (The girl in The Ring was pretty hateful, but she was, after all, a poor abused little girl.)

Still, that's just and ending. I came for classic scares in a creepy mansion and I more than got them. I will confess that I was groaning and occasionally shouting during the hauntings.

One guy in the theater was so tense that when the camera just glided by a black chair, he mistook it for the ghost, and cried out in alarm. Then the whole theater laughed at him, and he laughed too. It was, I think, a completely unintentional shot, not meant to trick or scare anyone, but this guy was apparently unnerved enough that he was gasping at furniture. So, that's pretty good.

Daniel Radcliffe is good. I think he underplays his reaction. The realistic reaction would be screaming like a lunatic and running for his life, which he doesn't do. Instead he just plays it tense the whole time. Occasionally startled.

Not really realistic, but it works, and maybe in some way his underplaying of reaction encourages the audience to overplay its own? Like we're making up for the "horror deficit" by adding our own? I don't know.

A lot of critics are saying he's "too young" for the role, as he's a widower and has a four year old kid. But he's actually 22. Did these guys ever read a history book? It is not at all out-of-the-ordinary that a guy at the turn of the century would be married and have an expectant wife at age 18. That would be standard practice.

One last thing: There is always the Don't go back into the house, you Moron thing in these movies. I did have this thought a bunch of times, but only during the second haunting.

The first time he's haunted, it's creepy and scary but it's still just suggestive of a haunting; he hasn't seen conclusive evidence of it. At that point, you don't think he's insane to stay. Just maybe... reckless.

The third time, the last time, he must confront the ghost, due to a personal threat to himself and his boy. So I can give a pass on that one. Not insane here, either; just more heroic than your average paper-pusher.

It's the second haunting, the middle one, where the Hey idiot? Run! thought pops into your head. At that point in the film, there is no critical need to confront the ghost, and he does, in this section, get unambiguous proof that not only is there a ghost, but it's a really scary, insane, murderous ghost.

And he goes back inside anyway. Why? I have no idea. I guess because he really has to look over those documents or he'll lose his job. But I would suggest that with a Lunatic Murder Ghost coming after you every half hour, you're probably not going to be very productive with the paperwork.

It did occur to me that if the film were to be taken seriously, this character has Severely Large Balls, stalking through a ghost's lair armed with a hatchet and a candle. Eh, I kind of liked that. Doesn't make sense, really, but can't fault a guy for being too intrepid.

I really liked this. Just plain fun and scary and well-done all around. Except for the ending. I'll deduct a star for that, but it's a very worthy and fun ghost story anyway.

Oh, I have to give a Content Warning. The film's plot involves some very unsettling material which some people especially might decide makes this unwatchable. There is no language, nudity, sex, or other stuff in the movie, and in fact almost no actual violence. However, the main plot -- the ghost's viciousness -- involves something pretty nasty. It's a spolier, so scroll over it to see the white font warning.

The ghost beguiles children -- not adults, children -- into committing suicide. Three or four of these are shown, briefly, mostly suggestively. Not super-graphically, but enough to make the point. More are alluded to. It's a nasty business, which is partly why I hate this ghost so much.

A less spoiler-ish warning is this:

I know a lot of people absolutely loathe films featuring children in danger. This film has a good deal of child endangerment. If children-in-danger puts you off a film, definitely skip this one.

Not For Kids: Because Harry Potter's in it, and it's PG-13, parents might get the sense that this will be okay for 12 year olds.

It's not. It's a very horrific, morbid, scary movie, featuring, as I said, some grim material involving children. It's for older teenagers and adults.

The PG-13 rating is misleading. It doesn't have the typical red flags of an R-rated movie. And I guess you can't give someone an R for mood and tone and pervasive morbidity.

So they got a PG-13.

But it's really an "R" movie, as far as kids.

This is a problem with the ratings system. Total Recall has graphic violence, language, and nudity, so it's R-rated, but let's face it, it's cartoonish (fun, but cartoonish) and is going to have next to zero impact on a kid.

On the other hand, this movie doesn't have those things, and is going to cause nightmares.

Posted by: Ace at 12:52 PM | Comments (170)
Post contains 1664 words, total size 10 kb.

1 I saw this play maybe 10 years ago in London and that's what I remember about it: good execution of classic, expected ghost story fare with an unsatisfying letdown at the end. Don't remember details, but sounds like it's faithful for good or ill to the stage play.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at February 25, 2012 12:58 PM (P136z)

2 This movie review is too short.

Posted by: Thomas at February 25, 2012 12:58 PM (uoVwH)

3 "Just plain fun and scary and well-done all around."

Wow. No subtext. No overt political message.

Who knew that movies could be...entertaining!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 25, 2012 12:59 PM (nEUpB)

4 I thought Radcliffe was the best part. Everything else is interchangeable but Radcliffe was very solid. I'm impressed myself that he grew up to be an actor, and not just a child actor.

But I agree overall, it's a good flic.

Posted by: Douglas at February 25, 2012 01:00 PM (YKOnu)

5 Even a now-insane liberal wingnut like Stephen King is right on occasion. In Danse Macabre, he points out that for all the gyrations in all the different horror movies, there are a surprisingly small number of basic archetypes behind them (the ghost, the vampire, the werewolf), etc.

So, what really matters is how you stack the few building blocks you have...

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at February 25, 2012 01:01 PM (uehxp)

6 Check out the warning I appended, about content. Although the movie has none of the usual language, nudity, sex or stuff, and actually very little onscreen violence at all, it does have a great big red flag for many viewers.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 01:03 PM (nj1bB)

7 Ace, I fucking LOVE your film reviews. Always look forward to a nice long review, and it's even more enjoyable when the political situation is so gag worthy.

Posted by: Max Power at February 25, 2012 01:10 PM (+wxCD)

8 Not the politics of the films, oh you know what I'm trying to say. Doh!

Posted by: Max Power at February 25, 2012 01:11 PM (+wxCD)

9 btw I put fritzworth's review of Act of Valor into draft, as he published five minutes after me. I'll put that up in about thirty minutes.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 01:12 PM (nj1bB)

10 Thanks for the warning, ace. My caveat: haven't seen this movie, but my spouse took our 12 year old son it (I think because the kid has seen some PG 13 movies before and was fine) and the son was up the same night with screaming nightmares. If you have at sensitive child at all and on the younger side it's not a good idea for them to go.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2012 01:14 PM (2M4lS)

11 #5 that was a great book of Kings' insight. I agree he is a wing nut, but I still just love him, and hope that some day, he'll be recognized as a great in fiction...people knock him for just being too prolific (though I guess he has slowed down with releasing books in recent years), but that shouldn't be held against him...I still think one of his best and most terrifying, hopeless books of all time is Pet Semetary...shame no one has yet managed to make a good movie out of it.

Posted by: Ellen at February 25, 2012 01:14 PM (B1FXc)

12 I agree he is a wing nut, but I still just love him, and hope that some day, he'll be recognized as a great in fiction...people knock him for just being too prolific Posted by: Ellen

Oh. Oh, no. Should I mention Stephen Kings' stable of writers or not?

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] at February 25, 2012 01:18 PM (9Hw3U)

13 FenelonSpoke makes an important point: Despite the PG-13 rating, THIS IS NOT FOR KIDS. It's too scary. It is, basically, too effective at its goal to be for kids. I saw kids at my showing and I thought badly of the parents. This is for teenagers, maybe. No one 14 or under.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 01:20 PM (nj1bB)

14 sorry I didn't mean to impugn Felon. I think parents are thinking "Daniel Radcliffe, PG-13, victorian ghost story, no big whoop, it'll be like Scooby Doo." no, it's actually a very scary, morbid film.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 01:22 PM (nj1bB)

15 The Exorcist was the last horror movie I saw in a theater. Scared the crap out of me. I haven't had any interest in the genre since.

*Slaps man-card down and walks away. *

Posted by: pep at February 25, 2012 01:24 PM (6TB1Z)

16 Yes, thanks. ace-that's pretty much what the spouse was thinking and I didn't know till they had gotten back what they had gone to see. Grrrrrrrrh!!

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 25, 2012 01:25 PM (2M4lS)

17 I didn't get the he's too young thing either. In fact, it would be more common than not for him to have a three to four year old at that age and it would not at all be surprising for the wife to have died.

At least this has 1,000% less Potter peen than Equus so that's good.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 25, 2012 01:26 PM (Gk3SS)

18 Appreciate the warning about not taking kids, Ace.

Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at February 25, 2012 01:26 PM (RZ8pf)

Dear Lord, California is turning into the PC police state - now they are requiring judges to declare their SEXUAL ORIENTATION.....

http://is.gd/xVqp0r

And they accuse REPUBLICANS of intruding into peoples' bedrooms?

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at February 25, 2012 01:26 PM (0xqzf)

20 "How do you actually confront a ghost, in the way a villain is typically confronted?" Well, in the best horror, you *don't*, at least not finally/successfully. See the Hill House book, or Straub's Ghost Story.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 01:27 PM (r1jNE)

21 I saw this two minutes before coming here. Why did the Bitch in Black scream at the end? Is the BiB going to continue killing little children?

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 01:27 PM (AsqOS)

22 Potter peen

Is that in any way related to Hermione HooHah?

Posted by: pep at February 25, 2012 01:27 PM (6TB1Z)

23 Meh. If I want to watch horror, I'll tune into Morning Joe.

Posted by: Y-not at February 25, 2012 01:29 PM (5H6zj)

24 or Straub's Ghost Story.

That scared the hell out of me.

On the taking kids that are too young thing, years back I saw people at Pulp Fiction with their eight and nine year olds. It was all I could do not to go over and slap them.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 25, 2012 01:30 PM (Gk3SS)

25 I actually forgot it was PG-13. It *feels* like an R-rated movie, as it's morbid and the pacing and direction is more adult-ish. But this is one of those movies where they don't trip the Red Flags (language, graphic violence, nudity) so the only thing you can give them an R for is "tone," and that's too loose and subjective a standard. So, even though it's technically PG-13, think "R."

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 01:31 PM (nj1bB)

26 I want to "feel unsettled and uneasy" I look at the possibility that the SCOAMF gets re-elected.

Posted by: Gmac at February 25, 2012 01:31 PM (RlnKX)

27 Kinda off-topic, but still about movies and military hardware what-ifs, so I thought someone here might appreciate it: Kevin Drum wrote a post called "The Death Star Is a Surprisingly Cost-Effective Weapons System" - an attempt at cost-benefitting Palpatine's Death Star. Funny, geeky, good comments, Saturday type material: http://tinyurl.com/7jlws7a

Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at February 25, 2012 01:32 PM (ZiYQG)

The problem is these days it is somewhat hard to judge (though I always check out Common Sense Media if I am in doubt) about appropriateness for kids because they show the trailers for things like this before other movies that (older) kids are seeing and often also show trailers on Cartoon Channel or other channels kids are watching shows on.

The most egregious one to me recently was Contagion. It was a trailer before Captain America. I spent days after that reassuring my son that bird flu wasn't going to take him out any time soon, and all he'd seen was the darn trailer for Contagion. Why did they think it was useful to show that trailer at Captain America?

Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at February 25, 2012 01:32 PM (RZ8pf)

29 "still think one of his best and most terrifying, hopeless books of all time is Pet Semetary...shame no one has yet managed to make a good movie out of it." The movie's not *that* bad. Compared to some of the other ones made of his books, anyway. Yeah, PS is scary. King says it's the only one of his books that scared *him* while he was writing it to the point where he almost abandoned it. "hope that some day, he'll be recognized as a great in fiction" He will. It's already starting. Camille Paglia has come out swinging. People will be reading and writing about King long after no one remembers who David Foster Wallace was (and I like DFW, but still). "Should I mention Stephen Kings' stable of writers or not?" Sure, but so what? Proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the cooking. Danse Macabre is amazing. Run, don't walk.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 01:32 PM (r1jNE)

30 But this is one of those movies where they don't trip the Red Flags (language, graphic violence, nudity) so the only thing you can give them an R for is "tone," and that's too loose and subjective a standard.

That's a great point. An ad for Project X was just on and that's R, I'm presuming for the sex, underage drinking, language, etc. and I think I would rather have a young teen see that than Woman in Black.

It's also nice to see an attempt to have the Hammer name on an old school Hammer film.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 25, 2012 01:35 PM (Gk3SS)

31 whoa what happened to the Act of Valor post?

Posted by: jeanne! with two N's and an E at February 25, 2012 01:37 PM (vXccq)

32 it's coming back. he just published minutes after me so I put it into draft to spread the posts around.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 01:39 PM (nj1bB)

33 no point having two posts in six minutes on a light-posting day.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 01:39 PM (nj1bB)

34 This guy needs a sassy gay friend.

Posted by: Dan Collins at February 25, 2012 01:40 PM (qlzIv)

35 This movie is an unauthorized biography.

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at February 25, 2012 01:41 PM (2TRSa)

36 Must be based on that Vampire lady from the 1600's who took the town's girls and found all sorts of ways to torture them.

Posted by: madamex at February 25, 2012 01:41 PM (5+Fw+)

37 Is Voldemort in this one?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 25, 2012 01:41 PM (lVGED)

38 Did you notice how much Wynona's sister looked a lot like like Wynona? They could be sisters in real life.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 25, 2012 01:42 PM (Y4TdB)

39 What's the story with King's "stable of writers"? I don't care what he's up to now, but if the implication is he didn't write his old stuff, then I find that hard to believe.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at February 25, 2012 01:42 PM (P136z)

40 Knemon, maybe I need to re-watch PS again! My beef was they should have left out the schlocky effects and just concentrated on the human story, which was so devastating (of course, it's no Children of the Corn!)...I had read that the story scared King, too...such a fine work, and I'm glad to see that he is starting to get the recognition he deserves.

Posted by: Ellen at February 25, 2012 01:44 PM (B1FXc)

41 I don't care what he's up to now, but if the implication is he didn't write his old stuff, then I find that hard to believe.Posted by: >Nicholas Kronos[[/i]

Old stuff, his own. New stuff, yeah.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] at February 25, 2012 01:45 PM (9Hw3U)

Thank you for the warning. I love scary movies but I do not ever wish to see children abducted, abused, murdered, etc. Once I had kids of my own it just became one if those things you don't ever want to imagine yourself going through.

Zombies? Fuck yes. Vampires? Motherfucker, let's see how tough you really are. Masked slashed psychos? Bitch, I leave my lights off and front door cracked open to encourage intruders.

I love all manner of films in which you can imagine yourself risking your own life to battle a monster. My only real nightmare is being powerless to protect my young'uns.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 25, 2012 01:45 PM (DiqH3)

43 "What's the story with King's "stable of writers"? I don't care what he's up to now, but if the implication is he didn't write his old stuff, then I find that hard to believe." Haters claim nowadays he comes up with a plot summary and then has ghosts a/o MFA students do all the work. His style is so well-established that it would probably be very easy for one or more other writers to fill in a plot and make it seem like the real thing. Even if it's true (and based on sheer volume alone you have to suspect that something's up), so what? Harry Turtledove, e.g., does the same thing much more blatantly, and if I accept it from him, I'll surely accept it from King.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 01:46 PM (r1jNE)

44 "My only real nightmare is being powerless to protect my young'uns." And that's why the scenario in "Sophie's Choice" is scarier than anything King has ever written. 'Cept Cujo, I guess. Or Pet Semetary. Both of which have Helpless Young'uns center stage.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 01:47 PM (r1jNE)

45 Sorry for the volume - I'm doing anything I can to avoid work.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 01:48 PM (r1jNE)

46 It's a fun movie, partly because it's a good movie which nevertheless is hard to believe. But you believe it because Movie Logic isn't real life logic. In the second haunting, I think, where the ghost really pulls out her scariest shit, he eventually finds old documents, and sits down to read the background and history of the ghost. Now, as an audience member, I want to know this, so I don't mind it. But in real life, if a ghost is ever threatening me, and appearing in front of me every few minutes, I am not going to stick around to find out the details of her backstory. I will just move on. I will be content to know "It's a ghost." That's all I need. I do not need to know what kind of a ghost she is, or what her ghostly mission might be. "It's a ghost" will be enough. I will be gone. If a friend is stupid enough to investigate, I will listen to him explain the backstory; but I will not find it out for myself. I am not going to sit in chair with reading glasses and read old court reports while a ghost is trying to fucking kill me.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 01:49 PM (nj1bB)

47 I think the Victorian setting helps with this shit, because it has an air of unreality to us. So when Daniel Radcliffe just starts doing Due Diligence on the ghost (ghost doing scary shit right behind him), you just shrug and say, "It was a different time. In the old days, people weren't afraid of ghosts. They treated them like garden pests. Just something to be dealt with."

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 01:52 PM (nj1bB)

48 btw if you ever want to experience vivid scary disturbing dreams, try some pure l-dopa before you go to bed. A little and you'll sleep deep. A lot and you'll be having dreams in which you'll be fighting demons for your life.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 25, 2012 01:52 PM (NLH1M)

49 >>>And that's why the scenario in "Sophie's Choice" is scarier than anything King has ever written. Ugh. Have you ever heard of the Rumkowski "Give Me Your Children" speech? "A grievous blow has struck the ghetto. They are asking us to give up the best we possess - the children and the elderly. I was unworthy of having a child of my own, so I gave the best years of my life to children. I've lived and breathed with children, I never imagined I would be forced to deliver this sacrifice to the altar with my own hands. In my old age, I must stretch out my hands and beg: Brothers and sisters! Hand them over to me! Fathers and mothers: Give me your children!" Don't be fooled. He was an sob who lived fat while others starved to death.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 01:54 PM (AsqOS)

50 "Harry Turtledove"

James Patterson makes no bones that he does this. In regards to King, though, I recall that he created the Bachmann nom de plume because his output was so prolific in his early career that he was writing more than his manager/agent thought the market could accommodate. And his books were *huge*--meaning, he seemed to need an editor more than a co-writer.

I haven't read anything by him in years, though, so I don't have any opinion on what he's doing now.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at February 25, 2012 01:55 PM (P136z)

51 to paraphrase Eddie Murphy Ghost movies can only have white people in them. Black people? They'd be like "Oh, this house is great, it's so big and nice and .." Get out. "... too bad we gots to go. C'mon. Let's go." Glad to read it was a good flick. I'm hoping to get out to see Acts of Valor as I'm not in ghost movie mood.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 25, 2012 01:55 PM (h6mPj)

52 re : age appropriate . I quit taking my children to outside theater disney films several years ago. On the screens in the theater lot, they would also be showing horror, or soft porn.

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 01:55 PM (TomZ9)

53 scary movies mess me up......i'm looking forward to act of valor......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 25, 2012 01:56 PM (Ho2rs)

I am not going to sit in chair with reading glasses and read old court reports while a ghost is trying to fucking kill me.<<<

I'd prefer to do a montage like in the A-Team where you get locked in a machine ship with an air compressor, TIG welder, cache of Ruger Mini-14s and an old bus. Then you weld some shit to the bus and make a ghost vacuum cowcatcher plow while driving thru walls and blaring Dokken.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 25, 2012 01:56 PM (DiqH3)

55 But he didn't vanquish the ghost. The ghost is going to keep on killing.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 01:57 PM (AsqOS)

56 Sophia's Choice was so harsh it made me cry off and on for days. fgs, choosing to keep one of your children!

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 01:57 PM (TomZ9)

57 BumperStickerist, Eddie Murphy said that before someone paid him $15 million to star in The Haunted Mansion.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 01:58 PM (nj1bB)

58 mike, spoilers?

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 01:58 PM (nj1bB)

59 sorry Having to choose between children*

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 01:59 PM (TomZ9)

60 Sorry, but it looked like you already spilled the beans on the entire movie.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 01:59 PM (AsqOS)

61 In my dreams, I scare the shit out of M Night Shimalan.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 25, 2012 01:59 PM (NLH1M)

62 On the other hand, this movie doesn't have those things, and is going to cause nightmares.

Leftist indocrination is the same and they have no age limits at all.

Sounds like a good movie. It takes true writers/directors to fashion endings for many sorts of movies, but there are still great movies for the first 2/3rds, say. Your review sounds pretty good. I hope it isn't better than the movie, itself.

Posted by: really ... at February 25, 2012 02:00 PM (X3lox)

63 I want to know why in horror flicks the girl is always going down to the basement to see what's there, and she wears heels!

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 02:00 PM (TomZ9)

64 If you have a five-year-old kid who is already motherless, you should be thinking about self-preservation. But otherwise, I could buy a man wanting to get to the bottom of the whole thing. He's lost his wife, his boss is threatening to fire him, and something big likes this comes along?

You might treat it like some guys did joining the French Foreign Legion.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at February 25, 2012 02:00 PM (P136z)

65 sooth, in a bad way?

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 02:01 PM (TomZ9)

66 I apologize. After or before I read your review, I read the wiki review. I'm getting them confused.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 02:01 PM (AsqOS)

67 ace, i enjoy psychological thrillers, but hate cute slash blood type never ever go to those kinds of films, is this more psychological?

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 02:02 PM (TomZ9)

68 >>> I want to know why in horror flicks the girl is always going down to the basement to see what's there, and she wears heels! Or, why the girl trips and falls and just stays there screaming instead of getting up again or fighting back.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 02:02 PM (AsqOS)

69 Ace should let everyone know that he liked Knowing with Nick Cage. Even though it didnt make a lick of sense -- pretty much like Ghostrider.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 25, 2012 02:03 PM (KwX0v)

70 Somebody edit Mike's post #55. Major spoiler alert, not cool, and read the fucking post before you think somebody has "spilled the beans" on the movie.

I will say this: this is my favorite horror movie since the original (American) Ring. Very thematically similar movie in a lot of ways.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 02:04 PM (hIWe1)

71 i loved ghostrider.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 25, 2012 02:04 PM (Ho2rs)

72 Jeff B.: Go fuck yourself.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 02:05 PM (AsqOS)

73 Yeah okay space aliens; take my kids away. I'm totally okay with it. Oh and before you jet, destroy the Earth. K, thnx, bai.

Posted by: soothsayer cage at February 25, 2012 02:05 PM (052zE)

Courage is going back in the haunted amusement park even after you've been run out by a ghost. But you go back. You always go back.

Because your friends are counting on you and you're jinked out of your fucking mind on hashish and Scooby Snacks. But mostly because your friends are counting on you.

Posted by: Shaggy at February 25, 2012 02:06 PM (DiqH3)

75 ace, i enjoy psychological thrillers, but hate cute slash blood type never ever go to those kinds of films, is this more psychological?

I don't know if I would use the term "psychological," though a HUGE amount of the horror does come from the audience's terror of what might come creeping up out of the shadows next. There ISN'T much blood & guts stuff (in fact, there isn't ANY as far as I can remember) but there is a crapton of horrifying imagery involving dead & scary & ghostly things that doesn't have anything to do with gore.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 02:07 PM (hIWe1)

76 Saw this twice. Cried both times at the ending. It was actually a merciful thing that she did to Arthur at the end, imo. So damn sad, though...but strangely merciful. The shot of her face right after it happened makes me think its what the director intended for me to think. Also, I love me some DRad.

Posted by: tdpwells at February 25, 2012 02:08 PM (u3QsC)

77 >>>Jeff B.: Go fuck yourself.

It's nothing personal, dude. But you really shouldn't give away the ending to the whole film, especially since ace is recommending it to people (I am too). C'mon, you've been around long enough to know spoiler etiquette.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 02:08 PM (hIWe1)

78 >>> They can pretty much do anything. So what are you realistically going to do to "kill" them? Moreso than with any ghosts I can remember, the Woman in Black is a particularly vile creature, and I wish they'd come up with a satisfying answer. Yeah, this spilled the beans.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 02:09 PM (AsqOS)

79 Jeff B. : Go fuck yourself.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 02:10 PM (AsqOS)

80 "I am not going to sit in chair with reading glasses and read old court reports while a ghost is trying to fucking kill me." Pussy.

Posted by: My Call of Cthulhu Character at February 25, 2012 02:10 PM (r1jNE)

81 >>>ce, i enjoy psychological thrillers, but hate cute slash blood type never ever go to those kinds of films, is this more psychological? it's more psychological but I think that's an ill-defined term. There is no slash-blood stuff here. If you mean "is it more about suspense and fear than about shock and violence," yes. If you mean "psychological" as in "man begins to doubt his own senses or the nature of reality," it's not that. the ghost is real. there is never a hint that it's not.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 02:10 PM (nj1bB)

82 mike, what's your problem?

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 02:11 PM (hIWe1)

83 "mike, what's your problem?" a) You just seem to bring that out in people? b) As spoilers go, it's a pretty obvious one to anyone who's seen this type of movie before. c) Maybe he's just an asshole?

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:12 PM (r1jNE)

84 One, Ace spilled the beans. Two, still I apologized -- twice. Three, jackass JeffB, as he is always fucking doing, does his faux self-righteous prick schtick.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 02:12 PM (AsqOS)

85 Hey, two out of three ain't bad.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:13 PM (r1jNE)

86 mike I did a read between the lines sort of thing and you're parading it around in direct sentences.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 02:13 PM (nj1bB)

87 Ace should let everyone know that he liked Knowing with Nick Cage. Even though it didnt make a lick of sense -- pretty much like Ghostrider.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 25, 2012 06:03 PM (KwX0v)

To the contrary, Knowing was particularly consistent in the model it provided for an metaphysical ideas that are particularly difficult to imagine sensible implementations of (save a couple of small, insignificant issues) and tied them all together without deviating from its story one bit. Knowing was superb in this respect. And then the special effects were just awesome. Period. The plane crash. Unreal.

Yes .. there some jerky bits and the "scientists" were artists' renderings of scientists, but they tried and did exceptionally well with what they had. Knowing was a very, very well done movie that was original, inventive, interesting and unique ... even with Nicholas Cage in it, chewing up all the scenery.

Posted by: really ... at February 25, 2012 02:14 PM (X3lox)

88 Jeff B. thanks

ace, alright so it will proabbly be disturbing to me, but a possible attempt.

thanks you.

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 02:14 PM (TomZ9)

89 >>> mike I did a read between the lines sort of thing and you're parading it around in direct sentences. It you may have thought that but from what you wrote it seems obvious. And again, I apologized. And jeffb can still go fuck himself.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 02:15 PM (AsqOS)

90 Knowing was great. Plane crash, the end of the world sequence. We've seen end of the world CGI sequences but this was one that had impact. The strange hodgepodge of the religious/angle and scientific/alien explanation -- suggesting both, suggesting maybe both are the *same* -- was interesting.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 02:15 PM (nj1bB)

91 Aliens are angels? Angels are aliens? God is actually an immensely powerful and advanced alien being? The Bible is true, and so is Roswell?! Kind of a big idea, the one you usually see in a short story or comic book, because it's so goofy you don't bet the farm on the public buying into it. You don't see such outlandish ideas in $100 million movies very often. So I dug it.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 02:17 PM (nj1bB)

92 And the car crash at the end, which was the most realistic such thing I had ever seen. It blew away the earlier effects. And how it came out of nowhere ... Wow.

Posted by: really ... at February 25, 2012 02:19 PM (X3lox)

93 "The strange hodgepodge of the religious/angle and scientific/alien explanation -- suggesting both, suggesting maybe both are the *same* -- was interesting." S.T. Joshi has a great book on this: he claims Lovecraft is the origin of not just the entire "Ancient Astronauts"/Von Daniken industry (which is obvious I guess) but even more broadly of UFOism generally. Unfortunately, I can't remember the title, and dude has written so many books on Lovecraft that none of them ring a bell.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:19 PM (r1jNE)

94 >>>And the car crash at the end, which was the most realistic such thing I had ever seen I don't remember that. If it was that car chase sequence, I tuned that out, because that was just silly, just an excuse to have drama. the woman deviated from the plan for no reason, except to create a car chase with a ticking clock.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 02:20 PM (nj1bB)

95 >>>Three, jackass JeffB, as he is always fucking doing, does his faux self-righteous prick schtick.

Maybe I just enjoyed the movie and didn't like the idea of seeing it spoiled for someone else. I dunno, maybe that was the motivation here. Just a possibility.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 02:21 PM (hIWe1)

96 Ah, OK, that's why I couldn't find it: It's not by Joshi, it's by some dude named Jason Colavito. "The Cult of Alien Gods: H.P. Lovecraft and Extraterrestial Pop Culture." If you're into the overlap b/w OMG ALIENZ and OMG GODZ, check it out.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:22 PM (r1jNE)

97 Isn't there a machine type thing in Ezekial ,a merkava chariot or something? yeah some things are inexplicable, or maybe that's in mysticism i've read. shrug.

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 02:22 PM (TomZ9)

98 Can't wait until post 100. Turn to CBS right now for great OT hoops between Missouri and Kansas. Historic game.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 25, 2012 02:23 PM (HethX)

99 Knowing was one of the weirdest big-budget Hollywood blockbusters I've ever seen. I still can't believe it followed through on its premise all the way to the logical conclusion. I simply didn't think would actually 'go there' but holy crap did it ever.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 02:23 PM (hIWe1)

100 >>>Maybe I just enjoyed the movie and didn't like the idea of seeing it spoiled for someone else. I dunno, maybe that was the motivation here. Just a possibility. No, you've been a prick for years. That's not a possibility but a fact. Again, the ending was obvious if you read the review posted.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 02:24 PM (AsqOS)

101 OR maybe that was in some mysticism, expounding on the idea* sorry

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 02:24 PM (TomZ9)

102 "Maybe I just enjoyed the movie and didn't like the idea of seeing it spoiled for someone else. I dunno, maybe that was the motivation here. Just a possibility." a) the tone of this quote is itself a perfect example of how most of the time it's your tone, not necessarily the content, that pisses people off. b) "Somebody edit Mike's post #55. Major spoiler alert, not cool, and read the fucking post before you think somebody has "spilled the beans" on the movie." Might've been other ways to say that (the anodyne "spoiler alert on XX" always works) that wouldn't've resulted in mike telling you to fuck off. Repeatedly.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:24 PM (r1jNE)

103 I don't remember that. If it was that car chase sequence, I tuned that out, because that was just silly, just an excuse to have drama. the woman deviated from the plan for no reason, except to create a car chase with a ticking clock.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 06:20 PM (nj1bB)

She was going nuts. That chick plays the same role in every movie she's in. She tried to snuff out the Earth's only hope in Sunshine.

She was annoying the angels and they had wrecked trying to speed through a red light. It was an amazing scene, and they picked the person everyone wanted to see shut up, already. Brilliant.

Posted by: really ... at February 25, 2012 02:24 PM (X3lox)

104 Meh. As soon as I read Radcliffe is a huge Obama apologist, I put him on my list of actors whose movies I will never see. http://bit.ly/zByehP [Radcliffe] went on to say that he has been Â“disgusted, amazed, stunnedÂ” by candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination, such as Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, who have been openly hostile to gay rights. Â“But they disgusted me less than candidates like Rick Perry, who made that ridiculous advert wearing Â‘the Brokeback jacketÂ’, and I think pretend to be homophobic just to win votes.Â” Asked if he wished that Barack Obama would publicly back gay marriage, he replied: Â“Yes, I do, but can he really? Of course heÂ’s in favour of it, but he has to be careful about saying so. IÂ’d rather have someone like him in the White House than the alternative.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at February 25, 2012 02:25 PM (vUK/h)

105 The "wheel within a wheel" thing: Ezekiel 1:1, 4-5,15-16 Ezekiel 10:1-2, 6, 9-10

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:25 PM (r1jNE)

106 oh I remember now, yeah, I remember the car collision. okay it was a good collision. I was annoyed by the car chase though. Knemmon, interesting. JeffB., I said the same thing, it seems like the conceit you'd put in a one-off comic book, not a big-budget movie, as it's kooky.

Posted by: ace at February 25, 2012 02:25 PM (nj1bB)

107 Knemon, aw, That's it, thanks. yes isn't that a strange haftorah.

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 02:26 PM (TomZ9)

108 Roger Ebert may have douchey politics, but I've always trusted his instincts as a reviewer, and he liked this movie quite a bit. He did well in comparing the "approaching the house for the first time" sequence to the classic one in Nosferatu.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 02:27 PM (hIWe1)

109 "As soon as I read Radcliffe is a huge Obama apologist, I put him on my list of actors whose movies I will never see." I've never understood this. I don't care about the politics of the dude making my pizza or cutting my hair, why would I care whether the writer or actor is a tool? If they're good, they're good. Now if they're a douchetool *and* they're not talented, then that's two strikes.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:27 PM (r1jNE)

110 going to look it up it's been a while and always fascinated me.

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 02:27 PM (TomZ9)

111 >>>Meh. As soon as I read Radcliffe is a huge Obama apologist, I put him on my list of actors whose movies I will never see.

Dude, pretty much every actor in Hollywood is going to be an Obama apologist. You either need to learn to get over that sort of thing or cut yourself off from film entertainment entirely.

I dunno...I don't have any problems with it. Radiohead is my favorite group currently making music even though Thom Yorke's politics are deplorably stupid. I tune it out.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 02:29 PM (hIWe1)

112 Horror movies are a comfort because they distract from the real-life problems that are complex and sometimes unsolvable. Horror movies are usually pretty straightforward and have resolutions. I prefer horror with monsters or other unreal threats, rather than serial killers and so on.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at February 25, 2012 02:30 PM (i0App)

113 Or, why the girl trips and falls and just stays there screaming instead of getting up again or fighting back.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 06:02 PM (AsqOS)

fcol, they do! i just can't stand it.

Posted by: willow at February 25, 2012 02:30 PM (TomZ9)

114

I didn't like Knowing. I found it irritating. But, it did make me think at the end of the movie, what choice would I have made in a similar circumstance?

A lot of shows and movies seem to force that choice these days and as a parent it definitely makes you pause and go "huh, what would I do?"

but the bunnies and the aliens and the weird planets at the end of Knowing was stoo-pid to me. (I am remembering a bunny right, aren't I?)

Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at February 25, 2012 02:31 PM (RZ8pf)

115 Other freaky-deaky, kinda alien-sounding Biblical stuff: the stuff about the "children of god" in Genesis 6; the Star Wormwood.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:32 PM (r1jNE)

116 Huge KU comeback and win.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 25, 2012 02:32 PM (HethX)

117 Posted by: Lincolntf at February 25, 2012 06:32 PM (HethX)

Hell yes! Rock Chalk.

Posted by: Samuel Adams at February 25, 2012 02:34 PM (BvdQo)

118 Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 06:27 PM (r1jNE) Even though Radcliffe is a huge Obama apologist, at least Daniel can't vote for the SCoaMF come November. And yes, let me chime in that unless you want to forsake all Hollyweird-derived entertainment, don't let it bother you too much that pretty much everyone in Hollyweird is liberal. I don't let it bother me too much, unless said actor/actress becomes too insufferable with their crappy politicking. Hell, the executive producer for the GoW games is pretty damn liberal himself, but that didn't stop me from enjoying a fun romp eliminating the Greek Pantheon.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 25, 2012 02:36 PM (UR5vq)

119 >>>I don't let it bother me too much, unless said actor/actress becomes too insufferable with their crappy politicking.

I do actually have some actors whose movies I can't really enjoy because I just think their politics are so fucking annoying. George Clooney is one of them. Matt Damon is getting perilously close (though I still think his turn in The Informant! is one of the most amazingly underrated things any 'major' star has done in the last decade). I'm sure I can think of a few more if pressed.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 02:39 PM (hIWe1)

120 I'm sure I can think of a few more if pressed.

Well, I've lost my man crush on Tom Hanks a few years ago. IOW, he can DIAF for all I care.

Posted by: Samuel Adams at February 25, 2012 02:42 PM (BvdQo)

121 I've never understood this. I don't care about the politics of the dude making my pizza or cutting my hair, why would I care whether the writer or actor is a tool? Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 06:27 PM Well, the people making my pizza and cutting my hair do not go on TV (media, in ads made for the President, in fundraising efforts, etc) and apologize for politicians destroying our country and influence other people to support them. Nor have a lot of pop culture influence to do so. Not to mention donate to Democrat campaigns thousands of dollars of money they made off of us seeing their movies. No big deal. Just found it interesting that as soon as Radcliffe had finished up with the Potter series and was branching out on his own as an actor, he came out as a big liberal Obama supporter.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at February 25, 2012 02:43 PM (vUK/h)

122 "I'm sure I can think of a few more if pressed." Arrrrec Barrrrrrrrin? Tim Robbins? Although maybe you think he just sucks, for non-political reasons. Still, I maintain that "Bob Roberts" is a great movie and is (unintentionally) pretty harsh on both sides. (Speaking of which, is it true that his primary model for the Roberts character was Santorum?) Gore Vidal as the desiccated liberal senator: what's not to like? Are there any actors/other culture-makers on the reverse list: guys who actually kinda suck but whom we boost for political reasons?

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:43 PM (r1jNE)

123 While we're on the topic, I've seen people hate on "Bulworth" here often. Now come on, that's just wrong. That's a good movie. Oliver Platt! The church scene! Actors are mostly bimbos and mimbos who realize they don't really "deserve" their success, so they go lefty out of guilt. It's annoying, but it's understandable.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:45 PM (r1jNE)

124 Radcliffe doesn't bother me since he's a Brit. Euros are devolving into pussies anyway, at least on the western half. Now if he starts bitching about the US like Lennon, Patrick Stewart and others then fuck em.

Posted by: Samuel Adams at February 25, 2012 02:48 PM (BvdQo)

125 Matt Damon is getting perilously close (though I still think his turn in The Informant! is one of the most amazingly underrated things any 'major' star has done in the last decade).

Didn't see The Informant (and don't care to) so Matt Damon still sucks as an actor in my book. And I'm one of the few people here who thinks that "Good Wil Hunting" hunting was a great movie (even with the putrid new agey emotional framework of it). Other parts were brilliant enough to make up and then some.

Posted by: really ... at February 25, 2012 02:48 PM (X3lox)

126 Janine Turner, the chick from Northern Exposure, is a conservative/family values activist/radio host. Also she is now blonde.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 25, 2012 02:48 PM (hiMsy)

127 Here's a conservative actor: Lawrence Fox, aka, Hathaway on Lewis. I came across his twitter feed. He believes in prayer and does not like Labor or SWP. You've seen his father, James Fox, in enough films - he always plays the toff who acts gayish. Per wiki, his pop gave up his career for 10 years and became an evangelical, has 5 kids, still married to the same woman. Shocking, I know!

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 02:49 PM (AsqOS)

128 'Now if he starts bitching about the US like Lennon, Patrick Stewart and others then fuck em.' Elvis Costello has been an annoying lefty (while, tellingly but in mainstream eyes incongruously, also obsessed with fascism, and not in a in a lot of his early stuff) from day one. He has nothing but bile for Thatcher, Reagan, the US, religion, etc. He's also, IMHO, the greatest singer/songwriter of the last thirty years. You take the bitter with the sweet.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:49 PM (r1jNE)

129 sorry, meant to write "and not in a *condemning* way in a lot of his early stuff." For the first five or six albums he seemed unable to tell whether he was a commie or a nazi. Paging Jonah Goldberg a/o McBain.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:51 PM (r1jNE)

130 You take the bitter with the sweet.

Yeah I guess so. Do like his music as well. But I liked Mark David Chapman better than Lennon.

Posted by: Samuel Adams at February 25, 2012 02:53 PM (BvdQo)

131 >>>Elvis Costello has been an annoying lefty (while, tellingly but in mainstream eyes incongruously, also obsessed with fascism, and not in a in a lot of his early stuff) from day one. He has nothing but bile for Thatcher, Reagan, the US, religion, etc.

He's also, IMHO, the greatest singer/songwriter of the last thirty years.

Oof, this one has gotten hard for me. I more or less agree with you, but ever since he joined the anti-Israel boycott I've found it hard to deal with him.

I resolve the problem by only listening to his work up to and including All This Useless Beauty (which is his last truly great album IMO anyway).

Also, EC's obsession with fascism indeed goes back all the way to the start of his career. "Less Than Zero," "Night Rally," half of the lyrics on Armed Forces (whose working title was, tellingly, Emotional Fascism)...it's all there from the beginning.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 02:53 PM (hIWe1)

132

@ mike:

Learn to read. Ace's post was not a spoiler, yours was.

The twist you revealed is the one really chilling part of the movie, that stays in your mind afterwards. (I say this based on seeing the old BBC version, which is available on Youtube; I suspect the new version will be more polished, with more scares, but the BBC thing is quite well done.)

Posted by: John at February 25, 2012 02:54 PM (k5Bku)

133 Well, I've lost my man crush on Tom Hanks a few years ago. IOW, he can DIAF for all I care. Posted by: Samuel Adams at February 25, 2012 06:42 PM Yep, same here. First his comments regarding The Pacific, then finding out he was a big Obama supporter (he saved a billion jobs!) and fund-raiser and then the last straw was finding out about his involvement as Producer of the HBO hit piece on Palin, Game Change: http://bit.ly/xj5aQM Even though Radcliffe is a huge Obama apologist, at least Daniel can't vote for the SCoaMF come November. Right, but 1 vote from him is not going to hurt us. What hurts us involving actors is their influence on others. How many brain-dead Potter-fans are going to nod in agreement with supporting Obama solely because Radcliffe is the one making the comments? It's not their votes that hurt us, it's their pop-culture influence to raise more votes for Democrats, as well as the money they donate. I don't let it bother me too much, unless said actor/actress becomes too insufferable with their crappy politicking. Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 25, 2012 06:36 PM Yep, that's pretty much what I meant. Those on my list are those whom I find insufferable. I'm sure there are plenty of actors/actresses whose work I enjoy who are very liberal and vote Democrat, but they don't fundraise for them, get in my face about it or insult my politics or religion. They just do their work and then keep to themselves. I'm fine with that. I just boycott the ones who are politically active.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at February 25, 2012 02:56 PM (vUK/h)

134 JeffB, we're not so different, you and I ... "I resolve the problem by only listening to his work up to and including All This Useless Beauty (which is his last truly great album IMO anyway)." IMO that's Brutal Youth. ATUB is good but not great. Yeah he kinda sucks now - he's still got Enormous Talent but is basically wasting it - so I don't listen to his post-90s stuff, and I try to ignore his political stuff too. I act like he died in a car crash in 1995 and it works for me.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 02:59 PM (r1jNE)

135 >>>Right, but 1 vote from him is not going to hurt us. What hurts us involving actors is their influence on others. How many brain-dead Potter-fans are going to nod in agreement with supporting Obama solely because Radcliffe is the one making the comments? It's not their votes that hurt us, it's their pop-culture influence to raise more votes for Democrats, as well as the money they donate.

If Hollywood influence was really that powerful, then no Republican would have won the Presidency since 1956. And Hollywood's cultural power has, if anything, decreased exponentially since then. I think the vast majority of people of all political persuasions look at actors opining on politics and simply roll their eyes. As for the money they donate, it's their right just as it's yours.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 03:00 PM (hIWe1)

136 John: You learn to read, moron. It was obvious from what he wrote. And, no, I didn't reveal the real ending, jackass.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 03:00 PM (AsqOS)

137 Didn't see The Informant (and don't care to) so Matt Damon still sucks as an actor in my book. Posted by: really ... at February 25, 2012 06:48 PM My favorite scene involving Matt Damon is at the end of The Departed when Mark Wahlberg's character shoots him in the head.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at February 25, 2012 03:01 PM (vUK/h)

138 An example of his (to me) sublime lyrics, which I'm sure have a lefty edge to them but which I just dig regardless of politics: "Flies surround loudspeakers hanging from the lampposts Listening to the murder mystery Meanwhile someone's hiding in the classroom Forging the books of history But never mind, there's a good film showing tonight Where they hang anybody who can read and write Oh, that could never happen here - but then again, it might ..." (From "Invisible Man" on "Punch the Clock," otherwise a pretty awful album.) Or hell, from the same album: "Shipbuilding!" Sure, it's whining about the Falklands War and Evil Mommy Thatcher ... but it's still a great song.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 03:01 PM (r1jNE)

139 >>>IMO that's Brutal Youth. ATUB is good but not great.

Brutal Youth is a great album (and its best song is one that is never placed on compilations: "You Tripped At Every Step"), but All This Useless Beauty is the last one of his records where nearly every single song is a genuine highlight, not just the 'singles'. In fact, the songs that make it onto compilations (title track, "Poor Fractured Atlas," "I Want To Vanish") are actually my least favorite. I adore "It's Time," "Complicated Shadows," "The Other End Of The Telescope," "You Bowed Down," and "Starting To Come To Me" among others.

Also, the 2CD reissue has some of his best non-album tracks, all from that era. His version of the McCartney co-write "That Day Is Done" is spectacular, and the Brian Eno collaboration of "My Dark Life" is also a gem.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 03:04 PM (hIWe1)

140 137 - now *there's* a spoiler alert. I must've been the only person who hadn't yet seen the movie, and when someone posted on an ONT last year a montage of "shocking movie twists" or something, I foolishly watched it, got to the elevator scene in The Departed, and ... got really pissed at myself. Still dug the movie, but it would've been better without that (and the follow-up which you reference).

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 03:05 PM (r1jNE)

141 I used to hate Punch The Clock, but the more I listen to it the more I realize there are some great songs on it, like "Let Them All Talk" and "The World And His Wife." Never liked "Shipbuilding" all that much, but if it's political EC you're looking for, "Pills And Soap" is fucking brutal.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 03:06 PM (hIWe1)

142 I think the vast majority of people of all political persuasions look at actors opining on politics and simply roll their eyes. Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 07:00 PM Well, I hope so. But the influence seemed to be pretty big in getting Obama elected in 2008. With all the stupid "Yes We Can!" and "I pledge..." videos (remember all the actors, actresses and music people on those videos?) and HOPE and CHANGE art, etc. It seemed everywhere you turned, people were shilling for Obama. I believe it was partly responsible for putting Obama over the top and influencing enough of the squishes in the middle (1-2% maybe?) who decide their vote based on who's more popular. As for the money they donate, it's their right just as it's yours. 100% agreed. It's also my right to see their donations and choose not to support them. Just like when I see the Girl Scouts support Planned Parenthood and choose not to buy their cookies or see Komen support PP and choose not to support them, etc.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at February 25, 2012 03:07 PM (vUK/h)

143 "His version of the McCartney co-write "That Day Is Done" is spectacular" With the Blind Boys of Alabama, right? Killer. Also there's the stripped-down acoustic version of "The Comedians." Amazing, and it redeems the awful original album version. "(and its best song is one that is never placed on compilations: "You Tripped At Every Step")" WOW that's gay. I think the best are "Just About Glad" and "Favorite Hour" (which I'll concede is also MegaGay). The vocal performance on the latter is one of his all-time best, and the lyrics are good too. ... Jeff, I bet if we met in person over beers we'd actually get along famously.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 03:08 PM (r1jNE)

144 Still dug the movie, but it would've been better without that (and the follow-up which you reference). Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 07:05 PM Sorry, just thought there was a statute of limitations on not posting spoilers for old movies. ie, if the movie had been out on video for X+ years or something. Sorry, though, if I ruined it for anyone.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at February 25, 2012 03:10 PM (vUK/h)

145 "I used to hate Punch The Clock, but the more I listen to it the more I realize there are some great songs on it" I think that's true, the production ruins it but in the liner notes to the re-release he says something like "In our defense, it was 1983." Heh. Also, PtC has an unusual high concentration of songs with *positive* attitudes towards women a/o marriage: All talk, element w/in her (though that's a stinker), the greatest thing. Amazing contrast from the first phase of his career. Steely Dan never sold out like that - in, what, 100 recorded tracks there's not a *single* expression of sincere emotion. I admire the consistency.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 03:13 PM (r1jNE)

146 "Sorry, just thought there was a statute of limitations on not posting spoilers for old movies." No, there definitely is, I was just kidding/riffing off the squabbling above.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 03:14 PM (r1jNE)

147 "With all the stupid "Yes We Can!" and "I pledge..." videos (remember all the actors, actresses and music people on those videos?) and HOPE and CHANGE art, etc. It seemed everywhere you turned, people were shilling for Obama. " Oh man I hope they try that again. Really, please, guys, record hymns to him again. See how that goes over.

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 03:18 PM (r1jNE)

148 >>>Jeff, I bet if we met in person over beers we'd actually get along famously.

I bet we probably would.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 03:20 PM (hIWe1)

149 >>>Steely Dan never sold out like that - in, what, 100 recorded tracks there's not a *single* expression of sincere emotion. I admire the consistency.

Not true! "Deacon Blues" definitely has a legitimately sentimental tinge to it. Even the Dan finally gave in for that one song. (It really is the only one I can think of, though.)

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 25, 2012 03:22 PM (hIWe1)

150 "This synopsis is too long and detailed to fit wiki's standard." You've also confused a review with a blow by blow synopsis. Protip: when you review a movie, it's not necessary to go through the entire plot detail by detail. You just give your general impression of the story, the acting, the production values, the overall effect. Hope this helps. Again, you've confused "long" with "good". If you ever want to actually get PAID for writing, self-edit. I know, I've written for a living for a looooooong time.

Posted by: docweasel at February 25, 2012 03:23 PM (beBtw)

151 ""Deacon Blues" definitely has a legitimately sentimental tinge to it." True - but the "sentiment" is still self-pity, right? Whereas Costello was an Emotional Fascist for five or six albums, then recorded an album with songs talking about how awesome marriage is and singing "la la la, la la la laaaa" about His Lady. Sell. Out. To. Emotion. "I bet we probably would." Salt Lake City Meetup Yo

Posted by: Knemon at February 25, 2012 03:31 PM (r1jNE)

152

[*SPOILER*]

@ mike

Eh, we're getting into beating-a-dead-horse country here, but your stupidity prompts me to go another round.

"Children-in danger" or "child endangerment" (Ace's words) do not equate to child killing. In the first half of the film, we learn the ghost has a hang-up about children, so that seed is planted. Despite this early hint about the possibility of "child endangerment," however, it's still a shock, and a chilling one, when we learn that the ghost specifically *kills children*.

I've seen and read a lot of ghost stories, and children-in-danger scenarios are pretty common. But I've never come across a story about a ghost that kills children.

That's the plot twist that sets The Woman in Black apart, the plot twist no one would have guessed if you hadn't spoiled it for them.

Posted by: John at February 25, 2012 03:41 PM (k5Bku)

153 Look, you little dick prick, I'm between a rock and a hard place in that if I defend myself, assholes like you will attack me. I apologized but nooooo! Every douchebag wants to try to pile on. It is dropped and over until a little prick, i.e., you, brings it up again. >>>But I've never come across a story about a ghost that kills children. Turn of the Screw, asshole, on which numerous films and television specials have been based on. Now, fucking drop it.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 03:55 PM (AsqOS)

154 >>>That's the plot twist that sets The Woman in Black apart, the plot twist no one would have guessed if you hadn't spoiled it for them. And no, douchebag, that is not the plot twist no one would have guessed. Obviously, you haven't seen the film though it doesn't stop you from shooting off your fat mouth.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 03:58 PM (AsqOS)

155 So are there tits or not?

Posted by: Guy who wants to know if there are tits at February 25, 2012 04:05 PM (HtUdo)

156 If you ever want to actually get PAID for writing, self-edit. I know, I've written for a living for a looooooong time.

Yeah, you're a real phenomenon. I guess ace will have to keep slugging it out at his three other jobs just to make ends meet until he puts it all together like you have.

Posted by: VJay at February 25, 2012 04:42 PM (q5NFp)

157

I missed your apology. Sorry for piling on on that front. That said, your whininess ("I apologized but nooooo! Every douchebag wants to try to pile on.") is most unmanly. Are you a little girl pretending to be a boy? Or just a homo? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

>that is not the plot twist no one would have guessed.<

Fair enough. I overstated my point. I think it's a great twist, and I didn't see it coming, but I'm sure there are *some* who will suss it out, as the clues are there.

As for Turn of the Screw, it has the common ghost story theme of children-in-peril, but the story is thoroughly ambiguous about whether the ghost is real or a figment of the governess's imagination. Miles dies at the end, but it's up to the reader to decide whether from shock at seeing a ghost, or from being driven to collapse by an unhinged, shrieking governess. This is a completely different set-up and twist than TWIB, where there's no ambiguity, and the ghost's M.O. is strictly child-killing. They're both ghost stories, but in terms of plot they're apples and oranges.

Posted by: John at February 25, 2012 05:08 PM (k5Bku)

158 Fuck you. I apologized repeatedly but you and the other douchebag kept it up. Nothing manly about showing how small your dick is, asshole. You're the whiner. Here comes another one of your big fat whines. Again, I can't defend myself without incurring the wrath of you douchebags. Go see the fucking film and stop making shit up. And again, fuck off you dishonest hack.

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 05:14 PM (AsqOS)

159

>Fuck you. I apologized repeatedly but you and the other douchebag kept it up. Nothing manly about showing how small your dick is, asshole. You're the whiner. Here comes another one of your big fat whines. Again, I can't defend myself without incurring the wrath of you douchebags. Go see the fucking film and stop making shit up. And again, fuck off you dishonest hack.<

Translation: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!

Posted by: John at February 25, 2012 05:16 PM (k5Bku)

160 Translation: John = dishonest hack

Posted by: mike at February 25, 2012 05:17 PM (AsqOS)

161 What did I say that's dishonest?

Posted by: John at February 25, 2012 05:20 PM (k5Bku)

162 >> 'when the camera just glided by a black chair, he mistook it for the ghost, and cried out in alarm' RACIST!

Posted by: The Chap, etc. at February 25, 2012 05:25 PM (9fiMP)

163 104 Meh. As soon as I read Radcliffe is a huge Obama apologist, I put him on my list of actors whose movies I will never see.

DRad doesn't shove it down my throat like Hollywood celebs do, though. He's hardly Sean Penn or Susan Sarandon about it.

Posted by: tdpwells at February 25, 2012 05:50 PM (7vA7k)

164 Boo!

Are you dead yet?

Posted by: Ghost Who Kills Tiresome Commenters at February 25, 2012 06:16 PM (P136z)

165

www.genset-china.com

Posted by: kadin at February 25, 2012 07:08 PM (cZh/D)

166 www.parts-machining.com

Posted by: kadin at February 25, 2012 07:38 PM (cZh/D)

167 ace: Three Stars. You only gave this movie three out of four stars? The way you were short strokin' it in your review made me think it was Four Star material.

Posted by: alpha at February 25, 2012 10:34 PM (0h+bM)

168 I'd say this movie isn't a kiddy movie for different reasons. It's not that it's too scary, it's that the scares aren't what most kids would want. Kids want thrilling slasher movies and The Woman In Black is more an atmospheric creeping horror film. This is more for people who like a certain quiet tension in their horror movies.

I'd have a hard time saying this movie delivered on that since the family of noisy fat slobs and the dude with the constantly crying baby ruined this movie for me completely.

And yeah, it's Hammer Films. It's a real company and not just some other studio using the brand. They produced the American remake of Let The Right One In called Let Me In.

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2012 11:37 PM (4ixH5)

169 Daughter and her friend saw "Woman in Black" last night and came home totally creeped out and loving it. Daughter is in love with Daniel Radcliffe and thought he was excellent.

Posted by: rockmom at February 26, 2012 05:30 AM (YPgCz)

170 I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but if the movie rating system confuses you, you should probably watch the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It's available streaming on Netflix, but the extras on the DVD are worth watching.

Do not watch it with your kids.

Posted by: Darkmage at February 27, 2012 04:22 AM (yvnmY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

171kb generated in CPU 0.1352, elapsed 0.2838 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2488 seconds, 298 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.