Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn James Watkins. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn James Watkins. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Chủ Nhật, 30 tháng 12, 2012

Greg Klymkiw takes a good, healthy DUMP upon the very WORST that Cinema had to offer in 2012. The TEN WORST MOVIES OF 2012.


The Worst Movies of 2012
By Greg Klymkiw

2012 could well have been much worse than it was, but for the most part, the year yielded a lot of great stuff. That said, there's more than enough celluloid trash to kvetch about and believe me, you'll find plenty of my kvetching here. Contenders I mulled over for inclusion that you won't find here included Ben Affleck's overrated racist compost toilet Argo, the absolutely pointless, boring and abominable Hitchcock, Brandon Cronenberg's dull, humourless and idiotic Antiviral, Spielberg's plodding Lincoln, the bloated Les Miserables, and a whole raft of mediocre comedies, horror films and pretentious art films. Consider them all runners-up.

Here, though, for your edification are my absolute Top Ten Worst Films of 2012. Technically there are a few more than 10 on my list, but three of the films are so interchangeable that they ended up being listed as a tie. The worst trend this year was to hire directors who can't direct action and/or suspense to handle films replete with action and/or suspense. The bottom line is that the films listed below were awful enough to bring out the ornery, rascally rabbit in me.

As per usual, I present the titles in alphabetical order.

Read 'em and weep!

Klymkiw's 10 WORST movies of 2012

Didn't Sam Raimi already make this movie?

The Amazing Spider-Man dir. Marc Webb

Pitching the Turd: So, uh, let's do the origin of Spidey again, but with a new cast and let's make sure it's not as good because people will come anyway. Oh, let's get the director of Hilary Duff and Miley Cyrus music videos. He'll know what to do.

Catching the Turd: The bland, tasteful hack-manship of this movie slides down one's gullet not unlike the ease with which sewage spills into water treatment tanks. With by-the-numbers direction that delivers the all-too-familiar Spidey origin story (which Sam Raimi already did with so much force and panache - not that long ago), we basically get a slight reworking; a barely competent lame-duck that's little more than a cash-grab. The movie is dull and depressing, but even more so are the boneheads who paid money to see it. Are contemporary audiences so stupid that they require these endless reboots? Are they so bereft of attention spans that they need a pallid re-telling of Spidey's origin so soon? Have they become such lambs-to-the-slaughter suckers they'll contribute readily to putting money in the pockets of the unimaginative business school graduates pretending to be studio moguls? The answer it would seem is a resounding "Yes!"

TIED WITH . . .


Gee, this movie seems awfully familiar.

The Avengers dir. Joss Whedon

Pitching the Turd: Asgard's exiled Loki, hooks up with evil aliens to steal a cube of power. He hypnotizes Hawkeye and Professor Selvig to assist him. Nick Fury pulls in Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America, Thor and The Black Widow to fight the power from the outer reaches of the universe. The super heroes squabble. They kiss and make up. They fight the bad guys. They win. The Earth is free.

Catching the Turd: Television writer-director Joss Whedon accomplishes the sort of thing TV directors and other filmmakers bereft of any real cinematic voice employ. Endless closeups, more shots and cuts than Sergei Eisenstein would have ever imagined being used (and he used plenty), no sense of spatial geography, genuinely good fight choreography butchered by excessive cutting, a grating, pounding soundscape, a thunderous score and a whole lot of thunder signifying not much of anything. The whole affair is executed with a cudgel. It's depressing to realize that audiences have become so numbed by bad filmmaking they'll have no difficulty embracing these loathsome efforts. Joss Whedon is not a filmmaker. Like the woeful J.J. Abrams, Christopher Nolan and others of this overrated, untalented ilk, Whedon is a hack. There's nary a single shot in the film that suggests he has a filmmaker's eye and though he apparently has a good reputation as a writer in television (I don't bother to watch television), he clearly hasn't got what it takes to generate a script with the sweep and true spectacle needed for a feature. Oh, and the movie bored the shit out of me.

TIED WITH . . . 


Pardon me, I'm looking for Bridget Fonda.

The Dark Knight Rises dir. Christopher "One Idea" Nolan

Pitching the Turd: Gotham City is crime free. Harvey Dent has become Jesus Christ and Commissioner Gordon is feeling guilty about suppressing the real truth for the "good" of the city. Batman is off the radar whilst Bruce Wayne mopes about in seclusion with his loyal butler Alfred. A plucky cat burglar who looks like Anne Hathaway with body paint for clothes, takes a shine to Bruce as does a wealthy socialite who looks an awful lot like the French woman who played Edith Piaf (only without the "ugly" makeup). Out of nowhere comes an incredibly bland villain with a bunch of tubes and steel pipes in his face. It's impossible to understand half his dialogue, but no matter, he's there to do evil, not to be understood. He's a terrorist bent on giving the city back to criminals. This will never do, of course, so Batman comes to the rescue, but not before an endlessly drawn out sequence in some weird-ass pit in the middle of nowhere as Bruce needs to climb out of the hole to triumphantly beat the bad guy. Oh yeah, there's a nice young cop who believes in Batman and lends a hand. His name is - WAIT FOR IT - Robin. Alas, no homoerotic subtext here. Nolan leaves that bit o' business twixt Bruce Wayne and Alfred.

Catching the Turd: Christopher Nolan has a very distinctive style. It doesn't mean he can direct. He's dull, dour, pretentious, humourless and has absolutely no talent for directing action sequences. He does, however, usually have one idea.

I'm an auteur, don'cha know?


I can act, write & direct. Just like Orson Welles.

When acting I have one expression.

Here it is again. Enjoy!

Friends With Kids dir. Jennifer Westfeldt

Pitching the Turd: Two fuck buddies see how marriage and kids have ruined the carefree lives of all their friends until they realize that it's okay to be more than fuck buddies and ruin their own lives too.

Catching the Turd: Easily the most nauseating film of the year that forces an interminable wait to discover if the most sickening romantic movie couple in recent film history will eventually find happiness with each other. Before the inevitable no-brainer is revealed we have to put up with TV-sitcom-styled dialogue trying pathetically to be sophisticated, fired out in Howard Hawks-like rat-a-tat-tat fashion, purportedly in homage to classic romantic screwball comedy, but in reality, simply masking how shallow all the characters are, including everything that spews out of their mouths. We are therefore forced to wallow, like pigs in a trough full of horrendous upper-middle-class values in these repugnant empty vessels - either to remind us how wonderful the lifestyles of bourgeois sheep are or as a carrot of "success" to dangle before those who aspire to emulating these frightful people and their negligible existence. Especially grotesque is the bourgeois breeder mentality that infuses all the characters - particularly our two main characters. There's a selfishness and immaturity that we're all supposed to, uh, "relate" to. I'd personally find it easier to relate to Manson Family values than these petty, machine-tooled "sophisticates". And lest we forget, this painful, pus-filled boil of a movie stars the hideously unwatchable Jennifer Westfeldt, one of the most woefully inexpressive actresses I've ever had the displeasure to witness on a big screen. Not only does she have a clumping, clod-hopping gait, but her face is weirdly frozen. Westfeldt is clearly too young to have been mainlining Botox, but I'd hate to think how immobile her expressions would be if and when she does partake in this hideous, dehumanizing butchery. Of course it's Westfeldt who is responsible for this abomination as she also wrote (in a manner of speaking) and directed (as it were) what is easily one of the worst romantic comedies of the new millennium.

I'm going to find you and I'm going to… Oh, Shite! Wrong movie.

The Grey dir. Joe Carnahan

Pitching the Turd: Liam Neeson, a sharpshooting wolf killer and co-workers from an Arctic Oil Rig are on a plane that crashes in the middle of a wolf pack's happy hunting grounds. The coterie of macho wolf-bait is the usual assortment of miscreants - leading to all manner of personality conflicts amidst the very real threat of being devoured and/or freezing to death.

Catching the Turd: A new film from the director of The A-Team, Smokin' Aces and Narc is NOT, I assure you, a ringing endorsement. Joe Carnahan shoehorns fake existential male angst into a straight-up action thriller, bone-headedly assuming he'll lift the material out of its genre roots. He's a snob and an incompetent one at that. The wolf attacks are directed with all the style of an apprentice butcher raising his sledgehammer tentatively over the skull of a cow before letting it sloppily crash down upon the bovine cranium. The action is almost always in closeup and utilizes lazy herky-jerky shooting in tandem with Attention Deficit Disorder quick cutting.

As you can see, I have extremely large lips.

The Hunger Games dir. Gary Ross

Pitching the Turd: Based on the first of three bestselling books by Suzanne Collins, children are forced to murder each other on live television.

Catching the Turd: This might have made for a decent picture if it came closer to Norman Jewison's Rollerball crossed with Kinji Fukasaku's Battle Royale - the cool dystopian future vision of the former and the utterly insane ultra violence of the latter. However, to make a dream picture like this, even with the dreadful script based on a dreadful book would have required something resembling a director which, helmer Gary Ross clearly isn't. In fact, Ross reaches his filmmaking nadir with this. He's yet another director who has absolutely no idea how to direct suspense and action. Full of annoying shaky-cam and endless, cheap-jack quick cuts, he's all bluster and not much else. He has no idea of spatial geography, his camera placements are all a big mess and there is nary a thrilling moment in the entire movie. Add to the film's ineptitude a plodding 142-minute running time and it's a recipe for guaranteed international worldwide boxoffice success amongst audiences who are collectively not unlike Winnie The Pooh - being, as he was, a bear of very little brain..

There are no leading roles for women, but I will do quite nicely.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey dir. Peter Jackson

Pitching the Turd: Let's take a slender novel and blow the first part of it up to a 170-minute movie. It's Tolkein's precursor to The Lord of the Rings. Bilbo leaves the Shire with Gandalf and a bunch of Middle Earthlings to get something (or to do something, or to meet someone or to. . . whatever) and have them walk for a long time and punctuate the walking (and talking) with occasional fights with monsters and bad guys. Eventually, they'll get what they're looking for (sort of) and the movie will prepare us for a sequel.

Catching the Turd: The Hobbit is a lame ride. The movie is interminably boring, the action scenes are surprisingly and rather lamely directed, the special effects are predictably - uh, digital - many of the set-pieces are structured like video game roller coaster rides and worst of all, the stalwart Viggo Mortensen hero-type is unbearably awful and has absolutely no screen presence. None whatsoever. Where they dredged that loser up was beyond me until I checked out his credits after seeing the movie and saw he was a longtime TV actor. Oh, and it's just under three hours long. I assure you that one never gets that precious time back.

You'll be happy when I give myself a Cesarian. Not much else to enjoy here.

Prometheus dir. Ridley Scott

Pitching the Turd: Scientists go to another planet and discover that it was once populated by alien beings who were responsible for creating life on Earth until they were wiped out by the nasty monster aliens from Alien. Yes, Alien - which makes this a prequel, no less, and with that great film's original director. Anyone who thinks Prometheus should be viewed as a stand-alone piece and NOT a prequel to Alien (as some have suggested, including the director) is an idiot. It's a prequel all right.

Catching the Turd: Prometheus is all sizzle and no steak. There's way too much boring New-Agey stuff, no real scares (save for one that is ripped off from the original Alien) and a much larger cast to give the aliens more to eat (though it means little because we never get to know any of them as characters). The movie is rife with BIG IDEAS, but most of them are introduced, then dropped in favour of forward thrust and pyrotechnics. Even more offensive is the predictable conclusion that offers up a sequel or two. I saw it coming from very early on and prayed the story WOULDN'T go where it did. It did. So much for shocker endings; though in fairness, a gibbon might have some trouble predicting the outcome.

What's my motivation, Oliver? Schwance, baby, schwance.

Savages dir. Oliver Stone

Pitching the Turd: The idiotically named "O" is the coffee table centrepiece in a groovy menage with her dope dealing boyfriends Ben and Chon. These guys make wicked dope, live the high life in their California dream house and boink the beautiful, but vapid O. When a Mexican drug cartel run by a Latina she-bitch seeks to muscle-in on their action, their dream comes crashing to a halt when O is kidnapped by the baddies and held hostage until they do the deal.

Catching the Turd: Easily Oliver Stone's worst movie ever. With a trio of bland lead characters and a clutch of over-the-top villains, there's little to keep our interest. I have no problem with the heroes being dope dealers who are simply trying to protect their turf - my problem is that they're such dull, hippy-dippy and ultimately, empty dope dealers. And while the villains all chew the scenery, none of them feel like they're especially having any fun doing it. The movie is a misfire from beginning to end. All it has going for it is the violence which, I'll admit is staged with Stone's trademark style and efficiency, but because there's virtually nothing in the movie that's remotely engaging, even the well-staged carnage feels like a waste. The whole picture feels phoned-in.

BOND: She's all mine, Raoul. Hands off. RAOUL: Oh, Bond. She's more than enough woman for both us. M: Oh, for Jesus H. Christ's sake! Drop your goddamn drawers. I can take both of youse Nancy-Boys on, plus Mr. Kincade and his bleeding stupid hunting dog. KINCADE: Och! Welcome to Scotland.

Skyfall dir. Sam Mendes

Pitching the Turd: James Bond views M as his Mommy because he was orphaned as a child. A terrorist who used to work for M is now trying to discredit her. The terrorist once looked upon M as his Mommy too because, like Bond, he was orphanedBond goes after him. Any guesses as to the outcome? I, for one, was looking forward to s scene where Bond and The Terrorist threw their arms open to each other and invite M for a bit of Mommy-Love Daisy Chain action. It didn't happen, but as I'm a professional (don'cha know?) I did not let it affect my assessment of the film.

Catching the Turd: Problem: Sam Mendes can't direct action. Problem: Sam Mendes can't direct (even though he continues to fool critics and Oscar voters otherwise). Problem: Sam Mendes has no sense of fun, nor anything resembling a sense of humour. These are big problems. Mendes is not only an overrated director, he's a magician, though not the kind that creates screen magic, but the sort who truly bamboozles audiences, studio heads, producers, financiers (and, sadly, reviewers) into thinking he's good. It must be the accent. He's a poseur of the highest order and has never made a decent picture. That said, I put these prejudices aside because I love Daniel Craig as Bond (in Casino Royale only, though) and I love James Bond (in many of his incarnations over the decades). I enjoyed the first two minutes of Skyfall, but as soon as the big action set-piece began, my heart sank. The entire opening has little sense of spatial geography, far too many closeups, a ridiculous number of cuts and only a handful of wide shots to take in the action. Car chase, motorcycle chase, foot chase and finally, spectacular leaps on top of a moving train do little more than exhaust the audience. Mendes cudgels us into submission. This isn't suspense, nor is it especially exciting. It's cacophony, pure and simple. Once again, we have an action sequence in a contemporary film that fakes its way through - driving the action NOT with dramatic beats, but with sledgehammer cuts inspired by explosive and/or grating, screeching sound. During the car chase sequence we never get a clean exterior shot of the car that Bond and Moneypenny are in. Mendes peppers the chase with closeups of things the car smashes into from interior POVs, but we never get a sense of the real danger, destruction and urgency. It's all bluster. So is the rest of the movie - boringly bombastic and no fun at all. Oh, and to all those who thought Javier Bardem was a great Bond villain - think again.

Where's the loo? I have the runs. So too will you.

The Woman in Black dir. James Watkins

Pitching the Turd: A widowed young 19th-century London`lawyer (Daniel "Harry Potter" Radcliffe) journeys to an isolated village to save his ailing career and settle an estate which, not surprisingly, bears a heavy curse that befalls anyone who spies the creepy title apparition within its borders. Our hero spends an inordinate amount of time in the crumbling Victorian manse, getting several up-close-and-personal ocular treats of the pseudo-J-Horror ghost and when he does, a child in the village dies. Though we can see this coming from a mile away, the movie pretends it's going to be a surprise that the lawyer's winsomely cute tyke will be visiting the countryside with his Nanny. Oops.

Catching the Turd: This lame attempt to rekindle the atmospheric glory of Hammer Horror films flops. Good intentions are not enough. Sometimes movies need something resembling a real filmmaker at the helm. Alas, this movie is rendered by a director with no discernible style who likes the idea of making a Hammer picture, but not, it seems, actually doing one. The results are dire. Instead of Christopher Lee ogling heaving bosoms, the movie serves up little more than Daniel Radcliffe porn.

I'm soooooooo serious, yes?

We Need To Talk About Kevin dir. Lynne Ramsay

Pitching the Turd: Lots of bopping around in time and space with dollops of obtuse dreams, a mire of precious imagery, confusing narrative details and oh-so earnest performances delivers a film about a psychotically dysfunctional family.

Catching the Turd: It's a cerebral, trick-pony approach to horrific events in a family's life that's not only disingenuous, but vaguely offensive - artistically and morally. Reprehensible "art" cinema for pseuds.

Thứ Năm, 2 tháng 2, 2012

THE WOMAN IN BLACK - Review by Greg Klymkiw: This attempt to rekindle the atmospheric glory of Hammer Horror films pretty much flops. Good intentions are not enough. Sometimes movies need something resembling a real filmmaker at the helm. Besides, what defines Hammer Horror? Daniel Radcliffe Porn or Christopher Lee ogling a heaving bosom and tender neckline?


The Woman in Black (2012)
dir. James Watkins
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds and Janet McTeer

*1/2

By Greg Klymkiw

Hell, as the influential man of letters Samuel Johnson was quoted as saying in Boswell's late 18th century biography, is paved with good intentions. Chances are pretty good that Johnson, if transported via time machine to the present might well have equated the act of sitting through the new James Watkins-directed film version of Susan Hill's insanely over-regarded novel as being paved with the same good intentions. Alack and alas, the roiling lava of the aforementioned Mephistophelean domicile is hardly a suitable mortar when the construction chief is a woefully unimaginative by-the-numbers (when he's able to actually put two and two together) hack.

The Woman in Black is a decent enough ghost story, adapted here by the normally reliable screenwriter Jane (Kick-Ass) Goldman and featuring a pleasing post-Harry Potter Daniel Radcliffe as the tortured leading man. The unfortunate fact of the matter though, is that director James Watkins is at best, bland, and at worst, hampered with a set of tin eyes. Watkins gives it the old college try, but falls painfully short of what this movie might have been if directed by someone endowed with even a smidgen of style and a sense of humour.

This lackadaisical horror movie, in spite of its lofty goals in the portentous atmosphere sweepstakes, settles for occasional cheapjack chair-tossers whilst alternatively providing yummy shots of the very pretty Mr. Radcliffe to respectively elicit screams of terror and lust from its primary demographic - the same tween-er, teener and twenty-er-something members of the "weaker sex" (in the parlance of those days of yore when such tales are oft set), who pathetically continue to look for their thrills amidst the dross of such lame items as the execrable Twilight series.

On the surface, I have little quarrel with the narrative. The widowed young 19th-century London`lawyer Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) journeys to a small town in north country to save his ailing career and settle an estate which, not surprisingly, bears a heavy curse that befalls anyone who spies the creepy title apparition. The tragic death of a child is the result when anyone catches a glimpse of the funereally-attired residue of ectoplasm. Arthur, spending an insanely inordinate amount of time within the walls of the crumbling and creepy Victorian manse, the evocatively-named Eel Marsh House, gets not one, but several up-close-and-personal ocular treats of this pseudo-J-Horror ghost.

Well, gosh darn it all, this is enough to create a few deaths of children in the village, but worst of all, the fey, tortured Mr. Kipps is a single father to a winsomely cute tyke who will be visiting the northern English countryside with his Nanny.

Yikes! We can see what's coming a few miles away. (This is not, by the way, a narrative flaw, but one that could have fuelled the proverbial fire if the film had actually been directed.)

Kipps receives the helpful assistance of Mr. Daily (Ciarán Hinds), a friendly country gent who also lost a child many moons ago under similar circumstances, but eschews the superstitions plaguing the local townsfolk and laments how the said back-country hayseeds' belief in the ghost has influenced his wife (Janet McTeer) to the point where she's been driven completely bonkers.

The goal, as in many ghostly tales, is to right a wrong to put the malevolent spirit on its way to the white light - hopefully ending the curse. (I must admit, though, to always wondering why nasty ghosts engaging in all manner of evil behaviour wouldn't end up in Hell instead of the open arms of Jesus H. Christ?)

So what's the problem?

Decent story + good acting + decent production value SHOULD = Good Movie.

Ya' think?

Well, if said movie is rendered by a director with no discernible style, the results are dire. Some critics and genre geeks have extolled James Watkins's direction of his previous film Eden Lake. I had little use for the movie. It was a by-rote and moronically written wilderness thriller with a camping couple (the male half played by the ubiquitous Michael Fassbender) being terrorized by thugs - lower drawer Deliverance material at best and yet, on the basis of this lame picture he's handed an opportunity to direct a pretty decent screenplay by Jane Goldman (though in fairness to the great writer Nigel Kneale, I rather preferred HIS screenplay for the much-better British television version of the tale made in 1989).

What, pray tell, is happening in commercial cinema these days?

Hacks with no voice are becoming the order of the day.

This is especially disappointing here.

I'm no fan of the novel, but it's reasonably readable crap that provided a decent enough groundwork for the solid TV movie from Blighty, the second-longest running play behind Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" and could have made for an excellent addition to the canon of the newly resurrected Hammer Horror company. To date, however, the contemporary Hammer output has been a major disappointment save for the decent Let Me In, a well crafted, though utterly unnecessary English-language remake of Tomas (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) Alfredson's great Swedish original Let The Right One In.

Much has been made about the early Hammer output in terms of its atmospheric horror and while I will not dispute its value in that regard, let's also not forget that some of the greatest pictures it delivered were replete with globs of dry and/or dark humour, tasty dollops of garish colour in the mise-en-scene (especially in those Hammers directed by Terence Fisher), endless views of milky heaving bosoms and great actors working overtime to provide - on the hero front: the crazed business of Peter Cushing, and on the villain front: the sheer, sex-drenched malevolence of the cooler-than-cool Christopher Lee.

And the production value was impeccable. Though the movies were cheaply made, they never looked it. Again, so much of this was delivered by stylish filmmakers like Fisher or the magnificent cinematographer Freddie Francis who on many occasions dabbled/doubled at the Hammer studios as a director.

The production value on display in The Woman in Black is not without merit, but it's wasted in the hands of the tin-eyed director Watkins. The camera is either in the wrong place at the wrong time, or worse, it's resting easy on the side of competence. I don't necessarily want to blame cinematographer Tim Maurice-Jones for the murky, milky look of the movie - he's done great work with real directors in the past - but this movie never once comes close to the pulpy colour palettes of the classic Hammer pictures. It's all so very dreary and I can only assume this has more to do with Watkins's vision or lack thereof.

The most disturbing element in the movie has nothing to do with eliciting scares. It's the preponderance of Radcliffe-porn - pure and simple. For example, one of the first shots of the ghost in the house could/should have been a corker with Radcliffe in the foreground and the ghost just being there - creepily and horrifically in the background. Unfortunately, the angle seems slightly off for maximum dramatic/visceral impact and favours Radcliffe from a perspective that's more interested in making our dreamboat teen-throb as yummy as possible to the young ladies (and assorted gentlemen) in the audience. In fact, poor Radcliffe is almost in every shot of the movie and working his thespian tukhus off and sadly, it's all for nought - at least in terms of enabling the movie. Radcliffe becomes a stylishly attired schwance to be ogled, desired and deified.

The scares in the movie, such as they are, are not genuinely rooted in atmosphere, since so much of it is of the stock variety and without the panache needed to make it rise above a merely pallid reproduction. This leaves endless shock scares to elicit screams and/or jumps from the audience.

Ho-hum.

God knows the legendary Terence Fisher didn't need to rely solely on such dull cheapjack gimmicks - his horror was rooted in relentless bloodcurdling evil incarnate and bolstered by genuine style. It was voyeuristic, fetishistic and deliciously, exploitatively nasty. This is what was creepy and scary and yes, exciting! And whilst Fisher, Francis and all the other Hammer directors engaged in bosom-porn it had the creepy-crawly effect of eyeing the plunging cleavage of a female victim-to-be, then moving up along her heaving bosom and following the slender handsome hands of Christopher Lee as he cradled the lassie tenderly, eyeing her delectable neckline which he would eventually plunge his teeth into and suck and suck and suck as the young victim would swoon and writhe in orgasmic pleasure and pain.

This is the ATMOSPHERE of Hammer Horror - not murkily photographed swamps and graveyards and nooks and crannies of old houses. Oh yes, the aforementioned existed in Hammer Horror, but they were photographed with aplomb - crisp blacks, exquisite key lighting and splashes of crystal clear colour of the deepest, richest, gaudiest kind.

Never, oh never, would a Hammer Horror film indulge in the sort of boy-toy-porn as poor talented Daniel Radcliffe is subjected to in Watkins's abominable helmsmanship. Oh yes, traditional Hammer Horror was replete with handsome men, but they were wickedly, dangerously handsome.

And finally, the best Hammer Horror had humour - not of the tongue-in-cheek variety, but vicious, dark and always rooted in the melodrama. The Woman in Black is humourless as all get out. I mean, really. This is a movie with little kiddies dying. This could surely have engendered some horrendously nasty knee-slappers. (Much of this potential is actually there for the taking in Goldman's script, but Watkins is too much of a cinematic dullard to see it in order to exploit it.)

When young Mr. Kipps' cherubic lad shows up with nanny at the train station, I'd have been more than prepared to howl at the very sight with thoughts of potential carnage dancing about in my brain. God knows, Mr. Fisher might have elicited some yucks and certainly someone like Brian DePalma would have been all over this one.

Whilst one might argue that the movie is aimed almost solely at a female audience and requires a kinder and gentler approach than what Hammer traditionally stood for in its heyday, I sincerely believe this lack of vision and faith in truly adhering to the work of Terence Fisher et al, is precisely what's wrong with movies, and in particular horror movies these days.

Interestingly enough, Hammer in the 70s began to seem tremendously old fashioned in the wake of William Friedkin's The Exorcist and in terms of what nearly destroyed the company were increasing levels of sex, violence and visceral horror that skyrocketed well beyond anything Hammer was capable of delivering in its final throes. And now, here we are in a world where female audiences are offensively treated with kid gloves - as if they need to be handled daintily. If I were a woman, this would make my blood boil. In fact, I know plenty of women who detest how mostly male movie makers go out of their way to gentrify the horror experience and render it into a maw of mawkish sentiment.

Furthermore, as horrific as Friedkin's vision was, he actually rooted his horror in an approach pioneered by Val Lewton at RKO in the 40s. Lewton decided that two things were the scariest elements of all. Firstly, the dark scared the bejesus out of people and he infused his films with plenty of shadows. Secondly, and closer to the genuinely atmospheric horror of Friedkin's The Exorcist, is that Lewton believed elements of everyday life were the stuff of horror - mental illness, loneliness, cults, marital strife, disease, sickness, despair. Lewton blended these elements of contemporary life with literal darkness, just as Friedkin did (in spite of the delightful addition of spinning heads, vomit, foul language and crucifix masturbation). Who can ever forget the endless poking and prodding poor Linda Blair is subjected to at the hands of her doctors? Amidst the supernatural, Friedkin wrung every drop of Lewton's belief in here and now horror having as much power as green-pea soup spewing upon Max Von Sydow's face. The Woman in Black has these Lewton-esque elements, but none of them are properly exploited - primarily because Watkins has no style as a director, whereas as Lewton, Friedkin and the Fisher Hammers were ripe with a voice that went beyond mere craft.

Finally and sadly, The Woman in Black leaves me with one burning question.

I ask, in all seriousness:

What's the point of giving Radcliffe's child a comely nanny, but then not, in true Hammer Horror fashion, focus at some salient point, upon her bosom?

Well, that would be exploitative, now, wouldn't it?

In reality, though, The Woman in Black, in addition to its lack of style, is exploitative in a far more insidious fashion. It believes, promotes and exploits the fact that female audiences are far too delicate and genteel to serve up the real goods.

"The Woman in Black" is currently in wide release via Alliance Films and CBS Films.