This will be a pretty short post because I read the book and watched the film a month and a half ago and, to be honest, neither was especially memorable. The book was satisfactory but not mind-blowing and the film was bad but in a totally predictable way.
Susan Hill's The Woman in Black has been on my TBR list for years but I didn't get around to reading it until December, mostly because I also wanted to watch the recent film version. It turned out to be an acceptably spooky story with good pacing and a haunted house that I hope never to get caught in at night. But while the story also had a deep feeling of melancholy and loss, the film went for the cheap thrills, inventing horrors that were obvious and, to be honest, rather lame. I knew from the moment that I saw it was a Hammer film that it would be over the top but, when the entire mystery of the book was given away in the first few minutes of the film and then was just exploited for stereotypical horror scenarios, it was really frustrating. And I really don't believe this interview with Susan Hill where she says
And now, 30 years after I wrote it, The Woman in Black has made it to the big screen. Jane Goldman, one of the hottest screenwriting talents around, has done a marvellous adaptation, which is just that — not a copy but a screen interpretation which remains faithful to the spirit of the book but, like the play, is true to its own medium.
The film was not at all faithful to the spirit of the book nor was it, by any stretch of the imagination "marvellous". It was like a knock-off of The Ring or some other schlocky horror film.
Verdict: Read the book, skip the movie ... unless you really need to see Daniel Radcliffe looking handsome at a legal age, then go ahead and watch it but don't expect anything but a standard horror flick.
Disappointed once more,
K
I actually enjoyed the movie, and thought it was pretty faithful to the book, though that might be because I saw it over a year after reading the book, and the book wasn't particularly memorable. I remember finding the book distinctly lacking, not at all scary, and barely atmospheric enough to warrent the read. I enjoyed it, but only in a 3-star way, and I barely remembered it within weeks of the read. The movie was fairly forgettable, too, but I enjoyed the way it filled out the parts that were lacking in the book. Sure, there were a lot of horror moments, but I went into it expecting that, and those things do creep me out, so it worked for me. :D Not that I would go out and get the movie to own or anything, but i liked it far more than the book, which I thought was rather dull.
ReplyDeleteBut the entire book built up to the reveal of who the woman and boy were, something the movie threw out there in the first quarter of the film! You're right though ... neither was particularly memorable. I don't know why I had it in my head that the book was supposed to be awesome but it wasn't. It was fine but that was about it.
DeleteI'm reading her Simon Serrailler series and really liking it. Not sure I"ll bother with this one though.
ReplyDeleteIf you happen across a copy and have nothing else to read, it's not bad ... just not awesome. I wonder if she's just better at writing the different genre.
DeleteI haven't read the book or seen the movie, but I did see the play and was unimpressed. It wasn't bad, but I was expecting something much scarier. (It probably didn't help that the seats were uncomfortable, and my feet were soaked through from a London downpour.) I do have the book on my list. I'm curious as to how they compare but in no great hurry to find out.
ReplyDeleteI was curious about the play. I had heard it was really scary so it's interesting to know that you were unimpressed. I do hope you compare them one day just because. :)
DeleteI enjoyed making fun of the movie when I saw it, although it was really kind of blah. Not scary at all and not bad enough to be hilarious. I really have no desire to read the book now.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it was one of those movies where they mistake jumpy for scary. The acting was fine but they definitely went for effects over any substance. It was NOT a good film.
DeleteHahahaha, I love how lukewarmly you recommend this book. It's sort of nice. Sets me free from having to read it because I think Susan Hill is sort of a jerk. Based on, like, one thing she said one time in one interview.
ReplyDeleteHaha. That's so Jenny. :) But I know how you feel. This is the second book I've read by her and both were meh so this will probably be it for me.
DeleteI've only read one Hill novel...The Man in the Picture. I liked it quite a bit for its atmosphere, but it wasn't overly spooky. I also have The Small Hand on my Nook, and I'd like to read this one at some point. I am sorry that the film didn't live up! Cheap thrills are a downer.
ReplyDeleteThat's the only other one I've read too (Man in the Picture) and I thought it was fine but predictable.
DeleteI really have been wanting to read this book and see the movie! After reading this, I guess I will get around to both eventually, but I will definitely read the book first!
ReplyDeleteI think I might have liked the movie better if I hadn't expected it to actually be faithful to the book. ;)
DeleteI already follow your blog, but we are now new TWITTER followers. :)
ReplyDeleteHave a great day!!
Elizabeth
Silver's Reviews