(February 9, 2012) -- While generally not too enthusiastic about horror movies, I was, like many Harry Potter fans, excited when I found out about The Woman in Black, Daniel Radcliffe’s very first post-Potter movie. The Woman in Black is an eerie, old-fashioned, haunted-house movie that trades in gore for creeps and does it well. Armed with excellent cinematography, The Woman in Black never fails to send chills down your back. Moving objects, singing toys and faces in windows become steadily creepier as the movie runs longer.

Arthur Kipps (played by Radcliffe) is a widowed young lawyer who never quite got over the death of his wife. His firm gives him the job of settling the estate of recently deceased Alice Drablow, and he leaves his young son in the care of the nanny and travels to the gloomy town of Crythin Gifford. Situated at the end of a causeway surrounded by marshes, cut off from the rest of the town, the Drablow house is home to the ghost of a scorned woman. Due to the accidental death of her little boy, she continuously preys on the children of the town, having them commit suicide in nearly any way possible.

The plot itself is engaging but there is nothing too special about it. It is, at its core, a standard ghost story. What really carries the movie is the cinematography and art direction. These, paired with an unsettling soundtrack and committed acting, make the film something special. The camera angles are so strategically set up and expertly edited together that they are extremely effective in setting up the mood for scenes.

Children’s toys are a huge part of the movie and are featured in many scenes. Singing toys are littered all over the Drablow house, due to the former presence of the young boy. The score is compiled with this in mind, and frequently utilizes the sounds of different bells to imitate the music that children’s toys make. A huge theme in The Woman in Black is the innocence of children, so the score has a profound effect on viewers.

Unlike many, I was not concerned with Daniel Radcliffe’s ability to carry a movie that wasn’t Harry Potter. I knew that several people were adamant in thinking that they would never be able to imagine Radcliffe in any other role because he has become so iconic. I was not disappointed; Radcliffe plays the role well and definitely portrays the sad soul that Arthur Kipps was. The character he plays is slightly older than himself and, of course, is a father. This is the only part where Radcliffe falls occasionally short, at times not very convincing in a fatherly role.

It is clear the film never tries to be anything other than creepy, engaging, and visually satisfying and it doesn’t seem to even call itself a full-blown horror film. It’s one of those films that can safely be shown at family nights and slumber parties. While everyone will be sufficiently scared while watching, they will probably all go to sleep later without any problem.