Best Pictures #121: 2025 (98th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein (2025)

by A.J.

Best Pictures #121: 2025 (98th) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Frankenstein (2025)

"What manner of creature is that? What manner of devil made him?"

I am a fan of director Guillermo del Toro, however, it always seems to be a coin flip whether I'll like his next movie or not. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is one of my favorite books and holds the rare distinction of being a book I have read more than once. So, I was more trepidatious than excited to see del Toro's adaptation of Frankenstein. There have been so many Frankenstein movies from the silent short in 1910 to the landmark Universal monster movie in 1931 to many, many more and now to del Toro. With so many versions of Mary Shelley's story, so many variations, so many re-imaginings, do we really need one more? The answer is yes, if it is this one.

It’s no surprise that this was a passion project for del Toro, who has been obsessed with the novel and 1931 film, directed by James Whale, since childhood. His wonderfully macabre visual style, approach to certain themes, and ability to create sympathetic portrayals of monsters make Frankenstein the perfect story for him to tell. Even more than Pan's Labyrinth or The Shape of Water, this feels like the ultimate Guillermo del Toro movie. It is the movie he was meant to make. 

The plot is, dare I say, familiar. I read some reviews that claimed this adaptation was more faithful to the novel, which is a sign that someone has not read the novel. This is something that gets said whenever a movie includes the framing device of the arctic expedition that discovers Frankenstein and the Creature. del Toro's adaptation does begin with an arctic expedition trapped in the ice that comes upon a weary and ailing Victor Frankenstein who tells his woeful tale to the captain. Of course, del Toro makes sure that the Creature also gets to tell his tale. 

In this version, young Victor Frankenstein learned the basics of medicine from his cold and demanding father (played by Charles Dance, of course). At university Victor’s (Oscar Isaac) boundary pushing experiments and ideas catch the attention of the eccentric Harlander (Christoph Waltz), who agrees to bankroll Frankenstein’s experiment to create a new and improved man. Frankenstein becomes infatuated with Harlander’s niece, Elizabeth (Mia Goth), who is engaged to his younger brother, William. The movie takes its time before the Creature is introduced; fortunately none of that time is wasted and Jacob Elordi as the Creature does not disappoint. 

Like Sofia Coppola in Priscilla, del Toro uses Elordi’s 6’5” stature to overwhelming effect. The special makeup effects are quite impressive (Make Up and Hairstyling are just one of a total 9 Oscar nominations), and all the more impressive because they do not hide or distract from Elordi’s performance. He effectively conveys the longing and anger of the Creature so well articulated in Mary Shelley’s novel. Elordi has earned a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination, the film’s only acting nomination. Neither a trophy nor a damsel, Mia Goth as Elizabeth is the promise of comfort and safety and love for Victor, William, and the Creature. Her compassion is the first kindness that the Creature knows. Oscar Isaac is at his best when playing mad scientists (see also Ex Machina for further proof and another excellent performance not nominated by the Academy). Isaac is delightfully over the top, clearly having fun with the role, and the movie benefits from it. Frankenstein is audacious, rakishly charming, arrogant and also selfish, abusive, and cowardly. One of the first things he does with the Creature is to put it in chains in the laboratory basement. His arc from protagonist to essentially a villain is done with care and Isaac handles Victor’s complexity very well. 

Both the Production Design and Costumes received Oscar nominations, and rightfully so. The story is set in the 1850’s, though things are not quite period accurate. They are, however, accurate to del Toro’s sensibilities. An elaborate statue of an archangel comes to fiery life during a nightmare (inspired by a real waking nightmare del Toro had as a child). The former armory turned laboratory is a bizarre and impractical but visually stunning tower on the edge of a cliff. There is a large chute down the middle from the top of the tower to the basement–reminiscent of the hole in the roof of the estate in Crimson Peak, itself inspired by Poe’s The Fall of House of Usher–that I can’t imagine would serve any real purpose. The costumes, especially Mia Goth’s gowns, follow this same outlandish but eyecatching style.

There is enough of the novel in this adaptation to satisfy a fan like me. There is also enough that is new and different that a viewer, horror fan or not, won't feel like they're watching the same old story. Though one of the great pillars of horror literature and cinema, the Frankenstein story is more macabre and spooky (gothic, you might say) than scary. The best film adaptations tune into Shelley's sympathy for the Creature and that Victor is actually a mad scientist, and even a villain. Mary Shelly created a thematically complex story and that is not lost in del Toro’s version. This movie gets gory and violent at times and it is perfect for a dreary day, a stormy night, or any time you’re in a spooky mood.

Frankenstein is available to stream on Netflix.

Nominees: Guillermo del Toro, J. Miles Dale, Scott Stuber, producers

Director: Guillermo del Toro

Screenplay: Guillermo del Toro; based on Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley

Cast: Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi, Mia Goth, Christoph Waltz

Production Companies: Double Dare You, Demilo Films, Bluegrass 7

Distributor: Netflix

Release Date: October 17th, 2025

Total Nominations: 9, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Supporting Actor-Jacob Elordi; Adapted Screenplay-Guillermo del Toro; Cinematography-Dan Laustsen; Production Design-Tamara Deverell (production designer), Shane Vieau (set decorator); Costume Design-Kate Hawley; Makeup and Hairstyling-Mike Hill, Jordan Samuel, Cliona Furey; Original Score-Alexandre Desplat; Sound-Greg Chapman, Nathan Robitaille, Nelson Ferreira, Christian T. Cooke, Brad Zoern

13 Nights of Shocktober: Gothic (1986)

 by A.J. 

Night 6: Horror Origins Night/Julian Sands Memorial Night

“As long as you are a guest in my house you shall play my games.”

Gothic (1986)

I have long been fascinated by the “haunted summer of 1816,” when Percy and Mary Shelley, her stepsister Claire Clairmont, Lord Byron, and his traveling companion Dr. John Polidori challenged each other to create ghost stories over an unnaturally dreary and stormy summer at Byron’s vacation villa on the shores of Lake Geneva. Byron wrote only a fragment of a story, Polidori wrote the short story The Vampyre, and Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. Adding an extra layer of eerie lore to this true story is that their “haunted summer” was caused by the “Year Without a Summer,” when a volcanic eruption from the previous year threw so much dust and ash into the atmosphere that all over the northern hemisphere of the globe summer never really happened. Temperatures were far cooler than average, even frosty and winterlike, and storms and cloudy days were more prevalent. Ken Russell’s film Gothic is a speculative exploration of what inspired those young poets and authors and what ultimately inspired Mary Shelley to create Frankenstein and change the literary world forever. 

Ken Russell is perhaps the only filmmaker who could give John Waters a run for his money in terms of works of sincere camp, and sincere sleaze for that matter. His films are often broad, range from mildly to especially ridiculous, are highly sexual, blasphemous, and explore the origins of myths, as well as the psychological effect of imposed norms on complex persons. In Gothic, the characters grapple with their inner demons and fears, enhanced by cabin fever, until everyone reaches a psychological, nightmarish breaking point during one especially stormy night. With its strange sights and not so subtle subtext, this film might be hard to take seriously, but Ken Russell is perhaps the only filmmaker not afraid to indulge the at times outrageous nature of these characters. 

The cast is great with performances to match. The less famous figures of the bunch, Polidori and Claire, have the most memorable performances by Timothy Spall and Myriam Cyr. Lord Byron is well played by Gabriel Byrne as a sinister but alluring and magnetic figure. Julian Sands as Percy Shelley is perfect as an “artist” type. He is obsessed with his own death, completely overtaken by the wonders of nature, and still is believably worthy of the affection and care of Mary Shelley. Natasha Richardson is great as Mary Shelley–actually Mary Godwin since she and Percy were not legally married at this point–who seems like the only normal or sane person on this vacation filled with eccentrics. She may also seem like the most boring character, but she is not; she is just the best at hiding her neuroses. She may also be the only character with the greatest reason for anxiety and introspection and despair: the recent loss of her newborn baby. Her complexities are buried deep and as the film goes on they rise to the surface. 

Surreal sexual images abound: a woman whose breasts have eyes instead of nipples, a suit of armor with a pointed codpiece, and the anthropomorphized image of an imp, a miniature humanlike demon, sitting on the chest of a woman in her bed–a recreation of the famous painting The Nightmare by Henry Fuseli. There is palpable homoeroticism between Byron and Polidori, and also Bryon and Percy Shelley. Polidori’s story The Vampyre is about a vampire disguised as an English gentleman who drains the life of a young woman–Byron had an affair with Polidori’s sister that proved ruinous for her, a mere incident for him. Bryon is more than hinted at as being a vampire, living off attention and lives of those around him. Claire Clairmont is obsessed with Bryon and pregnant with his child; Percy and Mary go to visit him essentially as an excuse for Claire to see Byron again. Since her and Polidori’s affections have been already won, Bryon has little interest in them and makes advances on Mary. 

The climax is a great psychological symphony of horrors. Every character is on the brink of madness or beyond. Gothic is about people that created works of horror, who are themselves haunted by fears and anxieties that come to the forefront of their psyches during one dreary and stormy summer. In a wild, swirling sequence the characters are each confronted with their own fears. 

This is a period movie that does not feel like a period movie due in large part to the style of Ken Russell and his willingness to actually depict fantasies and nightmares for more than pure sensation. All of these characters are young, free thinking Bohemian individuals who act like young Bohemian individuals so they do not seem to belong in the costumes we associate with a time of reserve and manners. These elements give Gothic an incongruous but lively feeling. This is a strange movie but for their time these were strange people.

Gothic is currently streaming on Tubi.

13 Nights of Shocktober: The Pit and the Pendulum (1961)

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month-long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober. So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some horror movie recommendations to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 12: Vincent Price Night

“The razor edge of destiny.” The Pit and the Pendulum (1961)

I may seem like I’m repeating myself but I cannot emphasize enough how with a Roger Corman movie, more so than with any other filmmaker, you never know what you’re going to get: B-movie dreck, campy fun, or something genuinely good, even great. The Pit and the Pendulum is definitely in the top tier of Roger Corman/Vincent Price movies. Like all of Roger Corman’s Edgar Allen Poe adaptations, you’ll find period costumes and sets, a spooky castle, occasionally stiff acting, low budget charm, and a great performance from Vincent Price. 

Unsurprisingly, the screenplay by Richard Matheson adds quite a bit to Poe’s very short story, which is mainly an elaborate description of the titular torture devices and light on plot. Set in Spain during the 1500’s, Francis Barnard (John Kerr) arrives at the castle of Don Nicolas Medina (Price) to investigate the sudden death of his sister Elizabeth (Barbara Steele), the Don’s beloved wife. Don Medina is still in mourning and heartbroken over Elizabeth’s death, but the lack of details about her death raises Barnard’s suspicions. As Don Medina, his sister Catherine (Luana Anders), and the doctor who treated Elizabeth each fill in the details, the cause of Elizabeth’s death only becomes more mysterious. We also learn that Don Medina’s father was involved with the Spanish Inquisition and the dungeon of the castle still has the torture devices. In a blue tinted flashback, the young Nicolas witnesses his father torture and kill his mother and uncle for their adultery. 

If your plan involves driving Vincent Price insane, it’s not going to work out for anyone. Usually, though not always, Price played the villain or ended up becoming the villain through spirit possession or madness. Don Medina begins as a seemingly sympathetic character, but there is also an air of suspicion around him. As the plot unfolds it becomes clear that Don Medina was not involved in Elizabeth’s death but his paranoia and misplaced guilt threaten to drive him to a nervous breakdown. This gives Price some great scenes to show off. He gets to play a heartbroken widower, a doting husband in flashbacks, a man losing his sanity, and, finally, an all-out mad villain. 

The opening titles play over a swirl of psychedelic colors and ominous music. The costumes and sets create the atmosphere but the performances and story provide the tension and excitement. The titular pendulum, the swinging blade slowly lowering itself closer and closer to a bound victim, is genuinely intimidating. The clank of the gears that lower the blade and the whoosh as it swings through the air make the whole scene very tense. 

The Roger Corman/Vincent Price films are great to watch anytime, but they are especially fun to watch around Halloween. The additions to the original story are in keeping with Poe’s themes like a lost love, fear of premature burial, and madness. So, the connection back to Poe feels merited (unlike like Roger Corman’s The Raven). This may not be exactly scary, but it is a great old fashioned gothic horror story, thoroughly entertaining and thrilling.

13 Nights of Shocktober: The Curse of Frankenstein

 by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month-long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober. So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some horror movie recommendations to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 7: Hammer Horror Night

Christopher Lee: I’ve got no lines! Peter Cushing: You’re lucky. I’ve read the script. The Curse of Frankenstein

There are more than a few things that give The Curse of Frankenstein a special place in horror film history. It was the first remake of a classic Universal monster movie by the British film company Hammer and its success led Hammer to produce other Universal monster movie remakes, each with its own line of sequels, and other horror films as well. Throughout the 1950’s, traditional horror films focusing on monsters, ghosts, or curses had taken a backseat to science fiction films that had some horror elements but focused on the fears of the atomic age: monsters from outer space, the effects of nuclear radiation, or experiments gone wrong. The Hammer horror films are credited by some film historians and cinephiles with revitalizing the horror genre and attracting new audiences. They were shot in vivid color, utilized eye-catching period sets and costumes, and contained a level of violence, blood, and sexuality that was new and shocking for the time. It all started with The Curse of Frankenstein. Watching The Curse of Frankenstein today, there are certain aspects that may seem dated or hokey and its shock value has waned but not disappeared. It is easy to see why this film stood out at the time and has become a classic.

Perhaps as significant as its success for Hammer, The Curse of Frankenstein was the first film to pair Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee on screen together—they had previously appeared in the same movie, Hamlet (1948), but in different scenes. Cushing and Lee met for the first time and became friends by complaining about the script together. They appeared in numerous films together for Hammer and other studios becoming horror movie icons and their friendship lasted until Cushing’s death in 1994.

This version of Mary Shelley’s novel begins with Dr. Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) in prison telling his story to a skeptical priest. We see a flashback to an arrogant teenage Victor Frankenstein, who inherits his father’s fortune and aristocratic title and uses the money to hire a tutor, Paul, to teach him medicine. Over the years they conduct experiments that eventually allow them to resurrect a puppy. Both are thrilled but for different reasons. Paul (Robert Urquhart) wants to use their discovery to improve medical care by putting a patient into temporary death to perform a surgery without any shock to their system and then revive them. Frankenstein, however, wants to build a bigger, superior being. There’s no reason given for why Frankenstein wants to do this, but the book also doesn’t explain Frankenstein’s motivations since there is no good reason for wanting to build a new human out of dead body parts. Paul reluctantly agrees to go along with Frankenstein’s idea and together they create the Creature.

Despite his problems with the script, Cushing gives a great performance as the villainous Dr. Frankenstein. It's tempting to want to think of Victor Frankenstein as a hero because he pushes the boundaries of science and fights a monster, but this Frankenstein is a cad and villain. He doesn’t just rob fresh graves for body parts, he kills people. For a superior brain for his Creature, Frankenstein invites an old professor to his house then pushes him to his death. The brain is damaged but he uses it anyway leading to the Creature’s lumbering movement and murderous behavior. Also, Frankenstein is having an affair with his maid, Justine (Valerie Gaunt), even though he’s engaged to Elizabeth (Hazel Court). When Justine threatens to expose his horrendous experiments if he doesn’t marry her, Frankenstein uses the Creature to dispose of her. Cushing often played the hero in horror movies, or someone driven to extremes, but he is also really good as a sinister villain. You want him to stop the monster, but you also want him to get his comeuppance.

The reveal of the Creature’s face is a striking moment. The Creature lumbers to life, pulls off the bandage covering its face, and camera rushes in for a close up. Though Mary Shelley’s novel was in the public domain, Universal held the rights on the makeup design of the monster from their 1931 version of Frankenstein, one of the most iconic images in film history. So, the design of the monster here is very different from the Universal monster. This Creature’s design is nowhere near as memorable as the look of Boris Karloff as the Monster, but the film is better for trying something different.

Christopher Lee doesn’t have a lot to do as the Creature. It’s obvious that the movie couldn’t decide if it wanted him to be sympathetic, like in the Universal movie, or just a force of destruction. Still, Lee’s imposing size gives the Creature a sense of immediate danger. Lee would get to show off his verbal talents and charismatic screen presence in the next film he and Cushing starred in together for Hammer, Horror of Dracula, one of my favorites.

The period 19^th century costumes and sets look great in color. There are some exterior scenes where the background is obviously a matte painting, but this adds to movie’s fantastical atmosphere more than it distracts. Frankenstein’s laboratory is filled with bubbling jars of colored potions and the Creature is kept in a water tank. Nothing in his lab looks especially scientific but this adds to the unnatural side of his experiment, and it looks great in color. Terence Fisher directed The Curse of Frankenstein and while many directors had a hand in Hammer horror movies, his remain among the best. Seeing the names of Cushing, Lee, and Fisher together mean that you’re in for a treat.

13 Nights of Shocktober: Horror of Dracula

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober. There are a lot of horror movies out there, but as a genre, horror is still looked down upon by some mainstream critics and moviegoers. It doesn’t help that, admittedly, there are so few quality horror movies made but, like comedy, it’s a very difficult and subjective genre. So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some recommendations for scary movies to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 8: Christopher Lee Memorial Night, "He'll Hold You In A Grasp of Shock!"

Horror of Dracula

The passing of movie icon Christopher Lee earlier this year was very sad news, but he left us with many, many films to enjoy. He had a long and impressive career that included both the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings film series. However, his most famous role is unquestionably as Dracula in a series of movies for the British production company Hammer. When people think of Dracula, they either picture Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee. The first film in which Lee took on the already legendary character was in 1958 with Horror of Dracula, co-starring fellow horror movie icon and superb actor Peter Cushing, and directed by Terence Fisher. When Terence Fisher, Peter Cushing, and Christopher Lee made a film together for Hammer, audiences were in for a treat.

Horror of Dracula is a loose remake of Todd Browning’s Dracula from 1931, and an even looser adaptation of the Bram Stoker novel. The movie begins with bright red blood dripping on Dracula’s tomb. Jonathan Harker arrives at Castle Dracula in Klausenburg to work as the librarian for the Count, but he is actually a vampire hunter and protégé of Dr. Van Helsing. Harker becomes trapped in the castle and succeeds in killing the Count’s bride, but not Dracula himself. Dracula seeks revenge by first trying to take Harker’s fiancé, Lucy, for his new bride, and then Lucy’s sister, Mina. Van Helsing is on Harker’s trail and tries to save Lucy and Mina and put an end to the sinister vampire. Almost none of this happens in the novel. It is almost like Dracula fan fiction. It takes the already existing characters and then just makes up a different story and does what it thinks is most entertaining, and it is indeed very entertaining.

Horror of Dracula was impressive when it was released because, like other Hammer horror films, it ups the ante on violence, action, and sexuality. That means that when someone gets stabbed or bitten we see blood, Dracula’s bride wears a dress revealing her cleavage, and Lee plays Dracula as a dangerous seducer. This film was shot on Technicolor so the colors of the sets and costumes are rich and vivid, and red blood is especially red. All of those elements are still entertaining today, but the reason this film works, then and now, is because of its reinterpretation of Count Dracula and Dr. Van Helsing and the screen presence of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Lee’s tall stature of 6’5” and natural physical appearance give his Dracula a commanding and imposing presence. Lee's Dracula exudes menace. The danger and threat he poses are immediate and ever present. In one scene Lee bounds across a large dining room and over a table to pull his bride away from attacking Harker. Other versions of Dracula usually give him servants to do his bidding, but this Dracula drives his own carriage and digs a grave for Mina himself. This is a take charge, action Dracula. In other words, a this is a badass Dracula, and Christopher Lee has the talent to make it believable. 

The only match for a badass, action Dracula is a badass, action Van Helsing and that's what Peter Cushing gives us. He makes his first appearance in the movie wearing a very cool, very boss fur collared coat and bowler hat. We spend most of the movie with Van Helsing as he tracks down Dracula. Cushing's performance and screen presence keeps those scenes interesting and entertaining. He believably portrays Van Helsing as learned scholar and fearless vampire hunter. He springs into action too: he leaps over a railing and runs upstairs when he hears someone removed the garlic from Lucy's bedroom. The climactic confrontation between Van Helsing and Dracula does not disappoint; it's action packed and all the while Van Helsing wears his boss coat.

Some people might find Horror of Dracula campy, but it is undeniably entertaining. There is great scenery and the production design does a good job at setting the mood for a Gothic vampire tale set in a far away land. Not every bit of scenery looks completely real but the hint of artificiality only adds to the fantasy element of the movie. Horror of Dracula is a fun movie from beginning to end and never gets too intense or gross so even squeamish people can enjoy the movie. The blood and horror effects are tame by today's standards but hold up pretty well. There's something for everyone to enjoy in Horror of Dracula, whether you are a horror movie buff or only watch horror movies at Halloween.
 

13 Nights of Shocktober: The Woman in Black

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober. There are a lot of horror movies out there, but as a genre, horror is still looked down upon by some mainstream critics and moviegoers. It doesn’t help that, admittedly, there are so few quality horror movies made but, like comedy, it’s a very difficult and subjective genre. So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some recommendations for scary movies to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 7: Hammer Horror Night, “There are those who believe the whole town is cursed/But the house in the marsh is by far the worst.”

The Woman In Black 

The Woman in Black is a film I’ve been wanting to see for a while, but I was hesitant because it was released in theaters in February, which is notoriously a dumping ground for bad and mediocre films. However, it did well at the box office and since then it has been a popular rental every October at the video store where I work,  Vulcan Video. The Woman in Black is also rated PG-13, which horror movie fans will tell you usually indicates a tepid, unfrightening movie. There are exceptions to every rule and The Woman in Black can join the small club of good, scary PG-13 horror movies. 

The Woman in Black was produced by the recently revived Hammer Films and it is a fine, solid entry in the Hammer filmography. Hammer Films is a British production company best known for its horror films of the 1950s and 60s that were shot in Technicolor, typically had Gothic settings, and had violence and special effects more graphic than had been seen in horror films up to that point. Like many of the classic Hammer horror films, The Woman in Black has a period setting and relies on mainly on mood and atmosphere to transport the audience to a world of supernatural horrors, but still casts great British actors to fill out the cast.

Daniel Radcliffe stars as Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer in Edwardian era England who travels to a remote, gloomy village to collect the papers of a recently deceased client. This is Radcliffe’s first post-Harry Potter role and seeing him as someone other than the iconic Harry Potter is easier than you think. Radcliffe has grown into a fine actor and gives a good performance, though there is not much to do with this character. That is not a big problem, however, because this film knows the real star is its mood and atmosphere, which is thick and dreary. Fog and mist float though several scenes. The period setting (the clothes, the old cars, and candlelight) only strengthen the eerie, spooky feel of the movie.

Kipps finds himself staying in the decaying, ominous mansion of his dead client which is on an island accessible only by a road on a sandbar at low tide. The mansion in the marsh is exactly what you hope to see in a haunted house. In addition to being on an island in a marsh, the house is next to a graveyard. The production design of the house itself is incredible. It has long hallways and rooms filled with creepy antiques and dusty old toys. The scenes of Kipps alone in the mansion are the scariest because of the sound design. The best and most frightening sequence in the movie has Kipps being tormented late at night by creepy, unexplainable sounds and flickering ghostly visions. When we finally see her, the woman in black herself is very scary and creepy. There are some CGI effects which is only to be expected in any effects movie made in the 21^st century, but The Woman in Black relies most on shadows and whispers to scare us.

Kipps is determined to stay and complete his job as his future at his law firm depends on it and he has a young son to support all on his own; his wife died in childbirth. The locals all want him to leave because the house in the marsh is haunted by a sinister spirit whose apparition signals the death of a child. After village children begin suffering tragic accidents, Kipps begins to investigate the identity of the spirit and the history of the mansion in the marsh.

With its ending, The Woman in Black manages to have its cake and eat it too. It moves towards a logical, satisfying ending but still feels compelled to give us the obligatory “final scare” that typically ruins most horror movies. This movie manages to have a final scare, but also have a satisfying, yet somber ending. If you watch a lot of horror movies, there are scenes you know are going to happen because they are practically required in a scary movies, but even these moments are well done. There is some great macabre imagery, but no gore and nothing too intense for more skittish viewers. This is a fine example of a movie being scary without being violent, or dark, or cynical.