Director(s): James Watkins
Country: UK, Canada, Sweden
IMDB Rating: 6.9
A young lawyer, struggling with work after the death of his wife, is sent to a remote village to settle the estate of a deceased eccentric woman who owns an English manor. The village residents want him to leave as they are trying to conceal a deadly secret. But he refuses, and soon discovers that the house of his client is haunted by the vengeful ghost of a woman dressed in black.
We have taken some photos of "The Woman in Black". They represent actual movie quality.
Deathstryke (15 May 2013)
This was one of the most generic and amusingly ridiculous haunted housefilms I've ever seen, but the scares do give you bang for your buck. Isuppose it's kind of like "The Grudge" in that regard. Personally I wasexpecting more cerebral atmospheric horror than the choreographedstaccato JUMP tactics, but it was very much the latter and they wererelentless.It just felt more like I was watching one of the those attractions atDisney Land, than an actual movie; 70% of the running time is comprisedof Radcliff walking from one ridiculously cobwebbed, creepydoll-littered room to the next while the viewer waits nervously for apiercing violin chord and a scary face to jolt them out of their seats.Radcliff is actually pretty decent for all that he had to do (basicallystay wide eyed and tense). CiarÃ¡n Hinds was underused and the rest ofthe cast were just bleh... Not sure I can compliment the actress whoplayed the ghost, but her makeup team did an exceptional job.Entertaining distraction, but don't expect to even remember thecharacter's names once the credits start rolling.
mithil293 (14 May 2013)
Yeah, it's no different, been there seen that kind of story. Itinvolves the same mystery situations, the same shocking revelations butno conventional ending. From the suggestive title one can make out halfof the story, thus the movie falls into the bucket of predictability.But if only were movies were weighed by the stories they showed, wewould be in a swamp of identically similar movies. What matters afterthe story is it's treatment, helping us unfolding the colours of theplot. This movie scores in jumping their audiences out of their seatsbut also showing some stunning visuals.What I a m referring to is art direction. When the protagonist visitsthe mansion house, it carries a kind of eerie presence to it. The kindof detailing that goes in designing that house from interior is justplain astounding. The intermittent shots that shows puppets animatedfaces also brings out that strange feeling. The director has wiselyused those shots to create the effects. The movie is lacking in areas with a weak screenplay, but overall itgrips you. I loved the fact that all the main characters in this moviehad some past baggage, a history that directly connects with the plot.When I first saw the ending I was skeptic of it, but then I read aboutit and was thoroughly satiated with the climax. It is to know that thewoman in black doesn't win over Arthur, he denies he that right. Performance wise Daniel Radcliffe is good but could be better. Hisportrayal of much older man than he is fails too convince me in somescenes. But his prowess as an actor is tremendous, I will be waitingfor more. CiarÃ¡n Hinds as Daniels compatriot in the move is exceptionalin some scenes. he sometimes takes hold of scenes from Radcliff andgives his own touch. Rest of the cast does well in their appropriateroles.Give it a watch, you might be surprised with the kind of work beingdone. It's horror to the core and gives back a lot what it promises.
Filmfannlv-224-647305 (12 May 2013)
Generally I can understand praise for a movie even when I disagree, butI do not understand how people like this one. It's only 2 months intothe year and I can guarantee this will end up on my list of worstmovies of 2012. The acting is completely bland, all of the charactersare incredibly wooden and are given absolutely nothing to do. I wouldcall this movie "Watch Harry Potter walk around an abandoned housewithout dialogue" before giving it a name like "Woman in Black" to stirup intrigue in the hopes that this is a good movie. There is absolutelyno scares here as well, only about 2 parts made me jump and that wasbecause of the ridiculously overblown score (a sink turned on loud anda bird flew in the house). And the ending....I was hoping there wouldbe a twist. I was praying that there would be some sort of twist.Nothing. You never find out why the people in the town were so paranoidof Daniel Radcliffe's character. You never find out how this woman wasgiven the magical powers to make all the children in the town commitsuicide. It just...ends. Terrible ending. You can see it coming a mileaway that Harry Potter and his son are screwed. Save your $8 and justleave your window open tonight. I guarantee that will provide morechills and thrills then the Woman in Black.
Asmita Prasad (12 May 2013)
the premise for the story is fantastic but the makers should haveworked harder to make things clearer (than the play) as the movieprogressed. this is my own theory of what happened in the film. (BTW itotally think the movie has a lot in common with Japanese horror flicksincluding the ghost who is determined to stay evil and all the deadkids). Anyways, back to my own theories now:when Kipps stays at the house overnight. he had access to a tonne ofdocumentary evidence that could have been used to expand on whyjennet's sister took her kid away and why she wouldn't let her see him.I'm guessing most probably because jennet was already mentally unsoundbefore the child was born and the child was born out of wedlock becausethe father did not want to marry a crazy chick or the affair was brokenoff before the wedding causing her to lose her mind. (the father'ssurname is on the birth certificate). at the house, Kipps finds a picture of the Drablows where jennet isseen in one of the windows which would suggest that she lived withthem. also, she hangs herself in the nursery at the same house whichcements the fact that she was living there when the child was alive. so why does she send Alice letters instead of saying things to herface? since she was already living there, jennet might have had access to thechild though she may not have been allowed to have him call her mom orto even get to meet the child often enough which might have strainedher unsound mind even more. now they never really showed how Nathaniel was left to sink into themarsh when everyone else survived. a boy of 7 is definitely agileenough to be able to jump over the back end of a coach or to hang ontohis mother's enormous dress to avoid drowning. and his body is found right in the middle of the carriage too whichwould suggest that he was probably incapacitated or sedated/really illand was already on the floor of the carriage and not moving when thecarriage was sinking. since he wasn't accepting jennet as his mother, perhaps she druggedhim/made him ill before this mishap occurred and since his body wasnever recovered, they couldn't confirm a poisoning or grave previousinjury. or maybe jennet tricked him into eating something poisonous orjump off a floor or some other way tried to make him kill himself andAlice and her husband were just rushing him to a doctor when thecarriage fell into the marsh. this would explain why jennet hates kidsand has them kill themselves. she did it to her own kid too. and theguilt and the insanity made her blame her sister and commit suicide.and the reason why she hates her sister is not because Alice doesn'tlet her see the child or give him her cards, it's because she isjealous of her and wants a husband, child, house, the whole shindigwhich her poor mental health and premarital affair and having a childout of wedlock made impossible.jennet kills kids to exact revenge on happy families because shecouldn't have one herself. and the reason why she keeps the souls ofthe kids with her is because none of them accept her as their mother(the daily's kid keeps visiting his mother)however, in the end, the joke's on jennet as Joseph's soul is saved bythe soul of his father and the family is reunited in death. in the endshe shows her face and that of the other dead kids to Sam so he toobecomes a believer and possibly starts to take his wife's claims thattheir dead son contacts her more seriously.in the sequel, I'm guessing jennet and the kids haunt soldiers and they(adults) die which means that her curse (kids will die) was broken offby Kipps.
liajane19 (12 May 2013)
This movie did not disappoint. It has been a while since I did thecovering of the eyes while peeking through the fingers and this moviehad me doing it! The story was unique, they took a haunted house andgave it a twist. The ending I think didn't really go along with therest of the movie, it were as though they couldn't think of how to endit so they just went with a crowd pleaser. Still, overall the movie wasthoroughly entertaining, good, clean, scary fun! As for DanielRadcliff, I was curious to see if outside of his Harry Potter role howhe would do and I thought he portrayed the lawyer very well. I was veryimpressed by the overall cast who all contributed to making this movieenjoyable.
Adam Hajdu (11 May 2013)
The Woman In Black!I have to say I really liked this movie! It was Directed and actedreally great! I was looking for movie like that for longer time becausethere were no scary movies in last time.. I remember when ParanormalActivity came out and everybody were just like: Oh my god! Scariestmovie ever! Absolutely NOT... Now there are just stupid bloody grosshorror movies which usually or.. always sucks...and have no plot orjust simple idea mixed with a lot of blood (not including Cabin inWoods) I really liked about Woman In Black the plot,acting and therewere finally some scary scenes which made me jump out from my seat. Idefinitely recommend this movie for ghost movie fans.
sunznc (08 May 2013)
After reading all the good reviews here a friend of mine and I set outto see this. In the mood for a good horror film we were expecting adark, scary film that would really make us jump out of our seats orcover our eyes. This didn't happen as much as anticipated. If you've ever seen "TheOthers" with Nicole Kidman or "The Innocents" with Deborah Kerr youknow what a good, old fashioned haunted house film can be. You don'tneed any fancy CGI or special effects. What you do need is a solidstory that people can relate to. This film doesn't have that. We were disappointed. Yes, there are a couple of creepy moments but itwas more like riding one of those carnival rides that the car movesthrough on a track with animatronic, robot figures jumping out in frontof you with loud screeching sound effects. The sets are beautiful and I suppose the acting is OK although it wasno stretch for Radcliff to play this role. I would think that peoplewho don't like scary films would probably find this unnerving but forthe rest of us this was a disappointment. The story just doesn't makemuch sense.
TheLittleSongbird (07 May 2013)
There are a few assets that drew me into seeing The Woman in Black inthe first place. One was to see if Daniel Radcliffe had grown as anactor and whether he would acquit himself well in a cast-against typesort of role. And there is also the support cast, Ciaran Hinds, JanetMcTeer, Roger Allam and Shaun Dooley are quite a cast don't you think,and especially that I loved the book, the 1989 TV version and stageplay so much. I went to see The Woman in Black a few days ago with my 3sisters, but I wanted to think about in depth what I thought about thefilm before writing about it. It was a film that I still can't get outof my head and even just yesterday my sisters and I were having thisbig discussion about what we liked and comparing it to its othermediums.Regarding this 2012 film, all of us thought it was very good. It wasn'tperfect, no, and it has received and perhaps continue to receiveinevitable comparisons to the book which has many engrossing andtelling chapters, the stage play which is the most chilling thing I'veseen on stage since seeing The Mousetrap and especially the TV versionwhich I regard very highly for its atmosphere and unforgettableconclusion. On its own though, it is a very solid and worthy film andadaptation. For one thing, The Woman in Black is very handsomelymounted. The Victorian period is very evocative in detail withbeautifully tailored costumes and meticulous-looking scenery andsettings and genuinely effective in atmosphere with the dark old house,spooky sea fog, foreboding marsh and faces at the window. The camerawork is also very good with the close-up shock cuts particularly good,and the lighting is dark and atmospheric while never being too dark youcan't see what's going on.The music score I also took to, there is a haunting and hypnoticquality to it that suits the film's tone very well. Likewise with thesound effects mostly, the sudden loud noises and the starting quiet andcrescendoing contributed much to the best scares of the film, thoughthe earlier ones were a little obvious and predictable and had theaudience laughing rather than biting their nails. Dialogue-wise, it issolid, staying loyal to the period generally and it kept me engagedwith Arthur's predicaments and the mystery of The Woman in Black. Aftermy viewing of the film I did have some questions such as why the Womanin Black still took revenge even when the body of her son was returned,but having the discussion with my sisters really helped.When it comes to the story, it is a timeless one with a chillingatmosphere. The Woman in Black(2012) does a much better-than-expectedjob with adapting it in a short running time, a vast majority of scaresare very atmospheric advantaged by the purposefully glacial pace, morethe making-you jump kind than the gory kind, with the Woman in Blackgliding down the corridor, the screech at the window, the hanging andthe brief glimpse of the woman in black in the creaking rocking chairfaring the best of them. Of the children's deaths, the most effectivewas that of the Fisher Girls, especially in a choreographic sense, justlook at how perfectly in time their walking is and how their eyesabsolutely make you believe they are in a trance. McTeer's "momentarymental instability" scenes were also very intense and heart-breaking.Only two scenes weren't so good for me, other from one or two earlierpredictable jump scares. One was the death of Lucy, while tragic incircumstance it was clumsily staged and lacked the magnetic quality thechoreography of the very first scene did. The other scene, and I thinkthe biggest let down of the film, was the ending. In a sense it wasgrim but there was also something uplifting and bittersweet to it, forme it juxtaposed too much with the film's overall tone and it wasnowhere near as satisfying or as memorable as the conclusion of the1989 version.I also think two scenes from the book could have been added, making thefilm even better, Alice Drablow's funeral which introduced us to theWoman in Black and was one of the book's more telling scenes, and theWhistling scene which is the single creepiest and atmospheric scene ofthe book, just how it is written is enough to make your heart go inyour mouth. This film was fine enough without them, it's just that Iwas wondering how incredible those two scenes would have been if theywere included. The characters engage, Arthur Kipps is likable enough,but I found the Dailys and Woman in Black the film's most interestingcharacters, Sam Daily is so sympathetic and the Woman in Black is evilincarnate even evoking fear in the scenes she doesn't feature in.The acting is very good. Daniel Radcliffe while I initially hadreservations of whether he was too young for the role acquits himselfquite nicely as Arthur, a role that is very cast-against- type, showingmelancholy, sensitivity and genuine fright throughout, and this is inthe facial expressions alone. Ciaran Hinds is excellent as Sam, andJanet McTeer gives a very moving performance. Roger Allam, Tim McMullanand Shaun Dooley are good in small roles, but other than Hinds andMcTeer I was most impressed by Liz White as Jennett/Woman in Black, ina role that is so evil and so omnipresent whether in scenes where she'sfeatured or where she is talked about or in thought White is absolutelyterrifying.All in all, a very good film, not perfect but atmospheric, scary andmore than stands its own even if the book, TV version and stage playare superior. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox
Coventry (05 May 2013)
Unfortunately I didn't manage to see the obscure 1989 version of thesame story prior to watching this multi-budgeted and heavily marketedversion at the cinema. That film, although a modest TV-production, isallegedly an atmospheric and creepy, yet sadly neglected gem of Britishhorror that brings full and proper homage to Susan Hill's novel. I'mactually willing to believe that "The Woman in Black" has more impactin a modest TV-format because it's (and I certainly don't mean anydisrespect) a rather simplistic and lightweight ghost story. Theconcept is chilling and unsettling, but not particularly innovative, sodirector James Watkins (who put himself on the horror map with thegrisly shocker "Eden Lake") tries to impress the demanding nowadaysaudience with advanced digital effects, a detailed recreation of theVictorian era and the casting of the immensely popular Daniel Radcliffein his first lead role after the "Harry Potter" cycle. Radcliff depictsArthur Kipps; a notary clerk still mourning over his lost wife who diedfour years ago whilst giving birth to their son. Kipps is sent to aremote and extremely superstitious little village to collect all therequired documents to establish the final testament of a deceasedAristocrat lady. Her mansion is located in the middle of a swamp, onlyaccessible via a road during low tide, and avoided by the localsbecause of a curse. They believe the swamp house is still haunted bythe woman in black. According to the legend this restless spirit wasonce forced to give up her child due to poverty, yet the wealthy fosterparents didn't take proper responsibility and they boy drowned in theswamp. Now, whenever someone witnesses the mourning lady in blackstanding in the cemetery, a random and innocent child will die. When ayoung girl does, in fact, die shortly after Kipp's arrival, the entiretown aggressively turns against him. The premise of a ghostlyapparition endlessly avenging his/her own unprocessed trauma isefficient but, as said already, not exactly original. Regardless ofwhat point we are in the movie, you can always predict what will happennext. Of course the life of Kipp's own son will be at stake, and ofcourse he will (fruitless) attempt to set right the mistake of othersin the past. Furthermore, and this is a rookie mistake I didn't expectfrom James Watkins, "The Woman in Black" really goes overkill with thefalse scares and misleading jump-moments. For nearly three quarters ofthe running time, the script simply goes "boo!" through suddenlyappearing faces and birds unexpectedly flying out of chimneys. Luckilyenough I can confidently state that the budget got well spent. Thedecors, costumes and set pieces look astounding and the whole film isactually a respectful tribute to British horror of the 1960's and1970's, particularly Hammer films who are making a comeback andco-produced this one! And, definitely worth mentioning as well, DanielRadcliff's performance is stellar. With a few more mature and versatileroles like this on his repertoire, he might be able to wash off hischerubic Harry Potter image after all.
siderite (04 May 2013)
If you take The Ring, replace the maltreated girl with a desperatelyinsane mother and lose the whole tape/TV connection, you get somethingreally close to The Woman in Black.The film started a little bit like Dracula, with the legal clerk comingto a remote village to put some papers in order. It appears that evenghosts hate lawyers, so it all gets messy really soon. The actors weredecent enough and the film spooky, but the thing that bothered me mostwas the cheap scares: sudden loud sounds, screeching ghosts appearingin reflective surfaces, the really old and annoying "something movingin my peripheral field of view" and the ending. Not the ending ending,but let's say the few minutes before the ending. It felt so fake.Bottom line: a classic (and by that I mean filled with clichÃ©s) ghosthorror, with Daniel Radcliff finally shedding that Harry Potteradolescent off his casting persona in the lead role. It's not what wasin the film that made it average, but mostly what wasn't. So muchpotential and what they end up doing is an Asian horror with a Britishaccent.
DICK STEEL (03 May 2013)
Is there screen life after Harry Potter for Daniel Radcliffe? Theanswer is a resounding yes, going by how the actor has now matured andis able to carry an entire movie on his own, and better yet, havingextended scenes with nothing else but his character on screen theentire time, groping in the dark, figuring out what's lurking behindsinister shadows, looking afraid, yet resolute in sticking to what he'sbeen tasked to do for family.The Woman in Black, based on the novel by Susan Hill and is still anactively staged play, has more working for it than just DanielRadcliffe's singular presence on screen. It's adapted for the bigscreen by Jane Goodman, responsible for adapting some of the best, inmy opinion, stories in recent years such as Stardust, Kick-Ass, TheDebt and X-Men: First Class. And director James Watkins may only be onefilm old, that effort was the remarkable Eden Lake, and he follows upthat horror effort which was more slasher, with one that's moreghoulish here. I suppose having a strong story, which kept to itsspirit (pardon the pun) rather than to follow verbatim, worked wonders,and Watkins pulls out all the stops despite having to dig in deep fromthe bag of old scare tactics and tricks.Radclife plays the lawyer Arthur Kipps, who's given one final chance byhis company to prove himself by heading out to a remote village to wrapup the paperwork for a, well, spooky mansion. A widower, he reluctantlybids his son farewell, and hops onto the next train hoping everythingcould be completed in time for the weekend, where he can be back inLondon to spend quality time with his kid. But Murphy's Law means thatdesire never really got fulfilled, as Arthur takes it upon himself tofind out what exactly was going on in town when kids happen to dieduring his visit, with the villages adamant that he packs his bags andhead home.And with kids dying and dropping like flies, it got really creepy fromthe get go, where three girls inexplicably take off from their atticwindow, complete with eerie sounding music, and scary looking toys thatseem to be popular items used by the art director to pepper the setwith. And as a friend puts it, one can't really go wrong with hauntedmansions, as we get one main mansion and a few other for red herringfun, but nonetheless having them milked for light and shadow play toperfection, complete with long dark corridors, creaking staircases, anda beautiful marsh in its immediate perimeter that isolates the housefrom civilization when the tide comes in. And when Watkins amplifiesthe horror quotient from the midway point with Arthur single handedlyexploring what's behind some fast moving shadows and whispering noises,be prepared to let out a little girlie scream now and then, becausesuch scary moments catches you offguard even though you're primed withanticipation of the usual tricks that come out of the bag. They allworked quite effectively to make you squirm a little in your seat.The Woman in Black isn't all just silly scares with little substancethough. At its core it wrapped things up pretty nicely in a sort ofbittersweet fashion, and given its success at the box office, a sequelhas recently been announced. The strength comes in the characters andtheir potential in adding a lot to the plot, such as Ciaran Hind's richlandowner Mr Daily, and his wife (Janet McTeer) who goes into a trance,seemingly possessed by their deceased kid who communicate through hismom. Mr Daily on the other hand isn't quite the believer despite thestrange incidents happening around town, and proves to be quite thereliable ally for Arthur to maintain his sanity. As already mentioned,Radcliffe's Arthur will draw you to his cause as the man who's backedto a corner professionally, and having supernatural disturbances is thelast thing he needs to derail his putting food on the table.What also worked in the film's favour is its period setting, whichsomehow provides an additional dimension to the level of creepinessthroughout, with plenty of shades of black and grey. The art directionis superbly handled, as is the cinematography and its score by MarcoBeltrami, where without these strong technical attributes, The Woman inBlack will probably pale in comparison to its film peers. It isn'teveryday that a horror film has elements that clicked and don't comeoff as silly, so if you're in the mood for a little creepiness, thenthis film will undoubtedly and should be your choice. Recommended!
bradb717 (03 May 2013)
We've just come too far as a society for this type of film to have anyreal scare value. So Danny boy is trying to kick his HP days. Hisperformance isn't truly the issue I had with this film. Everybody is sofocused on how good or bad Radcliffe will do that they aren't payingattention to the plot (or lack thereof) in the film itself. There's acreepy house in the middle of nowhere with a bitter old ladies ghost init. Yawn. Anybody who thought the ending was any good, I simply pity.I'm afraid you have to be on the left side of the IQ bell curve tothink that. The film tries to compensate for its lack of plot bydragging out the scenes of Danny boy just walking around entirely toolong. It really is a bad movie...
Charlotte Beatrice (30 April 2013)
The trailer was promising and it made me have high expectations.However, after watching the movie, I was very disappointed. I couldn'tfeel any connection with the characters at all - specially with theprotagonist, Arthur. Daniel Radcliffe's expression was neutral theentire time, which is probably the reason why the movie was sounexciting. The plot could've been more explored and the end was toopredictable, at least for me. However, it was quite entertaining. Ithad its scary moments and I jumped in my chair once or twice. The moviewas not very good, but it wasn't too bad either. Maybe my expectationswere too high...? 6/10
schorschi100 (29 April 2013)
When I watched that movie I was hoping to see an interesting film withsome suspense and, to some extent, a story to tell... Well I didn't.This movie has nothing to be jealous of old horror b-movies. Suspensecoming from sounds in an old creepy house, people knowing stories butnot telling them and an innocent hero making his way through thecorridors, and ... well that's all. No story plot that cannot be wovenwithin five minutes and no clichÃ©s left out, from the old toys to thelong corridors with the candlesticks. That's it. When finally onethinks that it is coming to an end, the hero and his beloved childpredictably die and are reunited with the long-dead mother and wife.And of course the black woman is to be seen once again. No build up inthe story, no catharsis, no character description, no suspenseactually, and very mediocre acting. I understand Mr. Harry Potter triesto establish himself as a serious actor, but this film is clearly thewrong choice.
Joe Chadowski (27 April 2013)
The all purpose point of a horror movie is to make you forget thereality around you, and make you buy into the alternate world it hascreated. It must do this using originality, or an improvement on anidea, because in a horror film, predictability is its worst enemy. It'sis a deathly balancing act of reeling you in and terrorizing you, whilenot losing focus with the viewer. This is extremely difficult to do,and is the reason why there are so few horror masterpieces and anabundance of failures. You are presented with Arthur Kipp, played by Daniel Radcliffe, who isa young lawyer, still struck with grief after his wife died inchildbirth. He is on the verge of being fired, and his boss gives himone last job to prove his dedication to the firm. This last job isfiling paperwork for a recently deceased woman in a unkempt mansion.After immediately being snubbed by the locals, he begins uncovering aghost story.Unfortunately, Woman in Black is a failure. It falls trap to themajority of horror movie clichÃ©s, making it anodyne and gimmicky thepoint of anonymity. It is a film defined by what it is ultimatelycapable of doing, and nothing more. And what it is capable of doing,again, falls short. You are hit with an array of boom-bang-screamscares, and plenty of disfigured faces, but nothing progressive.The storyline is definitely intriguing, but the shallow way it'scarried out hints at budget cuts to increase the profit ratio. DanielRadcliffe had his work cut out for him breaking the mold set by hisdecade long stint has Harry Potter, and the screenplay doesn't evengive him enough time to flex his acting chops and show us what he'sreally got. It feels more like a showcase.Ultimately, greatness eludes this film. The story feels watered down,and the characters are dry and undeveloped with no clear motives behindtheir actions, leaving you questioning everything they do. Despiteplenty of tweaks and trinkets to catch the discerning eye, this filmcan, and will be easily forgotten. With a fresh sounding story, thetalent of CiarÃ¡n Hinds, and the ability to show the world what DanielRadcliffe is capable of, this film wastes it all, and is far from themasterpiece it could have been.
Anton Petrov (26 April 2013)
I'm a huge horror movie fan and was looking forward to this title.Unfortunately, I got really disappointed with The Woman in Black fortwo main reasons: it's predictable, it uses tons of clichÃ©s.First, the storyline is reminiscent of so many other movies out there.The first few moments were quite original and I expected a few twistshere and there, but as I continued to watch the film, I realized thatI'm in for a big disappointment.Daniel does a good job in delivering his role, but the supportcharacters are strange and out of place and the entire premise seemsbadly developed. The ending was quite predictable as well and to behonest, it could have been done SO much more interesting and scary.Second, all of the "scary" scenes are not only very easy to anticipate,but they were almost literally copies from other ghost movies. Themirror ghost scenes, the screaming face scenes and a plethora of otherswere all blatantly copied. Unlike intense psychological horror moviesor movies that use anticipation and the fear of the unknown (REC,Exorcist, Paranormal Activity), Woman in Black employs cheap thrillswith the excessive use of atmospheric music, sound and special effects. Overall, Woman in Black is not a horrible movie, but if you're a horrormovie fan and have seen your share of films, you'll be thoroughlydisappointed by this title. It's quite predictable, uses simple scare tactics and dare Isay...boring? 7/10
Neil Doyle (21 April 2013)
You have to be in the mood for a good, authentically creepy ghost storyto fully enjoy the quiet chills of THE WOMAN IN BLACK. It's only afterthe story ended that I realized I'd been taken by something I shouldhave seen from the beginning. At any rate, the ending did come as atwist for me--but in view of all the preceding events, it was indeedforeshadowed by information given about the title character.Daniel Radcliffe has to carry the weight of most of the film on his ownshoulders and he does a very satisfying job as a young lawyer whosefirm sends him on a mission to a remote village accessible only whenthe tide is low enough to permit horse and carriage to enter. The storydepends on the musty atmosphere of a decaying mansion full of shopworndolls in a nursery where three girls met their fate years ago. Radcliffe's only friendly neighbor is Ciaran Hinds, who helps him getto the root of the troubled village and the death of numerous youngchildren. The extremes to which Radcliffe is willing to go (as in themarsh scene where he recovers a dead boy's body) are improbable, to saythe least, but so graphically enacted that you have to believe it. It'sone of the most suspenseful moments in the story. Radcliffe is willingto recover the corpse to give it a proper burial next to the mother,whose spirit is evidently haunting the old mansion.The surprise ending fits the story but came as quite a shock to me,although with hindsight I can see that there was some preparation forit if you paid close attention to the script.For lovers of Gothic tales full of mist, suspicion, broodingtownspeople and dangerous marshlands, THE WOMAN IN BLACK is yourticket. Good production values are in abundant evidence. Hammer iscertainly making a good comeback in the horror genre with thisdelicious ghost story. Fine cinematography is another big asset.Radcliffe makes expressive use of his penetrating blue eyes framed bybushy brows that confirm his qualification for more adult roles in hisfuture.
Matt Powell (21 April 2013)
To be fair I wasn't really that bothered about seeing this film whichusually puts me in a good unbiased place.I like to keep my reviews simple and short, so hear i go.Radcliffe, only saw him as Harry potter for about 5-10mins so thatdidn't get in the way,, but I do think he needs a few more years underhis belt before he can play the role of a father.No clichÃ© English country bumpkins unlike in warhorse, frankly that wasembarrassing.To put it basically, it ticked the boxes of the hammer horror genre. Itwill make you jump and if you've got a Mrs she will probably be hidbehind your jacket for most of the film..Deffo worth Â£7 and a bonus if its orange Wednesdays!!!!!!
sidewalker (20 April 2013)
I am a huge fan of the book but I must say that this film was not whatit could have been. Cheap scare tricks, excessive CGI and a modifiedstory ruined it for me...not to mention all the idiots in the movietheater who wouldn't shut the hell up and the groups of kids running upand down the stairs and in and out of the theater made it a damncircus. I waited a long time to see this and all the commotion was amajor buzz kill. I'm never going to see a movie on a Saturday nightagain!This movie should have been shot indie style with no name actors; Iwould have loved to see what the Pans Labyrinth producer did with thisstory. Radcliffe did an OK job in the role and the acting was fairlysolid all around but I left the theater feeling uninspired anddefinitely not scared. I know when I see a great ghost story because itsits with me for days. The woman should not have been CGI'd - she couldhave been just as terrifying and her screaming was absolutely retardednot to mention that lame final scene where she stared into the camera.The book was moody, atmospheric and chilling and it just did nottranslate into this film. I am yet to see the original but keep hearing great things about it andplan to watch it on you tube. maybe now it will finally be released onDVD.I give this a 6/10 at best
teziltugsan (20 April 2013)
I was not expecting a milestone or impressive story/movie, but thismovie is below the "average" level for me.The story line is shallow, the "horror" moments looks quite poor andcheap. I do not know how much they spent for the movie but they shouldnot have!And also I have no idea why Daniel Radcliffe has accepted the offerafter the series of Harry Potter. It is disappointing to see -let'ssay- a "promising" actor in this kind of amateur movie.Even though the director James Watkins had a great job in "Eden Lake"in 2008, this movie is not even remotely as original as "Eden Lake". Iguess J Watkins is quite dependent to the book rather than creating hisown movie. There was this movie he had written: "My little eye" in2002, but that one was far more amateur (microphone was visible in somescenes)Now, I feel like I spent my 90 minutes for nothing.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20