The Woman In Black is an EPIC FAIL! Never have I seen a horror movie worse than this. Daniel Radcliffe was boss in Harry Potter: his career is now officially over.

Well, this being my wildcard of the weekend, I decided to see it anyways and was not impressed though my expectations were already in the thoughts of well, you're taking Harry Potter and thrusting that actor into a horror movie role. Radcliffe's acting was not bad, actually it was decent, however it was the boring script and thrills and spooks around every corner that you could see a mile away that really bring this movie down in my opinion. The movie itself, not the acting was the disappointment to me and though as some reviewers have said that this is the end of Radcliffe's career, let's be honest here. Every actor needs to take chances and this was just one chance that turned into a bad one for the young actor. He will rebound (it is not like he needs the money) just not with this movie.… Expand

â

A sometimes eerie movie with some good scares that is brought down by a thin plot, mediocre acting and a clunky script. The movie relies heavily on the fast image/ loud noise method of scaring an audience and while it can be effective, it feels cheap. Characters are all pretty bland and uninteresting, with the movie instead putting the emphasis on the scares. The movie creates a nicely haunting atmosphere at some points and will probably appeal to most fans of the genre.… Expand

The Woman in Black brings enough scares to be a good quality movie. Yet, Daniel Radcliffe really wasn't the best choice for this film and it suffers from an ending that makes most of the movie quite pointless. I give this film 65%.

If Human Centipede is your idea of a good genre film, stay away from this movie. I really liked it. It's atmospheric and melancholy and has some good old fashioned spooks. The art direction and cinematography are sublime. It's definitely a throwback to the old fashioned British Horror films of the 60s and 70s and a welcome return of Hammer Films, who created some really iconic films back in the day. Recommended if you love old stories about haunted houses and castles and weird old towns with superstitions and stuff. I suspect that the general public will find it a bit boring since it lets the story slowly evolve and doesn't feature any gory deaths or people getting tortured or silly gimmicks. Daniel Radcliffe was pretty good, if a bit young for the role. Here's hoping for more alternatives to the usual torture porn and Japanese horror remakes that have become the boring norm lately.… Expand

Daniel Radcliffe plays a London solicitor who's sent to a creepy village to wrap up an estate, but that's just an excuse for an old-fashioned haunted house expedition. Nothing's original about the approach: lots of wandering dark halls accompanied by ominous music and punctuated by sudden, loud noises. There are one or two genuinely shocking surprises, but they don't provide enough tension to sustain the dull parts.… Expand

I have to start out by saying that I'm not a big Harry Potter fan at all. The theater was a great one to see it in as the crowd was quiet. However, I hadn't seen a movie on the big screen in a few months and thought this one might be worth the effort. I was wrong...The movie begins innocently enough and we develop some empathy for Radcliffe's character. However, the first hour of the movie has a couple of very cheap scare tactics with birds and the such followed by some little girl's death. The house he has to visit looks great atmospherically but the setup is never taken advantage of. The ghost is anything but scary or intimidating. The plots twists (if you can call them that) are derived and unbelievable. Radcliffe's character never demonstrates any true terror and never seems disturbed by the events beyond a yawn or two. The side characters are pointless as are most of the directions that the plot attempts to develop. All in all, a big disappointment.… Expand

this film is a outstanding horror with scenes that make you jump out of your seat. i am impressed with Daniel Radcliffe i didn't think he would get out of harry potter but he did. people are saying that the special effects were bad, THEY ARE STUPID, the special effects were great. finally if i could pick any horror film to see again i would see this one.

Boring with poor special effects. There were several scenes where the Harry Potter kid seemed to be in physical pain like he had to go poop or something. I saw a couple of groups leave theater early.

This film is utterly unsatisfying.
Not even slightly entertaining, some of the performances were utterly laughable, and the script was horrifyingly bad.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A lot of critics lost a lot of credibility for reviewing this film positively. This is the dullest, most lacking horror film I have ever seen in my entire life. The special effects were laughable (the few remaining people literally laughed out loud in the theater). The main character's story could not have been less compelling, or less existent. I felt like I watched an hour and a half of absolutely nothing. No scares, no effort whatsoever. Utter garbage. Not even worth a rental from Red Box.… Expand

In comparison with other horror films released in the last year, The Woman In Black is in a class of it's own. It's exciting, compelling, thrilling and runs smoothly. That being said, it's hard to take seriously. In a cinematic world where filmmakers now strive for stark, brutal realism as real disturbing horror, the horror of yesteryear (The Mummy, Dracula, Swamp Thing, the Wolfman, etc), bearing the "Hammer Films" name, (which TWIB does) seem old hat. If you enjoy quick scares and a predictable mystery plot, you'll probably love this film. Radcliffe is great, but it's still hard to lose sight of him as his breakout role. It'd be nice to see him in a modern, non-magic, non-supernatural setting, and the supporting cast is game. However, if you can't take supernatural horror seriously, (like me), and easily deconstruct plot structures, there's not much here for you. All in all, itâ… Expand

The woman in black was an ok movie overall. Daniel Radcliffe did a very good job for his first movie since Harry Potter, but he didn't have very much to work with here. I liked the cinematography and the setting of the film, but the plot was just mediocre. It had its jumps and a few chilling moments, but overall The Woman in black was just decent. Good performance and a great start to a "new" career for Daniel Radcliffe. 4.5/10… Expand

Very good movie. The story was well done. It was not over the top. Crazy ghost, haunted house, small town, and a creepy felling through the movie. Some people like blood and gore in there movies. If you like blood and gore this is not the movie to see. just go home and pop in a low budget horror film and in joy.

Adds nothing new to the genre. Actually slept for the first 30 minutes? Good for the PG-13 family experience, but even my kids were disappointed. I would save my money and wait for a release on Dvd or Netflix.

Good, but I was disappointed, I thought it would have been more subtle horror, but instead its just jump scares, the story was all right, and the acting was great, especially Daniel Radcliffe, who is fresh from the Potter series.
My review would be a seven, its just that some reviews are bashing down this movie, so I want it to do well.

The Woman in Black is one of those horror movies that surprises you, but not in the typical scary way. What I mean is that this film brings back the classic terror, which is reflected in three basic things: endless suspense (the music alert bad situation; the change between light and dark atmospheres; the long distance shot throw halls, corridors, into or out of the house; and of course closed doors that locks mystery), then we have the tremendous feeling of isolation (the sense of being trap goes beyond the screen) and finally, the game person versus entity / monster, about this the important thing is that does not matter who wins, the clue is only hear strange things and see part or shadows of this entity, until the end of the movie when the suspense transform into pure horror which that you scream and jump out of your sit.
This movie plays with your mind and induces you the need of solving the puzzle, and although the whole idea and the music are very acceptable; the direction, screenplay and performances (Radcliffe definitely could do it better) are very poor and makes this picture very predictable in some fragments.… Expand

Not scary at all, Even with a 6 rating overall it's still overrated. It's just a generic horror film filled with lame parts that try to startle you - For example, The music will go from an average level to an incredibly high level when something breaks, something goes off, or something appears when it wasn't there before. It was just terrible.

Radcliffe is the only good part of this film but even then he has very little dialogue through out the film. There was one part in the film about 40 mins in where he doesn't utter a single word for nearly 24 mins. They made rather poor use of him imo.

Overall, This film is simply one of many generic horror films made only to milk off the success of it's leading actor, Radcliffe in this case, and I dont care what anyone else says - This film is utter crap.… Expand

I was told before seeing this movie by my friends that it was the most frightening movie in the universe. Worse than Saw II. Filled with twists and turns that left you gasping for breath and culminating in an ending so tragic that the average moviegoer would end up wanting to jump in front of a train. I entered the theatre doing breathing exercises to prepare myself for the terrifying moments to come. Yes, this film has received a LOT of hype in the "oh-my-God-it's-so-scary" department. All I can say is- what a rip off. There is absolutely no genuine horror in this movie. The "scary moments" are nothing more than clichéd groans of music which grow ever louder as Harry Potter runs frantically around a haunted house until something jumps out at him. Oops. Did I just say Harry Potter?That's the other thing. It's extremely difficult for me to forget that throughout my life Daniel Radcliffe has always been a boy wizard fighting to save the world from Voldemort's evil clutches. But, actually, I was impressed. Radcliffe, although only needing to use about two of his expressions in this movie (scared, freaked out, scared, etc.) did a good job. Sometimes I even looked at him for at least a couple of seconds without thinking "Why don't you try Expelliarmus on that ghost?" So the four points I gave this movie are solely dedicated to Radcliffe's acting. I felt that all other parts of the film were uncreative and predictable, and frankly, a waste of time.… Expand

"The Woman in Black" (2012) is a Gothic suspense-horror thriller, directed by James Watkins (writer and director of Eden Lake), that passes in the early twentieth century, in England: it is the story of a lawyer, Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe), who lost his women in the birth of his boy, now age 7, and that are depressed ever since.

After the death of an elderly woman who owned a secluded mansion in the middle of a marsh, in a rural English town, he has the job to arrange the paperwork, in order to sell the house and moves there to deal with it.

From here begins the story that unfolds from the occurrence of sinister events, and the villagers strange reactions, who fear a superstition that curses the village.

The film is well done, visually, has a sad and gloomy, dark atmosphere typical of Gothic-themed movies. There's no abuse of special effects or blood, and the film relies more on the atmosphere of suspense, until the end of the movie.

I just noticed a inconsistency in the filming, when two characters are driving, in a open car, and the hair of the characters do not move - after that I noticed no other gross errors.

The music, which only appears discrete and pertinently, and the sound effects are good, and helps to compose the general atmosphere.

What stands out in this movie is the performance of Radcliffe, beginning to get off of his eternal role of Harry Potter: his acting in the movie are very good.

The main story unfolds gradually as the secrets of the house, the legend and its ghosts are explained until the end of a film that follows and the Gothic style ending.

Just as a note, the film is based on the book by Susan Hill, written in 1982, which has the same name, and has the same story, but with modifications in the sequence of events and the ending.

Overall is a good movie to pass the time, being a good classic tale of Gothic horror-thriller, related to ghosts and haunting, but nothing that really stands out among the many films that exist.

My score: 6.8 / 10.0.… Expand

Yeah, finally a new horror classic, The Woman in Black is great (the show, and the book are better), but this adaptation is really incredible, have much interesting elements, and the performance of Radcliffe, is great, I forget that he is Harry Potter in the films. The Woman in Black is a great interesting film.

This is one of those movies where the simpler it is, the better. "The Woman in Black" is a suspenseful horror, with frequent scares and eerie settings. It proves that an old fashion ghost story can still be frightening, even in an era of mindless slashers like the "Saw" series.

This is horror! When you look it alone in the night.. lights are off and you're tired! After movie you can smell your own fear! .............................................................................

Scary movie with a lot of suspense and mystery. I thought Daniel played an excellent character. I didn't see that ending coming but it made for a good closing. Well worth the watch.

I thought this movie was pretty freaky. In my opinion, Radcliffe should have waited a little longer to be in another movie because throughout the whole thing, there was that little nagging voice 'I'm Harry Potter' in the back of my head! I was officially scared when this movie was over and I wouldn't really recommend watching it alone at night if you're as big of a weenie with scary movies as I am!… Expand

Wow - this is one angry ghost! The story is typical of a haunted house film, but the look and atmosphere is much better than usual. There were definitely scenes that gave me chills and goosebumps. The director uses the technique of being very quiet then a sudden scream and face or ghost will turn up out of nowhere to scare you, but it works even though it's predictable. No gore, just sudden loud moments where things pop out at you. My friend and I both liked the film and thought it was entertaining. Daniel Radcliffe plays the part well - the actual star of the film is the house and atmosphere. Any decent actor could do the role.… Expand

This film could have been a good thriller, but it is far too slow and the story does not take the road too, the only positive thing there is tension throughout the film and good times shock

While people draw attention to Daniel Radcliffe, pay attention to Jane Goldman's script. Maybe it's not haunted like Asian movies or let's say "Insidious." But it has good script, character and some creepy scene. If you are not jump, maybe the problem is you.

A breathtaking movie and quite intriguing for the way it is carried and operated by Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe). We might say that eventually, in the twenty-first century, the horror is not a cliché.

After watching this movie twice a couple of weeks ago, I have to say that this film was one of the most frightening and atmospheric works of modern horror that I have seen so far this year. However, like every single other modern horror film, it relies far too heavily on jump scares and the ending, in my opinion, felt rushed and was a disappointing conclusion to a film that up until that point had been very good as a ghost story. The main reason I loved was because it had the one element that I believe makes an effective horror film or novel; atmosphere. You really felt a sense of the enormous evil that lay within the mansion and just like the main character were constantly on edge and dreaded the dark nights, knowing that the woman in black of the title would have even scarier things in store for you. Overall, I would say that this film was actually very good as a ghost story and despite a few flaws in its structure, it delivers a frightening thrill ride that stays in your memory long after you've seen it. In other words, it is nowhere near as bad as other critics say it is.… Expand

The Woman is Black is a good old-fashioned Gothic horror story, with plenty of scares and an effective chilling atmosphere throughout. Appropriately enough for a Gothic horror, The Woman in Black was made by Hammer Film Productions, and while the company may never again see the same success it enjoyed in the 60s and 70s, its nice to see that it's still making films, some of which are rather good. The film, in the very capable hands of director James Watkins (who, after making Eden Lake 4 years ago, appears to be steadily working his way through the horror sub-genres) and writer Jane Goldman (adapting Susan Hill's novel) is a great example of well-defined, engaging storytelling. Daniel Radcliffe, playing Lawyer and widower Arthur Kipps is decent enough, if not exceptional, but at least he's beginning to distance himself from Harry Potter, and Ciaran Hinds is a reliable talent as always, bringing a sense of gravitas to his role as landowner Sam Daily. While the scares are plentiful, they never degrade to the lazy extremes of much modern Hollywood horror - it's not gory, it's not sadistic, and while you are made to jump out of your seat on numerous occasions, it's often when you least expect it. You'll be bracing yourself for a scare, and then it doesn't come, or it comes just as you've let down your guard, and sometimes just before you think it's going to happen, and there's an art to that. The imagery is also incredibly frightening, from the creepiest haunted house in the world that the majority of the story takes place in, to the huge number of nightmarish "children's toys" the filmmakers have managed to appropriate (it's quite disturbing to find out that they weren't made for the film, but lent by a collector of antique toys - what kind of a sick Edwardian parent would give those to a child?), to the appearance of the eponymous Woman in Black herself (portrayed by Liz White with the assistance of heavy makeup and a bit of CGI trickery). The film doesn't just look scary but sounds scary too - you'll definitely have a shiver running up your spine the next time you hear a wooden creak (perhaps from a rocking chair moving of its own accord) that's for certain. A nod should also be given to the film's production designers - everything from the village of Crythin Gifford, to Eel Marsh House, to the costumes look authentically Edwardian, and ground the film's supernatural events in some semblance of reality. The film is not quite flawless, however - the eerie mood and unrelenting tension maintained throughout the film is completely lost in a rather embarrassing, melodramatic finale, which is a little annoying, as if not for these last ten minutes or so, the film could have been a modern horror classic. Even with its unsatisfying conclusion, however, The Woman in Black is an effectively chilling, atmospheric and well-written film that will likely stay on your mind whenever you turn out the lights, as all good ghost stories should.… Expand

This was an above average horror flick. It isn't the best you'll ever see but it certainly won't be the worst. For those that say Daniel Radcliff's career is over or that he doesn't know how to act don't blame him for his characters lack of emotion and stiffness, blame the director. As for the movie itself it has some great scares, an awesome setting, and a great story. It just wasn't directed as it should have been. All in all it is a good non-gory scare that will leave you mostly satisfied.… Expand

Getting the "Harry Potter" bit out of the way first, Daniel Radcliffe does what he does best: impassioned observer. No angst, no histrionics, not much in the way of emotion at all, but he fits well enough here, in a Victorian ghost story with all the trimmings. I passed a 'pleasant' hour and a half waiting for the next jump, and there were enough to keep me interested. The story is straightforward and directly told - there's no messing about with any sub-plots - and the supporting cast, especially Ciaran Hinds give the whole a plausible momentum. The producers knew that their audience would be wide and wisely left out the kind of gore and horror associated with Hammer's better known movies: anyone hoping for something more graphic will be disappointed.… Expand

in one word a perfect horror film . The Woman in Black did a amazing job with the classic horror tone with some amazing tecnik . the dark weather , small British village , it was freaking awesome and really enjoyable .

A painfully bad movie and a total chore to watch. The 1st hour of this film is nothing more than scene, after scene, after scene, of cheaply setup sequences designed to make you jump which fail miserably - "oh there's something else he's seen out the corner of his eye (again) which when he looks closer isn't actually there but instead there's something normal which is designed to make you jump.....again". There's no real mystery, no real suspense, and it's astounding that a film with no real content to speak of can actually make it this far through the production process, and to DVD, without anyone pointing out that there's naff-all substance to it. The last 30 min picks up the pace at least, nothing much grabs you but at least the sequence of crap events are over with quicker. And the ending, well, the less said about that the better. The fact that Harry Potter is in it is inconsequential really, he's a non-entity and a bigger personality may have carried the film more, but that doesn't stop the film itself from being an unsave-able piece of pap.… Expand

The Woman In Black isnâ

A surprisingly good film with Daniel Radcliff stepping out of the Harry Potter shadow finally. Its a nice, fairly dark, easy to follow somewhat psychological horror film. I quite enjoyed it, and it kept me on edge despite the predictability.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, which is why The Woman In Black had to resort to jump scares in order to make it look like a horror film. Peppered with suspense and shadows, it soon became a clunky mess of awkward dialogue, Daniel turning his head dramatically and sudden events. Although I did end up being scared, it became clear that this is not how a horror film should work - I'm beginning to think less of horror films because of the use of 'suspense' and jump scares in order to make them look clever and scary. The ending didn't let the film down because, despite that fact that the ending didn't tie up any loose ends, it just felt the same all the way through. What kind of vehicle is this to boost the variety of Daniel Radcliffe's career? In my opinion, he's still on the train at Platform 9 3/4.… Expand

I suppose I am one of the few who don't think Daniel Radcliffe is a bad actor because film great, it gave all the necessary chills and scares but still giving us an understanding of why it is all happening.
For a PG it was pretty scary and the ending was satisfying as well as creepy.
It is a film you should see but don't expect any magic.

The Woman in Black is a well-done and actually frightening adaptation that is filled with constant jump scares and great performances. The only thing I didn't like about the film was that many scenes from the novel were cut out of the film and it was really different from the book, but as a film being loosly based on the novel, it is great. TWIB is not as good as the novel but it is still pretty good...and frightening.… Expand

Daniel Radcliffe's performance is decent, though the movie is not very scary. The Woman in Black is nothing more than a repetitive plot with a good vibe.

I came in expecting well written and thoughtful suspense/horror film and all I got was Daniel Radcliffe walking around after noises for an hour and a half. I really wanted to like the movie but there were too many cheap thrills that really took away from interesting story. Watch if you want predictable scares.

scary movies are not usually that great, and on that spectrum this movie not that bad. The scares are effective, has some good scenes, but overall plot is unoriginal without good pacing. Used a lot of creepy shots that are overplayed in scary genre (don't want to spoil). decent supporting cast and I wish they spend more time with developing that plotline.

A horror film that really puts fear that keeps you glued to the chair throughout the film. I was really surprised by this movie and the ending will not be those who will remain in history as "The Sixth Sense" or "The Others", but is by no means trivial.

Ten points to gryffindor! Haha. All jokes aside this is a well done movie with an ever-creepy atmosphere. There are constant frights and spooks that keep it fresh. The one pitfall I noticed was that it borrowed a whole heck of a lot from Insidious, I enjoyed it though.

If u expected lot from this movie u will get lot of disappointment from this one.
yeah locations and screenplay are really good and some of the scenes are really plotted perfectly but you will miss the word "scary" thing from this movie.

This movie was kinda unique but not the one i was looking for. Even though it had its moments it just wasnt enough for me to like it. I loved radcliff in the harry potter series but she should do other movies before he goes to horror

I once heard that Daniel Radcliffe, or more widely known as "Harry Potter" , never had to work again due to the series Harry Potter. From the acting he performed in this movie and the overall performance, that rumor should have stayed true.

Deliciously intense, with a classic sort of haunted house terror that is thoroughly enjoyable. The difference (and this I found interesting) is that the audience never quite comes to terms with the ghost- but just enough to add a bit of spice to the experience.

This is the best horror film ive seen in a while. while its not a full horror movie it has a great storyline that keeps you wondering the environments are very creepy and they did everything right this movie is half suspense half horror since most of the horror is psychological there are some parts in the movie when the antagonist will pop out of no where and scare the bejesus out of you if you are into horror/ suspense movies with awesome storylines this is for you… Expand

This movie is a great scary film with lots of 'boo' moments and leaves you pale and shaky. There is an emotional part towards the end. Very Good film that I would watch again.

"The Woman in Black" makes you jump and scream. A new way to scare much more different than the movies we usually watch nowadays, much better too.
Its a really good movie and the actors and actresses do their best, they all make you feel as if you were in the movie, and so you get scared.

As a horror fan and avid reader of this site (and believer in its methodology) I was expecting this to be a thoroughly enjoyable flick. Unfortunately things didn't turn out that way.

The good: It's really well-shot, very beautiful at times.

The bad: Everything else. The first act of the film is overly drawn out and boring. When it finally gets to the horror stuff, it starts sucking more. The scares in the film are really lame and cliche. Lots of shots of Radcliffe nervously approaching doors/doorways. The overall plot is a very lazy, super hackneyed retread of the classic vengeful ghost garbage. I didn't care about the two-dimensional, boring characters. And it's topped off with an extremely lazy, stupid, crappy ending. Really disappointing.

If you want to watch a good recently-made horror movie, rent Paranormal Activity or [REC] and save some money.… Expand

This is genuinely one of the scariest films I've seen. the atmosphere throughout the movie is dark and creepy and the settings are really good. At one point I had goosebumps all over and just wanted to hide behind my coat which is something I don't think I have ever done and I like to think I'm quite a hardened horror film watcher! I really don't understand how anyone finds this film not scary... Daniel Radcliffe's performance is being criticised for being un-emotional and bland but as his wife died and all he lives for is his son and he is generally quite unhappy you can hardly expect him to be an enthousiastic person right!? I think he plays the role very well and this was the thing I feared the most, that he would be Harry Potter forever and hard to take seriously, but the opposite was the case. The only criticism I have is the ending which was a bit cliche.....… Expand

This movie was okay. It was kind of stale at some parts and the horror part wasn't very scary, like when the Woman in Black screams in the camera. HER FACE LOOKS STUPID lol.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Well, to start off with, The Woman in Black was probably one of the better horror movies that I've witnessed so far this year. With a classic feel to it, and it also taking place in an older time, really set the atmosphere for this film. However, being slight of a Harry Potter film fanatic, (even though I didn't exactly dress up like one of the characters on opening nights), I couldn't get it out of my head that Daniel Radcliffe didn't have a scar on his head and was preparing a trip on the train to Hogwarts to learn more about spells. This time around, he is a down on his luck lawyer, with a child, and a wife that has passed away, and also a 5 o' clock shadow that I couldn't stop looking at. He is pretty much forced to go to an old house in order to do some paperwork to settle the death of this woman. He isn't told much else when going to this house, but he should of gotten the picture while passing the villagers weird stares and hurried movements to get away from him. As he settles into the house, the action pretty much shoots right up, no slow build ups like certain recent 'activity' has been doing. Also sticks to it's PG-13 rating with a lack of blood although keeping its dark tone. Without giving too much away, this movie is pretty good in my opinion, mostly lost some points due to the fact that some feeling was lost in the theater when I was paired with an unruly group, also am still getting off the train that used to lead to Hogwarts myself that that ship has sailed. Although I do have to respect he's getting out there and looking for more than just nerdy glasses and made up chants. A 7 out of 10.… Expand

it will creep you out. does it play its part as a horror movie? it certainly does. it's not gory, but the atmospheres that are created in the movie along with some genuine surprises along the way will have you cringing in fear. i thoroughly enjoyed it! Radcliffe's performance was absolutely brilliant.

Radcliffe's first theatrical attempt to really separate himself from the HP franchise. Set in the marshlands of 1900's England, a mysterious rash of childrens' deaths comes to light and sees Daniels's character haunted by the truth.

I liked this movie. I didnt find it scary but more jumpy in two or three parts. Acted really well although Dan Radcliffe at the beginning of the movie was a bit poor he ends up stepping it up.

Great horror movie! Was jumping about every 5 seconds! Would definately recommend it! Great acting and a really good plot. It gave me goosebumps, and I don't generally get goosebumps. Has good twists and frights and just when you think you know what will happen next, it changes. Great film.

This movie cheats - the ending is totally illogical and doesn't fit the rest of the story - there is nothing to lead to it - not bad till then, but you'll be asking yourself "What happened?" Totally unsatisfying.

A decent horror film. It uses all the same cliched horror fim formulas, but it stands out. I couldn't get engaged in the story for it was hard to keep track of it. The ending sucks and is lackluster. A movie to watch if your bored.

A movie so dull, that the 1st hour of this film is nothing more than scene, after scene, after scene, of cheap setup sequences designed to make you jump. The movie is also seriously painful to look at.

This was a beautifully crafted, suspense-filled thriller. On the edge of my seat, holding my breath, I was completely engrossed in this film. Daniel Radcliffe was superb, as was the rest of the cast. A great story with great scare - without unnecessary blood and gore. Definitely see it.

Hammer Horror returns in full force in the 2012 film adaptation of THE WOMAN IN BLACK, starring Daniel Radcliffe. A lowly young lawyer is sent to prepare the sale of a grand old estate, the Eel Marsh House, but unbeknownst to him, the house carries with it an ominous curse that has been plaguing the children of the small town for years. After settling in, Arthur begins experiencing horrific visions as the ghosts of the past return to haunt him! THE WOMAN IN BLACK is an excellent revival of the Gothic tradition that echoes the works of Jack Clayton and Alejandro Amenábar in their retellings of the classic novella, The Turn of the Screw. A constant sense of dread befalls the viewer as we are drowned in mists and shadows. Director James Watkins takes a timely approach to storytelling of his own which pays off entirely, and allows for many long, drawn out sequences to incrementally heighten the tension and suspense as we await the final shock in the end. THE WOMAN IN BLACK also focuses heavily on eerie effects which can be achieved in frame rather than destroying the fantasy through computerized scares. Daniel Radcliffe is amply equipped for the role as the grieving lawyer Arthur Kipps, and plays perfectly in to the Edwardian setting. One can only hope that this will continue to spark more ghostly haunts in the terrifying tradition of the Hammer House of Horror.… Expand

The Woman in Black was not as scary as I thought but its still a really good film. The Woman in Black 7.8/10

The other day I was sitting with a friend of mine discussing the possibility of doing a horror movie together in Hungary. And he says, "Come on, man, horror is for guys with no options. It's a cop out." So, of course, my answer was, "Dude! James Bond and Harry Potter are doing it! Horror is legit now!" In deed it is.
It must be no coincidence that Mr. Radcliffe picked a movie about an evil person from the past come back to haunt children...sounds familiar? All jokes aside, this was a thoroughly enjoyable film.
Daniel Radcliffe's acting was quite professional. The script clearly doesn't allow him, or anyone else, to push any dramatic skills too far. But here Mr. Radcliffe executes pace and delivery superbly. A role obviously written for him, this is clearly an actor with a long career ahead and no shortage in skill.
The rest of the cast was rounded up with surgical precision. Not a single character out of place. You could certainly put a play together out of this entourage. I enjoyed being reminded of the simple pleasure of actors turning average dialogue into believable fantasy.
The story was well crafted. I found myself wanting to discover what was going on and trying to put the pieces together on my own. Which you can actually do if you pay attention. Something that I consider a sign of brilliant story telling. Allow your audience to be involved with you.
The cinematography was picture perfect. You can pause the movie almost anywhere and you will find an exhibition-worthy snapshot. As far as the soundtrack goes, this film did something that should be enforced more often in filmmaking: less is more. The music is another character that goes in and out of scene, not something to inundate very frame with. Take note from this very well executed sound track.
Turn the lights out and warm up a hot chocolate. But do grab that mug tight, as this movie will make you jump more than once. Enjoy.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Scary,thrilling and a decent classic horror movie with good acting.
when the trailer was out i was so excited to watch this plus Daniel Radcliffe was playing Arthur.
He really did a great job.He played his character with seriousness and maturity.
other than that,The woman in black didn't missed any chance to make us jump from our seats .
it was so chilling experience to watch it my room and when i was home alone.
some scenes gave me a heart attack.
The climax where she give a look at us is damn scary.

What movie misses is the justification with Susan Hill's novel.
the weak script and dull characterisation.if this film got these things right .it would have been one of the best horror movies ever made.
but,it doesn't disappoint you,you ask to be scared and you get what you asked for.
At least,its better than that teen horror genre.
a triumph of classic supernatural horror genre.… Expand

Just a Typical Horror Movie, But it's not Annoying for just One time watch !
Also Nothing New and without any initiative in case of making believable characters !
And also Movie suffers from an ending that makes most of the movie quite pointless & useless !
It's not even Worth Of Taking my time to write about it !
5.5/10

The movie was good, but no great. it had a few good scenes and an interesting plot, but lacked scares. The special effects were pretty good, but there was not much else. I personally think it was okay as a rental, but I would not buy it.

this movie was good but it wasnt great. it had the scares bbut it was a little boring when you wernt scared. but.... the acting was great. so that makes a 6 go to a 7

I went into this movie wanting to like it and came away with mixed feelings. It has great atmosphere to it for most of the movie and I personally thought Daniel Radcliffe did fine as the protagonist even if he did look a little young for the part, but the movie was not without a lot of cheap jump scares that made me smack my forehead in embarrassment. I also felt that the ending, while courageous, didn't really connect back to the main plot as well as it could have. It was eerie though, did have a few pretty shocking moments, and I remained entertained throughout so I think it's a decent horror flick.… Expand

Do not waste your time if you are a horror movie fan. This movie exploits every cliche there is. A horror movie that has to resort to cheap scare tactics in addition to lack of depth insults my, and the audiences intelligence. If you are amused by Michael Bay directed movies, then by all means, enjoy; however, if you appreciate quality, then skip this disaster.

I saw the woman in black with a group of my friends, who are both teenage and female (like me) - and were of course absolutely terrified. And I admit, I jumped a couple of times, practically crippled my cousins arm I was holding on so tight... But the reason I gave this film a 6 is because, although it was kinda freaky, there wasn't much plot - I knew almost nothing of the main character, making an instant detachment between the viewer and the film, meaning that there simply wasn't that connection that a person should have when watching a movie...… Expand

The Woman in Black gains notoriety for two things mainly - proof that Daniel Radcliffe can have a successful post-Potter career, and a genuine sense of suspense in most scenes that is barely displayed in many current horror films. Radcliffe isn't given much of a character to work with, or much dialogue, but he does well with what he has to and comes of as an acceptable leading man. This plays out like a standard genre piece and falls into some of the genre's traps, but it uses its haunting production design and eerie lingering images to generate air. We don't care much for the characters or what happens to them, and that is one of the biggest reasons I don't enjoy many movies, but it remains to be one of the better scare flicks made in years recent and that fact alone deserves to be raved about.… Expand

solid acting, very well-constructed creepy atmosphere. Tension builds perfectly, with sudden releases through shocks. However, the tension tends to dissipate when we see the woman in black herself, this could've done with less, leaving more to the fears of imagination. The movie builds up well, and then ends terribly. The ending is senseless and unnecessary, just trying to make it cliche and leave you with fear. Instead it leaves you frustrated and annoyed that this was how they chose it to end.… Expand

A really underrated and under appreciated film. Very scary. What makes The Woman in Black great is the camerawork and direction, building up a large amount of suspense that makes you jump at the slightest things. This movie should have been nominated for best film editing, too.

I see horror movies to be scared, not to laugh. Being as predictable as it is "The Woman in Black' is just straight-up not a good movie. The acting from Daniel Radcliffe was good, though, however, the plot suffered from major holes, the movie went slow, and suffered from being silly. There were scenes, meant to be scary, that I just started laughing at. Its not a so-bad-its-funny type of movie its a so-bad-when-will-it-end-movie.… Expand

Its hard not to review this movie without comparing it to the 'The Orphanage', old spooky house, ghosts, and in its own way a very similar ending. Its a decent film, very tightly directed with at times stunning cinematography, the scares rely a bit too much on sudden loud noises, but hey, it still makes you jump. Harry potter does a decent job, with a very low key, unshowy performance and the story just about passes muster, the problem is it suffers in comparison in every way to 'the orphanage', which creates an overwhelming sense of dread throughout without cheap (loud) tricks and just has a much, much better story. So, if your in the mood for an old fashioned ghost story, then this is definitely worth watching, but if you want something better, then rent 'The Orphange'.… Expand

I was really excited when this movie came out. I watched it and I wasn't to dissapointed however some parts could have been better. I thought Daniela Radcliffe did an amazing job in his first adult performance. This movie isn't that scary however it is PG-13.

The Woman in Black does have its share of scares. For the most part, they are all timed so just when you think something is going to happen, it doesn't....until a good 10 seconds later. The atmosphere is plainly depressing, (as the movie was going for) Also, as it does feature Daniel Radcliffe, the movie doesn't place in the top horror movies ever created. At best, it will startle you; and at its worst, it will bore you. Diagnosis: The scenes that are creepiest are worth seeing (and will make you look twice before walking into a dark room).… Expand

While The Woman in Black is able to scare and keep the audience feeling tense throughout it achieves this through the use of common cheap horror techniques. Jump scares, POV shots, shallow depth-of-field e.t.c. The plot also fails to satisfy, the scares seem pointless and tell us nothing more than: the village is haunted. At times it feels like a mystery movie with elements of horror poured on to appeal to a larger demographic. It probably would have been better off as a mystery drama because the scenes that weren't centered around pointless scares were much more compelling. The Woman in Black will appeal to people simply looking for a scary movie but will be slightly underwhelming for others.… Expand

Holy F*********n **** this movie is the scariest movie I have ever seen. The Women in Black literally blends into her mansion, very well. She becomes the shadows, and lives in the shadows, and the only reason she will come out is to kill children. now don't get me wrong, this is an amazing movie, it's just. Well If you are somewhere around 13 years old or younger, you will still get scared out of your mind.… Expand

I'm really glad that Daniel Radcliffe found something else other than Harry Potter to star in. His performance in this movie was stellar. Other than the performances being good, it was terrifying! The night you watch it you won't be able to go to sleep for days. If the writers take the time to make a second one, it better be decent.