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

“The Woman in Blackâ€� stars Daniel Radcliffe, the now mature star of the Harry Potter films, as he finds himself as a young lawyer seeking the mysteries of a small suburban town on the outskirts of London in the early part of the 20th Century and the strange events that have taken place there.. The film was directed by James Watkins and written by Jane Goldman based on the novel by Susan Hill. Director Watkins takes us through 95 minutes of scares, darkness, fright and queries about what is happening and why. More like a horror film without the massacres or blood-letting, this movie has its fair share of “sitting on the edge of your seatâ€� scenes as we travel through it with our young hero. It is difficult to berate or condemn the film because it does have an interesting plot and a host of questions that take a little too much time to answer. Whether intended or not, Mr. Radcliffe never seems to rise to the level of acting of which I am sure he is capable and, for that reason, he participates in creating a film experience that is more bland than supernatural although there is plenty of that as well. This is a movie that, done better, could really have set a high mark for terror without bloodshed but, alas, it is an average film and for that reason, I give it a 7.5 rating. The caveat here is that this is the kind of film some will love and perhaps rave about although, truth be told, most will find it a little too tedious and dry. All, however, will agree that it does hold your interest and invoke many moments of fear in its audience.… Expand

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

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

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%.

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.

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

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

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

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, it’s great to see a well made, well acted and beautifully shot throwback to classic horror films, but for a modern viewer, I found it pretty hilarious, in a pitch-black humor sort of way.… 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.

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

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! .............................................................................

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

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.

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

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

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 .

The Woman In Black isn’t really a horror film in that it isn’t that scary but is just a linear progression of shocks that maintains a sense of tension throughout as you are constantly trying to avoid the next shock by looking in the background of shots and scenes. However the director (James Watkins) expects this and understands shock conventions so when you are looking in the background he shoves something in your face, shaking you to your core. There were times during the screening that my heart was pumping as I was anticipating the next fright. The story was simple but to the point with a young widow (Daniel Radcliffe) journeying to a small town to settle a dead woman’s affairs. He arrives and beings his work only to start seeing strange things about the town and in the house. Radcliffe gives a great performance as a grieving father who is not only a loving father but one who is incredibly resentful of his son for taking his wife away from him. It’s a complexity he plays with well. He is helped by a great supporting cast including the great Kieran Hinds and Janet McTeer who portray a couple who lost their son when he was young. Hinds and Radcliffe work well together with their scenes being entertaining and the best of the films. The Woman in Black is a great little film with only one real problem but that problem is significant. The problem is that the end of the film is not only predictable but incredibly awful. It is soppy, uneventful, uninvolving and just plain bad. The final 10 minutes of the film don’t really belong with the rest of the feature with there being an unfortunate feel good Hollywood ending being tagged on at the end. It’s a shame but the rest of the film is so good that overall it’s still a delightful little shock flick.… Expand

Often it takes a lot of thought to change your mind about a film. This is quite a scary film, but that's mostly due to the jump scares and the moving shadows in the distance. The ending, I felt, was a bit weak, as instead of leaving us on a cliffhanger, the production team just seemed too tired to bother and left it hanging like a piece of string. However, there was character development, although this is mostly to do with Radcliffe's character, so there is some good acting on his part. So, in some films I have seen, as this has a particular main character, we do get to hear and see more than just the physical outline. And this was a scary movie, it just may have not been the right sort of scares for some people. Still, I'm not watching that again. Enough hiding-under-coats-and-sobbing-and-being-a-general-embarrassment for me.… 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.

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.

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 dead 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

"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

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.

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.

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

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