CBS Films | Release Date: February 3, 2012
6.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 309 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
178
Mixed:
94
Negative:
37
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
HDeezyFeb 8, 2012
This film is utterly unsatisfying.
Not even slightly entertaining, some of the performances were utterly laughable, and the script was horrifyingly bad.
3 of 9 users found this helpful36
All this user's reviews
0
SquitorisFeb 21, 2012
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
2 of 7 users found this helpful25
All this user's reviews
2
ReviewCriticFeb 3, 2012
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.
5 of 18 users found this helpful513
All this user's reviews
2
alienchaosFeb 5, 2012
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 worthI 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. Collapse
2 of 9 users found this helpful27
All this user's reviews
2
dartlanFeb 3, 2012
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.
2 of 9 users found this helpful27
All this user's reviews
3
insanewickedMar 21, 2012
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 reallyI 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
dullurdFeb 19, 2012
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.
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
csw12Feb 3, 2013
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
rubensaysJun 13, 2012
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 areDo 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. Expand
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
2
SpunkyMonkeySep 10, 2012
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 seenA 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
MikefromAngusMar 20, 2014
walking, walking and walking. Is all the main character does. He hear a noise in one room and walks, this becomes boring! sure it was scary the first time they did it. But overtime, its a bore.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
EssenceOfSugarJul 22, 2012
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,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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
snazzyjuiceJul 18, 2012
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 movieI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
TheRocksBarneyJan 7, 2015
“The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death” is terrible. Absolutely terrible. I cannot believe that I spent 98 minutes of my life and that the majority of people in that screen had paid money, money that they had most likely WORKED AN HOUR FOR“The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death” is terrible. Absolutely terrible. I cannot believe that I spent 98 minutes of my life and that the majority of people in that screen had paid money, money that they had most likely WORKED AN HOUR FOR considering how most were round about my age on such ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. Something that has the bollocks to call itself a film. The guys who made that film must have been laughing since its release on New Year’s Day as much as Michael Bay did when Transformers: Age of Extinction was the highest-grossing film of 2014. Anyway… What really lets the film down is. NO **** ANYWAY THIS FILM IS SO BAD. The cast is terrible and so is the plot. Man. *sigh*.

I quite enjoyed “The Woman in Black”. It had a decent and proven plot, as seen in the original success of the book with the same name written by Susan Hill, and with the stage play, as well as a decent lead in the form of Daniel Radcliffe in his first role since the “Harry Potter” series. BUT, as I’m sure you’ve already noticed, I THOUGHT THIS FILM WAS TERRIBLE. Such a let-down. The plot of this film is set in 1941 and follows Eve Parkins (played by Phoebe Fox) and her stereotypically stern boss Jean Hogg (played by Helen McCroy) as they are evacuated along with a group of children up north to Eel Marsh House, where the first film was set. Its promising at first but by the end of the film nothings really happened…? Where the plot is somehow possibly a little bit better than terrible is where it introduces the concept that Eve could turn into the Woman in Black or where we see Harry Burnstow (played by Harry Irvine) stopping and having some sort of seizure hallway down the road to Eel Marsh House which is a key plot aspect for about half of the film. I was waiting to know what was wrong with Harry. Was the Woman in Black having his way with him, morphing him into some sort of sidekick? No. Of course not. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE GOOD. Instead, guess what? HE IS JUST SCARED OF WATER. THAT WAS A KEY PLOT FOR HALF THE FILM! And this is just the first half of the film. THE SECOND HALF IS TERRIBLE TOO. From Eel Marsh House to a fake RAF airfield and then back to Eel Marsh House with a load of RUBBISH in between.

And guess what, that’s all that seems to be between the cast members ears. RUBBISH. It’s what came out of their mouths too. The performances AS YOU WOULD PROBABLY GUESS are also terrible. Everyone is TERRIBLE. The only person I possibly liked was Harry. And that was only because I had a bit of a man crush on him. I mean he was quite a cool pilot. OH NO I MEAN RUNNER OF A FAKE AIRFIELD WHO IS SCARED OF WATER. There are no characters. I didn’t care about anyone. Man I mean I wanted Eve to ****ing die at the end. Man **** that film.

The film ultimately relies on jump scares throughout and although I am extremely vulnerable to those there were only about 3 good ones in the entire film and one of them was one of those false ones where this kid with a ****ING SAUCEPAN ON HIS HEAD OR SOMETHING DECIDED TO ****ING SCREAM AT THE CAMERA. There was 1 that made me jump. And guess what? It was one that was entirely unrelated to the plot with a little girl and an old man just holding a finger to their mouths to the camera. You know what the best bit of the film was? The END. Oh, and the bit where one woman screamed out at a bit of wood falling in the background which prompted the whole audience to burst out laughing. I feel sorry for those who were involved with this film. It was just too bad. And man I liked the first film. The reason I’ve given it two stars is because of how the film does well to take make it look like it is 1941. But don’t worry because the cinematography is TERRIBLE. FOR ****S SAKE I COULDN’T READ WHAT ONE OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS (who was mute) WAS WRITING DOWN FOR THE ENTIRE FILM!

DAMMIT I HAVE JUST REALISED I HAVE BEEN TRICKED INTO WASTING MORE OF MY TIME ON THIS **** FILM.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews