User Score
6.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 269 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 35 out of 269
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 2, 2012
    2
    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
    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
  2. Feb 6, 2012
    4
    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 mileWell, 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
  3. Feb 4, 2012
    4
    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.
  4. Feb 13, 2012
    4
    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 terrifyingI 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
  5. Feb 8, 2012
    0
    This film is utterly unsatisfying.
    Not even slightly entertaining, some of the performances were utterly laughable, and the script was horrifyingly bad.
  6. Feb 21, 2012
    0
    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
  7. Feb 3, 2012
    2
    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.
  8. Feb 5, 2012
    2
    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 theI 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
  9. Feb 3, 2012
    2
    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.
  10. Mar 21, 2012
    3
    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.
  11. Feb 19, 2012
    1
    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.
    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
  12. Feb 3, 2013
    1
    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.
  13. Jun 13, 2012
    0
    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.
  14. Sep 10, 2012
    2
    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 youA 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
  15. Mar 20, 2014
    3
    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.
  16. Jul 22, 2012
    3
    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 workDesperate 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. Collapse
  17. Jul 18, 2012
    2
    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 ofI 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
  18. Oct 12, 2013
    4
    An overdramatic and painfully clichéd ending doesn't help an already overdramatic and painfully clichéd movie. 75% of the film is just Daniel Radcliffe walking through the house slowly and the usual haunted house movie clichés. Not much else happens. The only positive thing about this movie is the fact that the scenery and the cinematography are beautiful, though.
  19. Jan 7, 2015
    1
    “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“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
Metascore
62

Generally favorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 40
  2. Negative: 0 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Kevin Harley
    Jan 9, 2015
    80
    Even now we know he’ll thrive post-Hogwarts, Radcliffe impresses as Arthur Kipps, the solicitor, widower and father with an invested interest in the afterlife.
  2. Reviewed by: Rex Reed
    Feb 8, 2012
    50
    Boring and sedentary, not to mention only occasionally coherent, this creaking-door mystery is not much of a vehicle to display young Mr. Radcliffe's range and charm.
  3. Reviewed by: Olly Richards
    Feb 6, 2012
    80
    Check behind the doors. Switch on all the lights. You won't be sleeping soundly for a while.