User Score
6.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 245 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 24 out of 245

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. 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.
  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 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 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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 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
  6. 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
    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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 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
  10. 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 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
    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.
    Collapse
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  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 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.
Metascore
62

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 39
  2. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 50
    There is one nice pop-up scare against a dozen or so false, ineffectual ones - a poor percentage. As the title states, she is a woman and wears black, but she might as well be a hastily decked-out script girl for all her impact.