User Score
6.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 274 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 36 out of 274
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. Feb 20, 2012
    5
    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 aThe 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
  2. Jun 9, 2012
    6
    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 courseThe 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
  3. Jan 5, 2013
    6
    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 horrorWhile 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
  4. Apr 12, 2012
    6
    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%.
  5. Feb 10, 2012
    6
    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 tensionDaniel 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
  6. 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
  7. Feb 14, 2012
    5
    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 nicelyA 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
  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 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
  10. Mar 3, 2013
    6
    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.
  11. Feb 18, 2012
    6
    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.
  12. Feb 26, 2012
    6
    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.
  13. Feb 28, 2012
    6
    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.
  14. Jul 9, 2012
    5
    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
  15. Apr 1, 2012
    6
    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.
  16. May 31, 2012
    6
    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.
  17. Feb 4, 2012
    5
    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
  18. Mar 18, 2012
    5
    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.
  19. Jul 7, 2012
    6
    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
    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
  20. Mar 8, 2014
    6
    Has a slow start filled with jump-scares, but eventually builds up suspense and tension, and releases scares that are relevant and unexpected.
  21. May 25, 2012
    5
    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
  22. Jun 6, 2012
    6
    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.
  23. May 30, 2012
    6
    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, whileI 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
  24. Jul 5, 2012
    6
    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,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
  25. Jul 2, 2012
    6
    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 clichesolid 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
  26. Dec 27, 2012
    6
    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; andThe 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
  27. May 8, 2013
    5
    I watched this movie because it aired on Showtime and I want to see how Daniel Radcliffe performed without his Harry Potter character. I must admit, I like Radcliffe but the movie itself lacked an attention keeping plot. I dozed off in the middle twice and needed to rewind a bit to see what I missed. Sure there were some surprises enough to call this a thriller, but far from myI watched this movie because it aired on Showtime and I want to see how Daniel Radcliffe performed without his Harry Potter character. I must admit, I like Radcliffe but the movie itself lacked an attention keeping plot. I dozed off in the middle twice and needed to rewind a bit to see what I missed. Sure there were some surprises enough to call this a thriller, but far from my definition of horror. I don't want to spoil the end, so I'm left wondering if I'm supposed to like the Woman in Black for that last deed or hate her more. When I'm left with a stupid question in my head it's not scoring higher than a 5. Expand
  28. 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.
  29. May 24, 2015
    5
    O filme deveria possuir mais algumas cenas, a tensão do filme é boa mas parece que algumas cenas não chegaram nem por um pequeno período de tempo serem ótimas, e além disso, deveria focar mais na antagonista, para que demostre mais suas capacidades, mas como em muitos filmes de terror, não se foca diretamente no antagonista, pois não haverá medo, e o filme de terror talvez se torne apenasO filme deveria possuir mais algumas cenas, a tensão do filme é boa mas parece que algumas cenas não chegaram nem por um pequeno período de tempo serem ótimas, e além disso, deveria focar mais na antagonista, para que demostre mais suas capacidades, mas como em muitos filmes de terror, não se foca diretamente no antagonista, pois não haverá medo, e o filme de terror talvez se torne apenas um mistério, mas ao menos alguns antagonistas demostram sua personalidade, uma personalidade que não é realmente demostrada por figurantes ou o próprio protagonista. A antagonista é só um personagem realizando o que tem que ser feito. 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.