Read User Reviews and Submit your own for The Woman in Black

8

musto95Mar 6, 2012

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 ofThis 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.… Expand

4 of 4 users found this helpful40

All this user's reviews

7

phillyjeffJun 23, 2012

Scary movie with a lot of suspense and mystery. I thought Daniel played an excellent character. I didn't see that ending coming but it made for a good closing. Well worth the watch.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

TastyJamProjectFeb 8, 2012

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 whereIn 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, itâ… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

DuffladJun 30, 2012

A surprisingly good film with Daniel Radcliff stepping out of the Harry Potter shadow finally. Its a nice, fairly dark, easy to follow somewhat psychological horror film. I quite enjoyed it, and it kept me on edge despite the predictability.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

thomashughes123Feb 6, 2012

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 reviewGood, 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.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

Xborn74May 5, 2012

"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"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

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

WesfanMay 28, 2012

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

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

Knicksfan7Feb 20, 2012

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 wasThe 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

9

StonecutterFeb 14, 2012

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 theVery 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.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

NedRyerson1Jun 9, 2012

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 alertThe 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

GBowlesJan 5, 2013

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,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 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

9

BigDingus04Feb 4, 2012

One of the better scary movies I've seen in the last few years. As long as you don't go see it in a theater with a bunch of little kids trying to be funny the whole time, or scream at every part (then proceed to laugh because they screamed),One of the better scary movies I've seen in the last few years. As long as you don't go see it in a theater with a bunch of little kids trying to be funny the whole time, or scream at every part (then proceed to laugh because they screamed), this movie will genuinely creep you out. I literally got goose bumps at one point just out of sheer creepiness. I honestly can say I've NEVER had that happen to me in any scary movie - ever. If you like gothic horror films, definitely check this out. I have no idea how the 2 negative reviewers felt the way they did. I do not share a single feeling with anything they said.… Expand

8 of 9 users found this helpful81

All this user's reviews

6

heyitsmegrif4Apr 12, 2012

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%.

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

9

GBEFeb 6, 2012

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 aIf 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

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryFeb 10, 2012

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 hallsDaniel 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

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

10

kill9015Mar 9, 2012

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 AREthis 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.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

10

BHBarryFeb 7, 2012

â

6 of 9 users found this helpful63

All this user's reviews

10

MargaritaFeb 21, 2012

"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"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.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

10

serafi13Mar 10, 2012

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

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

8

Patrick94Oct 20, 2013

This is going to be one of the best horrors you have ever seen, I loved how many scares there are in the movie that you see coming, and yet they work every single time because of how terrifying they are. The atmosphere and story are brilliant. Bravo.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

4

Olidegu2012Feb 6, 2012

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.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

5 of 8 users found this helpful53

All this user's reviews

5

ImUnavailableFeb 14, 2012

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, itA 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

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

9

GeneralShepherdFeb 15, 2012

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.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

10

MegWhiteleyMar 2, 2012

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 isYeah, 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.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

ABNMPFeb 4, 2012

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.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

violetheartFeb 13, 2012

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 averageI 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 clichÃ©d 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

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

9

DutchieFeb 21, 2012

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 IThis 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

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

zarinFeb 25, 2012

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 thoroughlyit 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.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

livvyhowarthMar 4, 2012

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 youGreat 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.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

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.… Expand

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

8

BikerjamesFeb 22, 2012

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 beingWow - 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

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

8

HalfwelshmanFeb 25, 2012

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 whileThe 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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

drachehexeMar 6, 2012

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 ofThis 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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

GeorgeBaileyFeb 18, 2012

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 withGetting 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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

hoops2448Feb 28, 2012

The Woman In Black isnâ

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

10

silentshadeMar 23, 2012

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 andI 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.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

rydermusicMar 3, 2013

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.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

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

6

subhadip1524Feb 18, 2012

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.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

10

KotaFeb 3, 2012

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.

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

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

6

yoshikartguyFeb 26, 2012

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.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

JeffieDFeb 21, 2012

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

micahmannFeb 28, 2012

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.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

MattJenkiFeb 27, 2012

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.

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

9

reecetsistoMar 25, 2012

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 - withoutThis 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.… Expand

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 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

8

nintendoid13Jan 10, 2013

I thought this movie was pretty freaky. In my opinion, Radcliffe should have waited a little longer to be in another movie because throughout the whole thing, there was that little nagging voice 'I'm Harry Potter' in the back of my head! II thought this movie was pretty freaky. In my opinion, Radcliffe should have waited a little longer to be in another movie because throughout the whole thing, there was that little nagging voice 'I'm Harry Potter' in the back of my head! I was officially scared when this movie was over and I wouldn't really recommend watching it alone at night if you're as big of a weenie with scary movies as I am!… Expand