The Woman in Black (2012)

7/10

bboyminn5 February 2012

People have complained that this is a horror movie filled with horror movie clichés. But how could it not be? I mean is it suppose to be a horror movie at the local shopping mall? No, of course it is in a haunted house, were else would it be? As much as this movie drew on the horror standards, I found it refreshingly different from most horror movies. Part of what I want from a movie is something different, not more of the same, and I think in that respect, all things considered, this movie delivered.

While it did make use of the standards like jump scares, I really felt the suspense of this movie. I mean, at least for me, this movie was wound very tight. The suspense was ratcheted to the limit.

While I'm still not past Daniel Radcliffe's voice, I still hear Harry or Daniel, his face and body language were spot on, and greatly added to the tension of the movie.

In the end, it is what it is, a suspenseful horror movie that gets the job done. This isn't a genre noted for 'Academy Award' performances. But as suspenseful horror movies go, I was very satisfied with this one, and thought they did have a new approach to an old genre.

Steve B

256 out of 327 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A Good Ghost Story Developed at a Slow Pace and Beginning Similar to Bram Stoker's Dracula

claudio_carvalho26 May 2012

In London, the lawyer Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) still grieves the death of his beloved wife Stela (Sophie Stuckey) on the delivery of their son Joseph (Misha Handley) four years ago. His employer gives a last chance to him to keep his job, and he is assigned to travel to the remote village Cryphin Gifford to examine the documentation of the Eel Marsh House that belonged to the decently deceased Mrs. Drablow (Alisa Khazanova). Arthur befriends Daily (Ciarán Hinds) in the train and the man offers a ride to him to the Gifford Arms inn.

Arthur has a cold reception and the owner of the inn tells that he did not receive the request of reservation and there is no available room. On the next morning, Arthur meets the solicitor Jerome that advises him to return to London. However Arthur goes to the isolated manor and soon he finds that the Eel Marsh House is haunted by the vengeful ghost of a woman dressed in black. He also learns that the woman lost her son drowned in the mush and she seeks revenge taking the children of the scared locals.

"The Woman in Black" is a dramatic horror film by Hammer with a good ghost story developed at a slow pace. The beginning is very similar to Bram Stoker's Dracula, when the young lawyer Jonathan Harker is sent to a remote village to a real estate business and has a cold reception by the villagers.

The vampire is replaced by the evil ghost of a woman in black that takes the children from the dwellers. The conclusion is a little disappointing but the film certainly makes the viewer startle many times along 95 minutes running time. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Mulher de Preto" ("The Woman in Black")

43 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Nothing to dislike

Leofwine_draca29 December 2012

There's nothing to dislike about this new version of Susan Hill's classic ghost story, THE WOMAN IN BLACK, except that it's been filmed before (in the 1980s) and, inevitably, the earlier one was better. But this release of the story, made by the newly-revamped Hammer films, gets most things right.

First off, the production has a wonderful look to it. The locations are wonderfully bleak and isolated and the backdrops scream Gothic. The characters look and feel right, from the reliable Ciaran Hinds to, yes, Daniel Radcliffe as the youthful hero (I'm no fan of Radcliffe in the Potter films, but having seen MY BOY JACK I'm convinced of his talents).

The horror aspects of the story are where this new production falls down a little. Not because they're bad, because the scares are efficient enough in themselves...it's just that they're so, well, predictable. THE WOMAN IN BLACK is one of those films that suckers the reader into a quiet moment before startling them with a sudden movement or loud noise (and sometimes both together). And it does it over and over again. And again after that.

Still, for me, mood and atmosphere is everything, and at least this gets that right. The scares may be predictable, but in all other respects THE WOMAN IN BLACK is a film that pays affectionate homage to both its source material and the kind of glorious ghost stories of old.

18 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

If there's one thing horror movies have taught us, it's that ghostly old dears and kids are a recipe for new underwear.

jackharding89-19 April 2012

30 years and several retools on from Susan Hill's now seminal pocket novel comes the big screen adaptation of The Woman in Black. Swapping the lingering, life-spanning impact of Hill's Dickensian book of the dead for a hollow yet effective house-of-horrors yarn that'll have you stirring in your seat- and out of it.

The film's set-up is more or less identical to the book but with a few baffling tweaks; Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is a solicitor and widowed father of one who's summoned to a remote town and manor on an eerie northern marshland where he's to settle the estate and will of a recently deceased old hag. Somethings wrong with the place, though. An ominous figure stalks and taunts and haunts the townspeople. A child falls whenever it is seen; a woman in black.

If there's one thing horror movies have taught us, it's that ghostly old dears and kids are a recipe for new underwear. And what do you know, The Woman in Black has them both in droves. All of which reside in a haunted, Victorian mansion in the middle of nowhere. The film charts Kipps' probe into the strange happenings from inside the damned estate in this simplistic yet effectual horror gem that's as playful and frightening as it is enjoyable.

As a stand-alone picture, director James (Eden Lake) Watkins' Woman in Black is as sound a horror of this ilk and purpose come; the haunted-house caper has been done to death then done again over the course of cinema's history. The Woman in Black is the best of its kind for quite some time. When measured against the book, though, it comes up short. Despite remaining faithful to its source through large parts and absolutely nailing the location, Jane Goldman's screenplay omits certain key scenes as well as the haunting bookends that made Hill's novel one the finest ghost stories of all time. Fans of the book will find it hard to fathom why these decisions were made. Maybe Goldman and Watkins wanted to stamp their own, uplifting mark on the tale. Shades of Kubrick's Shining? Not quite. I won't reveal what transpires in Hill's novel, but if the film had followed suite, it would've had greater substance and longevity.

Grafting Harry Potter onto its set-up ensured Watkins' film spun a profit before it hit a single screen. In an undemanding role that require Radcliffe tread cautiously and look scared, the boyish Brit does what's expected of him but fails to impress; to say he's believable as a father would be stupid. He isn't. If Radcliffe is looking to break free from his Potter persona, it's going to take a lot more than a 12A, British horror film to do the trick. Albeit a damn good one; the Evil Dead 2 a la Dickens without the gore, gut laughs and satire. Jumpy, jittery and fun. Yes, fun. The Woman in Black is by no means a black comedy but its clichéd set-up and slow-boiling pots of suspense are so well conceived and cooked you'll be scared silly and amused at the same time. Nervous laughter? You bet. Watkins' delays the unveiling of the shadow shrouded woman to the bitter-end but when we finally see the bitch, its no laughing matter.

Think The Shining without the depth. Think Paranormal Activity without the realism; a minimaliststic, nail-biting scare-fest primed for the big screen that joins the likes of The Others and The Village as well crafted mainstream horrors fit for young and old. See it.

21 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A lot like Dead Silence meets Insidious.

jack_face31 January 2012

Warning: Spoilers

The movie starts out slowly with a bit of humor. Actually, 3 girls died and some people in the theater found it funny. I kinda doubt that's what the film-makers had in mind. A drawing by Radcliffe's son in the movie drew the most laughs and it was a recurring prop that was later used as a plot device. The only other recognizable face was Ciaran Hinds from Above Suspicion. It has an eerie feel to it as if some sort of filter was used to make the movie feel like how the haunted house looked. Yep, it's one of those types of movies. To sum it up, Harry Potter is playing a lawyer who has to settle the affairs of the house and it becomes a cold case and if he doesn't, his job is on the line. This is more of a horror mystery. There wasn't much lawyer work going on. A lady lost a son, she's dead, her son is dead under mysterious circumstances, she can't move on until it's solved, you get the picture.

Radcliffe just happens to be the character who has to work in the house and you already know he uncovers the truth. During his discoveries, the plot begins to unravel and some of the antagonist's intentions, and supernatural powers, are revealed. The number one problem with this movie is the use of jump scares. There were just too many of them in my opinion. Not that the audience didn't react to them because that's what jump scares are supposed to do but there were some genuinely scary moments that didn't need to use that technique. Thankfully, some didn't. This really is a scary movie. There's a very long scene where Radcliffe is experiencing about as much Amityville stuff as one can handle. That scene in the house was very well done and suspenseful. It's just you, the house, Radcliffe, and all the various haunts. The director did a good job with that. Most of this movie takes place in the daytime like Feast 2 (not a good comparison, I know) but they still did a good job building suspense.

Without giving too much away, The Woman In Black lost her child and that means everyone else has to lose theirs, too. The girl setting herself on fire scene was good but I think the other death scenes should have been on par with the quality of that one for added chills. Props play a big part in the movie. Specifically dolls and toys. If you're sensitive to children dying or anything related to that, you don't wanna watch this. It will scare you. It's not gory or graphic but clearly the audience sympathized with what was going on in the movie when those particular scenes came up. The biggest error in the movie was the addition of the dog that accompanied Harry Potter into the haunted house on one of his return visits. What happened to the dog? You know what? Someone said exactly that out loud. Gimme a Napoleon Dynamite "IDIOT" for that guy!

But seriously, the dog was just forgotten completely. There were a lot of clues as to what would happen later in the movie. Lots of foreshadowing if you pay attention. You can figure out how the movie is gonna end if you do. Speaking of, it's a very good ending. Sad yet happy at the same time. And even then, some knuckleheads in the audience had to spoil things by saying the obvious right before those scenes started. The climax pretty much happens right at the end of the movie and it concludes shortly after that. The overriding theme is grief and how to deal with it. The Woman In Black's grief was resolved, or so it was thought. With that resolution, you think the movie is done but it's not. There's a very brief scene explaining why she continues to do what she does but prior to that, it's not really explained why.

All the minor details are there but there's just not enough exposition. 3-5 minutes more of an explanation about her son's death and her feelings towards those involved in his death would have made the final revelation of her intentions make more sense. Not that it doesn't but for this type of movie, it needs to be shown. The absolute ending is nice. We get a clear image of what she really looks like. It's very reminiscent of Insidious in that aspect. A new revenge horror icon has been created similar to Freddy Krueger in the fact that she kills kids. Yeah, yeah, I'm exaggerating but this was a very enjoyable horror movie that does its job by scaring you and keeping you interested the whole way through. It's not gonna keep you awake at night but you'll enjoy the ride. Solid acting, scenery, and special effects all the way around despite the minimal cast and budget. Worth paying for and seeing on the big screen but just make sure you see it with an audience that doesn't have the maturity level of a Peanuts character. Nothing happens after the credits. I give this 7 out of 10 stars. The movie poster ain't that great (yet still relevant to the movie) and it's rated PG-13 but those detriments shouldn't stop you from giving this a chance.

30 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Much of the movie was involving until it got to the ending

jordondave-2808524 May 2023

(2012) The Woman In Black HORROR

Based on a novel written by Susan Hill, which at the beginning has three underage girls committing suicide by jumping out of a window and then some screams are heard. Then after the credits is Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliff) a widowed father with a son to look after whose been summoned to visit an estate to settle some affairs located on some small village who has no choice but to leave him with his nanny. Once their, he ends up staying at the very attic where the three young girls jumped off from and upon visiting a colleague tries to send him back home but he refuses but instead visits the manor to look for some documents where while looking through a window he sees a 'woman in black'. This film has all the ingredients for a great haunted house film from remnants from "The Changeling", "Poltergeist", "The Haunting", "The Devil's Backbone", and "The Orphange" among others. And my rating might've been higher if it wasn't for the ending which was predictably dumb and seemed to look like it was unnecessarily tagged on, for it wasn't enough to bog down what I liked about it.

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Absolutely loved it!!

nlk8723 April 2023

Warning: Spoilers

This movie is scary & there aren't many good scary movies made anymore... & I'm stunned to have seen some people reviewed & rated this movie terrible..??? Forget them, this movie was awesomely scary, & it had none of that gore & nudity either! Some are confused by the ending. I never was. Since he tried so hard to reunite her with her son, & she knew his heart was broken, in her sick & twisted mind, she gave him want he wanted most, to be with his wife again, along with their son. If my thoughts aren't correct, then why didn't she keep his son, or both..? I do enjoy watching these specific types of scary movies. Such as Insidious 1 & 2, (Only) The Conjuring 1 & 2, (Only) & this! I can name more but u get the general idea!

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A very creepy film

kdnor201128 February 2012

Daniel Radcliffe's first film role after the end of Harry Potter is playing a lawyer in the early 1900s. OK, that's cool. This film is both an adaptation, and a remake, but I have neither read the book, nor saw the original film, so I went into this film with just one wish, please creep me out.

And for the most part this film does that pretty well. I was creeped out throughout a lot of this film, and jumped a descent number of times. I think the reason it works so well is because it has great atmosphere, there is a twenty minute long sequence with almost no dialog with Daniel Radcliffe just walking around the house. And for a PG-13 horror movie, there are some pretty terrible ways in which KIDS, get killed. The ending has balls, it is both sad and happy at the same time. The acting is good, and it has really good production value, it really looks like the early 1900s.

Now there are a few problems I had, the first twenty minutes have a few of the cheap jump scares, like a crow flying across the screen. Thankfully the scares get more real as the film goes on. There were a few times where I did feel kind of bored. And this may just be a personal problem, but Daniel Radcliffe, looks way too young to have a four year old kid. I mean he's 22, I know they had kids early back then but come on, but like I said, maybe it's just because I'm so used to him being Harry Potter.

The Woman in Black is the best horror film of 2012 so far, granted the only other one I saw was the Devil Inside, but I did enjoy this film, and recommend you check it out.

9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

One of my favorite horror theater experiences

DinosaurAct863 February 2012

I am vividly aware, as are most avid moviegoers, of the horror movie machine. It churns out Final Destinations, exorcism films, and at an even higher frequency, ghost films. At first glance, The Woman in Black appears to be yet another of these "ghost films," where cheap scares, predictable plot "twists," and horrible acting drag the viewer down into an hour-and-a-half maelstrom of mediocrity that can only end at the appearance of "Directed by..."

According to most of the reviewers thus far, The Woman in Black was a letdown. So perhaps it is because I went into the film with no expectations that I came out of it impressed and very, very shaken. I do not plan to explain the plot to you (many have done this already and there is a synopsis which does a far better job than I could), but I will argue in favor of how successfully scary this film was. Yes, it contains ghost film elements we have all seen before, but they are cleverly and patiently arranged so that the viewer becomes totally enveloped in atmospheric dread. Sure, there are "jump" scares, but these are also complimented by many shots which unfold slowly and effectively. It sometimes reminded me of the 1961 film, The Innocents, if that gives you a better idea. Radcliffe is also a worthy focal point of the film, keeping most of the fear and anticipation unspoken throughout.

I would not nominate this film for any kind of award, but it achieves what I believe should be the ultimate goal of all "horror" movies: to draw us in so close that when our fear manifests itself on-screen, it is already too late to turn away. It rates high as one of my favorite horror theater experiences, alongside The Descent and The Strangers.

197 out of 269 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

***SPOILER*** the documents should have revealed more

asmita-instablogs25 March 2013

Warning: Spoilers

the premise for the story is fantastic but the makers should have worked harder to make things clearer (than the play) as the movie progressed. this is my own theory of what happened in the film. (BTW i totally think the movie has a lot in common with Japanese horror flicks including the ghost who is determined to stay evil and all the dead kids). Anyways, back to my own theories now:

when Kipps stays at the house overnight. he had access to a tonne of documentary evidence that could have been used to expand on why jennet's sister took her kid away and why she wouldn't let her see him.

I'm guessing most probably because jennet was already mentally unsound before the child was born and the child was born out of wedlock because the father did not want to marry a crazy chick or the affair was broken off before the wedding causing her to lose her mind. (the father's surname is on the birth certificate).

at the house, Kipps finds a picture of the Drablows where jennet is seen in one of the windows which would suggest that she lived with them. also, she hangs herself in the nursery at the same house which cements the fact that she was living there when the child was alive.

so why does she send Alice letters instead of saying things to her face?

since she was already living there, jennet might have had access to the child though she may not have been allowed to have him call her mom or to even get to meet the child often enough which might have strained her unsound mind even more.

now they never really showed how Nathaniel was left to sink into the marsh when everyone else survived. a boy of 7 is definitely agile enough to be able to jump over the back end of a coach or to hang onto his mother's enormous dress to avoid drowning.

and his body is found right in the middle of the carriage too which would suggest that he was probably incapacitated or sedated/really ill and was already on the floor of the carriage and not moving when the carriage was sinking.

since he wasn't accepting jennet as his mother, perhaps she drugged him/made him ill before this mishap occurred and since his body was never recovered, they couldn't confirm a poisoning or grave previous injury. or maybe jennet tricked him into eating something poisonous or jump off a floor or some other way tried to make him kill himself and Alice and her husband were just rushing him to a doctor when the carriage fell into the marsh. this would explain why jennet hates kids and has them kill themselves. she did it to her own kid too. and the guilt and the insanity made her blame her sister and commit suicide.

and the reason why she hates her sister is not because Alice doesn't let her see the child or give him her cards, it's because she is jealous of her and wants a husband, child, house, the whole shindig which her poor mental health and premarital affair and having a child out of wedlock made impossible.

jennet kills kids to exact revenge on happy families because she couldn't have one herself. and the reason why she keeps the souls of the kids with her is because none of them accept her as their mother (the daily's kid keeps visiting his mother)

however, in the end, the joke's on jennet as Joseph's soul is saved by the soul of his father and the family is reunited in death. in the end she shows her face and that of the other dead kids to Sam so he too becomes a believer and possibly starts to take his wife's claims that their dead son contacts her more seriously.

in the sequel, I'm guessing jennet and the kids haunt soldiers and they (adults) die which means that her curse (kids will die) was broken off by Kipps.

8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

The Woman In Black lacks one thing...

robert_farrimond27 February 2012

Warning: Spoilers

I feel like I am the only person to feel this film was just okay. I so desperately wanted to like it but I couldn't get over one thing.

First of all, let me say how beautiful I think the film was technically, the visuals were a lot of the time stunning (despite children killing themselves left, right and centre). However, I struggled to get past the fact that it all seems done before, not that I mind this greatly, no but it really did hinder the film from being truly original.

When it came to the fact that 'The Woman in Black' was killing children, that's where I have a problem with this film. Whenever I watch a horror film, one of my favourite things is that visceral feel you get, feeling the character's feelings, being scared at the right points. Very early on in the film, it felt, we were told and realised that Daniel Radcliffe's character was effectively in no danger at all and that this 'ghost' was not after him at all. This to me, made it less scary, yes I did jump when the music became deafening and a woman's scream howled out to the audience but is that what really makes a good horror film?

Overall, I did not dislike this film but I fail to acknowledge the hype that has been built up around it. Daniel Radcliffe's performance is decent but nothing extraordinary, well done him though for continuing on in acting and not trying to be known just as Harry Potter, although that is already the case. The film offers many jumpy moments, which is to be expected but my favourite moment was the beginning, which to me, was the creepiest of them all.

41 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

Old fashioned spooker delivering on its perilous period promise.

hitchcockthelegend12 February 2012

The Woman in Black is directed by James Watkins and adapted to screenplay by Jane Goldman from Susan Hill's novel of the same name. It stars Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds and Janet McTeer. Music is scored by Marco Beltrami and cinematography by Tim Maurice-Jones. Plot has Radcliffe as young London solicitor Arthur Kipps, who is sent to the North East village of Crythin Gifford to clear up the affairs of deceased woman Mrs. Drablow. When he arrives he finds that the memory of Drablow, and her remote house of Eel Marsh, holds the village in a grip of fear, particularly those who have children.....

It's fitting that that bastion of British horror, Hammer Studios, should be behind this delightful period ghost story. For this positively oozes old fashioned values, harking back to all those wonderful spookers set around a creepy village that featured an even creepier castle or mansion at its core. More presently, the film has kindred links to the likes of The Orphanage, The Others and The Changeling, while the vengeful spirit acting out of Eel Marsh House is pumped by J-Horror like blood and Darkness Falls' Wraith bitch nastiness. So clearly The Woman in Black is not a fresh arrival to the horror splinter where the ghost story resides. However, great period ghost story films are in short supply, and Watkins' film most assuredly is a great entry in the sub-genre.

Propelling it forward is Watkins' (Eden Lake) excellent sense of mood and crafting of palpable unease. Quite often the better ghost story films are better because they operate on a what you don't see is what scares you more level, Watkins has managed to keep that aspect of his film whilst also giving us enough of the truly terrifying spirit to jolt us in our seats; often showing her to us and not to Radcliffe's Kipps! When the shocks come, and there are many and they are bona fide underwear soiling, they act as merciful releases from the built up dread, but then when Watkins doesn't deliver a shock, we are left waiting uneasily, darting our eyes all over the expansive frame, searching fruitlessly for a glimpse of something troubling. Did that wind up toy move? Is that a pallid face we just glimpsed in the shadows? That damn rocking chair is the scariest there has ever been! And on it goes....

A film such as this is only as good as the production design and setting for the story. Thankfully Watkins and his team have nailed it there as well. Eel Marsh House exteriors are Cotterstock Hall in Northamptionshire, perfectly foreboding, while the beautiful village of Halton Gill in the Yorkshire Dales gets a Hammer Horror make over to become Crythin Gifford. But it's with the interior of the house where the makers excel, an utterly unforgiving and upsetting place, brilliantly under lit by Tim Maurice-Jones for maximum scary effect.

On the acting front the film rests solely on the shoulders of Radcliffe, and he comes up trumps. Initially its awkward accepting him as the father of a young boy, and once he gets to Crythin Gifford he is dwarfed by all the other adults who live there, but once the Victorian setting envelopes him the awkwardness evaporates and the characterisation becomes more realistic and easy to sympathise with. The character is changed from the book, meaning Radcliffe has to carry inner torment as well as exuding an outer coat of trepidation blended with stoic fear. It should be noted that for much of the picture he is acting on his own, reacting to the house and the overgrown gardens and marshes, in short he is terrific and it augers well for his adult acting career. In support Hinds and McTeer are pillars of professionalism, with McTeer's Mrs. Daily a creepy character in her own right, but it's also another neat meditation on grief that sits alongside Arthur Kipps'.

The ending is also changed from that in the novel, and it's already proving to be divisive. How you react to it, and it is up for a two-fold interpretation, may dampen your overall enjoyment of the picture? Personally I have no issue with it, I was still sunk in the cinema chair breathing heavily at that point! The certification and the presence of Radcliffe ensures that a teenage audience will flock to see it, many of whom will not get the "horror" film that they are after. Hopefully the word will get out that this really is only a film for those who love a good boo jump ghost story of old, that's its target audience, and that's the people whose reviews you should trust. 9/10

138 out of 186 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A DARK, GLOOMY THRILLER

kailaskishore-047368 June 2020

The Woman in Black is a great relief at times where blood and gore depends on whether a film is scary or not. Daniel Radcliffe delivers us a mighty fine performance. The best thing I felt about this film was, the atmosphere which remained dark throughout the 90 minute runtime. The first thirty minutes or so depend a lot on jumpscares that are somewhat effective but bland. In fact, the terrifying moments in this flick, are rare. It focuses on the content, and everything that makes a film perfect. However, the entire subject of children walking to their own deaths is rather unsettling. The film scares a person based on how they define 'scary'. If you are the person expecting a lot of gore and messed up faces and things like that, turn away, this film ain't for you. Watch this one for stellar performances, a great story, and fine scares that are actually the epitome of 'actual horror' A good watch.(Moreover, this one is set in the early twentieth century. There is something extremely pleaseful about period horror, dont you think?) So, I rate this film a much deserved-7.2/10

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Asine ending

tanstaafl201415 May 2013

Warning: Spoilers

Okay, what's scary? Sudden camera shifts, a woman's face in black veil screaming? Lets get to the point...a woman sees her son die in a tragic accident (mainly just as much her fault for living on an island when tides cover the only road to their home) and then goes on a rampage as a ghost causing local children to kill themselves in violent ways. So what does our hero do? He figures it out (after all he's a London lawyer) but his solution...using a local's car (early 1900's England) to drag the "marsh" for the son's body...puts the body in in the nursery...and then buries it in the dead mom's casket. Everything's great, right? NOPE! The lawyer's son (his wife/mom died in childbirth 4 years before) arrives in the spooky town with the nanny as previously arranged and......The woman in black isn't satisfied she shows up at the train station (of course, with the appropriately made-up bodies of all the other dead children) and makes the lawyer's son walk into a train...BUT WAIT...the lawyer jumps on the track and grabs his son...AND THEY DIE TOGETHER! But it's a HAPPY ENDING!...the lawyer's dead wife meets them "on the other side" and escorts them to heaven while the woman in black looks on and screams...cut to credits. What a crock of fecal material! The lawyer, who's been moping around for four years gets his wish...to be with his wife again. The heck with his son having any kind of life at all. And the black bitch...does what? Go on killing? Can't tell because the "credits" don't tell you anything.

34 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Like a ghost train, but with better effects

Deathstryke29 February 2012

This was one of the most generic and amusingly ridiculous haunted house films I've ever seen, but the scares do give you bang for your buck. I suppose it's kind of like "The Grudge" in that regard. Personally I was expecting more cerebral atmospheric horror than the choreographed staccato JUMP tactics, but it was very much the latter and they were relentless.

It just felt more like I was watching one of the those attractions at Disney Land, than an actual movie; 70% of the running time is comprised of Radcliff walking from one ridiculously cobwebbed, creepy doll-littered room to the next while the viewer waits nervously for a piercing violin chord and a scary face to jolt them out of their seats.

Radcliff is actually pretty decent for all that he had to do (basically stay wide eyed and tense). Ciarán Hinds was underused and the rest of the cast were just bleh... Not sure I can compliment the actress who played the ghost, but her makeup team did an exceptional job.

Entertaining distraction, but don't expect to even remember the character's names once the credits start rolling.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A good scary film

sauravjoshi8512 April 2022

The Woman in Black is a supernatural horror film directed by James Watkins. The film stars Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds, Janet McTeer, Sophie Stuckey, and Liz White.

A young lawyer travels to a village to examine a house and encounters a vengeful ghost of a woman.

I have read reviews of this film in which viewers were going gaga over the horror in the film and I would also like to give my vote in this favor. The film is indeed scary and justifies the hype seen on various reviewing platforms.

The plot of film is intriguing and to much extent the execution is good, the film doesn't wastes mush time in character explanation and comes straight to the point. The director is been successful in creating the atmosphere of scare be it through the darkness, the creepy dolls or the background environment. Though there are lots of jump scares but the director had avoided using eerie sound to create horror.

Acting is superb and Daniel Radcliffe carries the entire film very convincingly, in terms of support cast apart from Ciarán Hinds and Janet McTeer none of the cast gets much screen space.

Screenplay of the film is slow but the screenplay writer has been successful in scaring from the beginning although till the time the film reaches to it's end the horror starts to diminishing because in my opinion the viewers gets habitual. The climax of the film is good and is unconventional.

Overall a decent scary film and if you love horror films then this is the film for you. A must watch.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Obvious regarding the genre standards but still effective and surprisingly chilling

bob the moo25 May 2014

I'm not sure why it took me so long to get around to watching this film – it sat in my queue for quite some time and never appealed. The plot is your standard ghost story / haunted house fare – a tragedy which has resulted in lingering horrors which a new person in town doesn't fully appreciate but, when he does, he tries to make up for the past to make it all stop. There is detail around this but essentially this is what it is and at its base it is familiar. The delivery follows a similar path in terms of what it does, because we have creepy children, creepy dolls, lots of shadows, static figures and half-seen movements.

All of this is very much of the genre but yet it is still effective and I was surprised by just how frightening parts of it were – it more than earns the 12A certificate it got in the UK because for sure the intensity and unnerving aspects of it do more than gore or language would do. The film opens with a strong scene of three children who seem compelled to calmly throw themselves to their death out of an attic window. From here the creepiness continues in a similar, understated manner in the way a good ghost story should. Okay it is not breaking new ground with half-seen faces in windows and lots of jump scares as things happen, but it still works well. I watched it with headphones and the impact of the sound design is also important – while it of course does the sudden noises well, the silence is very well captured because it is not just "no noise" but rather the stillness of waiting for something to happen.

Radcliffe leads the film well, convincing in his performance and making for a likable lead – although he has his Potter fame, he doesn't overplay here and (for me at least) his fame didn't distract from me getting into the film. He is well supported by good turns from the supporting cast, but the main work comes from the production design as the house is creepy and is well filmed, lit and captured to have a tangible sense of dread and presence – this is what makes the film as enjoyable as it was. It is still a genre film for sure, but it is one that works well with plenty of atmosphere, chills and scares.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

OK film, crap experience

danthsmith17 February 2012

I could tell there were quite good aspects to this film but it was ruined by the pop corn munching teenage morons at the Streatham Odeon. This lead me tom think there is no mainstream audience for this type of atmospheric film as the current type of audience can't concentrate on atmosphere or nuance. Mobile phone fixated dimwits chattering throughout.

Odeon cinemas prove themselves rubbish as usual

very poor

bring on the giant robots and break dancing for them

Daniel R was a bit wooden

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Creepy and terror movie about a solicitor finds a strange mansion is inhabited by a heinous ghost

ma-cortes3 March 2019

Frightening and eerie Hammer Film Production in which a gloomy ghost terrorizes and kills villagers and children. It deals with a young solicitor : Daniel Radcliffe, is assigned to go to a remote village about an inheritance issue. There he discovers a vengegul ghost of a disturbing woman horrifying the locals. As the advocate at law arrives in the far haunted house, awakening the darkest inhabitant at the isolated place, Jeanette Humfrye, otherwise known as Woman dressed in black . She seeks vendetta against villagers, the reason for her son was drowned in a bog , as when she shows up a child from the location dies . As things go wrong when some kiddies are dieing under strange circumstances. Then, the advocate becomes the next target for the nasty ghost. Later on, the lawyer must fend off the damned spirit who takes the scared little boys. She never forgives. She never forget. She never left.

Scary and ghastly movie about a haunted mansion located at Eel Mashland House, there happens weird and bizarre happenings. The easy narration is developed in slow moving, but it doesn't results to be neither boring, nor tiring, but entertaning and creepy . Being based on the successful novel written by Susan Hill and adequate script by Jane Goldman. As a young to be aware dark secrets, finding out scary legends, revealing sinister truths of the menacing Jeanette and her ominous revenge taking the children. The place used for the fictional tale leading to Eel Marsh Island turns to be Osea Island tidal Causeway situated at the estuary of Blackwater river in Essex, England. Due to tidal conditions, the cast and crew were restricted to only a few hours of working time per day at the location. The main and support cast are pretty well, such as Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Jane McTeer, Shawn Dooley and Jessica Raine as nanny. It packs a thrilling and suspenseful musical score by Marco Beltrani, a good composer expert on dark atmosphere . As well as a shading and evocative cinematography by Tim Maurice Jones. This Hammer motion picture was well and professionally directed by James Watkins. He is a good artisan who has directed Tv series as McMafia, Black mirror and films as Bastille day and Eden Lake.

It had a sequel titled Woman in black : Angel of death 2014 by Tom Harper . About a group of children evacuated from WWII London under the care of Helen McGlory, Phobe Fox, Jeremy Irvine , as they go to the sinister mansion where appears again the grisly ghost . There is also a Tv rendition Woman in black 1989 by Herbert Wise with Adam Rawlins, Bernard Hepton. And a third film in preparation.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

About as creepy as you can get!

planktonrules27 June 2021

"The Woman in Black" is an exceptional horror film...and much of it is because the plot is very unique and the ghost is one god-awful creature!

When the story begins, Arthur (Daniel Radcliffe) is sent on a business trip to sell Eel Marsh House....a mansion that's somehow sat vacant for years. Soon after arriving, Arthur starts to understand why....it's because the place is haunted. However, it's not a typical sort of ghost...it's an evil and vengeful spirit who is angry at the town and has been killing its children! The deaths are all very creepy and vivid...and Arthur is bent on trying to appease this evil ghost. Good luck with that, Artie!

The film really excels when it comes to a creepy atmosphere. A lot of time, you are waiting for something terrible to jump out at the screen and it works well because they both kept the tension building AND made a great payoff when it did happen! Overall, a wonderful and very creepy horror film...one of the best I've seen...and nearly earning a 10.

34 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

An atmospheric ghost story

starsteamer21 July 2012

At last an atmospheric ghost story set in a haunted house with an unrealistic back story and creepy villagers! It is frankly a pleasure to watch a semi-intelligent ghost story without the pointless gore or the shaky hand-cam style. I am personally delighted that Hammer have returned to what they do best! The setting is so stereotypical of a ghost story it practically becomes a character in the film. And this is by no means a negative thing. The house is suitably isolated by geographic location, fog and the tide. The nearest village is filled with unwelcoming locals and strange tragedies. And the story is set in a time before modern cynicism. Saying that, it is not without its faults. Radcliff tries but it is difficult to accept him as a grieving widower and father. The story is at times too stereotypical and predictable. However, I am welcoming the return of a genre that the British film industry do so well. I hope to see many more.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

a slow story that has been seen before

joeyfkoenig12 February 2012

I had really high hopes for this movie after seeing the preview. Unfortunately the preview was the the only thing I ended up liking about this rubbish. After about an hour into this very slow paced movie I realized that this movie was just never going to get any good. Harry Potter does a great job in his first break out role but the story just comes up short with minimal scares and a crawling pace. The setting and time period have all the makings of a great spook flick. People were actually laughing out loud in the theater at how the mood would build up to something that was going to be chilling but then would fall flat. Big disappointment.

66 out of 131 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

CHASING SHADOWS

nogodnomasters22 June 2019

Warning: Spoilers

The movie hits on all the classic stereotypes of a ghost story. There is a haunted mansion in an isolated marsh thick with fog. There is a past of a haunted suicide and a recent will. The village has a secret. The house has ghostly images, squeaks, creaks, whispers, things that move on their own, and a raven that enters it.

Our main character has a wife who has died in child birth and for some undisclosed reason this is his "last chance" with his firm so he just can't walk away. In the beginning, Radcliffe wears his hair down over his forehead leading me to suspect he really does have a permanent mark in the shape of a lightning bolt.

There is a mystery that is supposed to draw you in, but having seen so many clichés you wonder if this film will offer you anything new.

As the poorly developed Arthur (Daniel Radcliffe) sorts through the papers in the house he uncovers letters which sheds some light unto the situation, and we get to see his bolt free forehead. Radcliffe was neither an asset nor a liability. His agent did him well, but I thought he mustered more fear and terror as that Potter guy in the late sequels than he did in this film. He seems to have trouble with convincing facial expressions.

The strength of the film is in how well it utilizes all those haunted mansion clichés, the lighting...or lack of it, and the detailing of the era. Arthur is played as a rather dull character. There are things that happen to him which would have made me leap out of skin and run out the house, yet he does very little. Also Arthur is quiet as he encounters the unknown, perhaps done to build up the scare factor, but I wonder how that would have worked with a character who talks to the ghost while searching about, maybe with a comical line or two taken from "Hold That Ghost" or someone like Joe Pesci swearing obscenities at it.

Parental Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity. Safe for the kids to watch on a foggy night if you want to scare the bejesus out of them.

7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

effectively creepy atmosphere and great sets can't save this from boring horror tropes

jdring200711 August 2021

The two strengths that this movie had were the deeply eerie atmosphere and the storytelling. While the story itself is fairly cut and dry - the source material being a little more in depth but not by much - how it's told in the film carries a certain respectable weight. The creepy factor is high, as the sets l, music, and camerawork are all well done. However the beaten to death tropes of the genre - and I'm not just talking about predictable jump scares; a few of those actually"got" me - are emphasized in the third act, making the antagonist lose her merit in my eyes and rendering the climax very... anticlimactic. The very ending was a nice touch, but not surprising by any means. Ciarán Hinds is always effective in his roles, and was here, too. Radcliffe wasn't bad, but I was hoping for more emotion. A high 6 or low 7.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

Ho-Hum, Haunted House, Vengeful Spirit, Who Cares?

RichardSRussell-18 February 2012

The Woman in Black (1:35, PG-13) — fantasy: supernatural, 3rd string, formula

The Woman in Black is a standard haunted-house story (bereaved mother seeking vengeance for her dead child from beyond the grave), in this case with almost no dialog, just poor Daniel Radcliffe (as pre-WW1 solicitor Arthur Kipps) walking around said house looking grim.

During the course of the movie Radcliffe displays between about 0 and 2 days worth of Nixonian 5 o'clock shadow, not monotonically increasing, as one would expect, but rather coming and going to the point where I was spending more time watching that than paying attention to the plot. Really bad continuity here, making you wonder why they didn't think this thru in advance, or at a minimum clean it up in post. Also way too many cheap-thrill scenes that were more "Ho-hum, what, again?" than frightening.

What did it have going for it? An interesting setting, at big old dark Eel Marsh House, on a promontory accessible only via a causeway during low tide. Effective atmospherics. Lots of work for the foley artists. A nice non-existent twist when local burgher and ostensible skeptic Samuel Daily (Ciarán Hinds) DOESN'T turn out to be some kind of secretly malevolent deceiver but is instead genuinely friendly and helpful.

Opposed to this are the dreariness, almost complete absence of any cast or dialog, over-familiar premise, and my standard lament about all such movies, namely that they may tell us WHY the evil spirit is doing the wicked deeds, but they never show us HOW.

It's a sad commentary on the film when you find yourself thinking "OK, if you want to kill off all the kids in the village, just do it and be done with it!", but such is the impatience engendered by the petulant, dithering deader that I was hoping she'd finally get it over with so I could click my stopwatch off and bail out of the theater.

All of this combines to barely put The Woman in Black into the "up to you" range if you like this kind of thing.

54 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed