The Woman in Black (2012) - The Woman in Black (2012) - User Reviews - IMDb
The Woman in Black (2012) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
636 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
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.
33 out of 40 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
137 out of 185 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 22 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.
6 out of 6 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")
44 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Life in Perspective
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
258 out of 328 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Positive evocation of Dracula and other period Hammer films
dfranzen7012 February 2012
Creepy and off-putting, The Woman in Black really is a terrific thriller. It's intended to shock, and in many scenes it is successful. It's a moody, psychologically scarring throwback to the old Roger Corman movies based on Edgar Allan Poe stories, with an amazing adult performance by Daniel Radcliffe as a young lawyer out of his depth.

Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe), a down-on-his-luck attorney, is asked to travel to a remote village and find out if a recently deceased woman has left any heretofore unknown wills. It's Kipps' last shot at success, his employer sternly warns him. His journey to the village is eerily similar to that undertaken by Jonathan Harker in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Something's not quite right with the town, which clearly doesn't want him around, something to do with children being murdered and people blaming a dead woman. You know how it is.

Kipps' sleuthing leads to more and more questions. Who was the woman (ostensibly, his client), really? What relationship did she have with the town? And what of those treacherous marshes, and that long and winding road to the main house that is impassable when the tide is in? Why is it that every time Kipps turns around, a shadow darts away? Understanding that these are all staples of the great horror movies of yore doesn't mean that this film is stealing; it is merely authentically replicating the desolate atmosphere, in which a whisper can signal death.

I entered the theater knowing very little of the movie's content. Was it to be a mystery, and we'd find out who the titular woman was at some point? It is, and we do, but that is only part of the puzzle. The best horror movies, in my opinion, are the ones that build just the right amount of suspense and then pull the rug out from under the viewer. A slow buildup must have a satisfying payoff. Showing the evil the lurks in every other scene dilutes the fright quotient. This movie doesn't do that. It pulls no punches to our psyche.

It is so closely shot by Tim Maurice-Jones, who's best known for his work with Guy Ritchie. Maurice-Jones' style here is to capture almost every shot from Kipps' perspective, thus bringing the audience that much closer to the terror he's supposed to be feeling. Radcliffe, to his credit, never comes off as some innocent lad who's just starting out in the business, and although Kipps is perplexed - much like Edward Woodward's character in The Wicker Man - he is determined to see things through, even though he has strayed a bit from his original mission.

Something is definitely wrong here, and it involves the children. Are they to blame for the nefarious goings-on? Are their parents? No one is saying anything. To make matters worse for Kipps, he has a young son of his own, whose mother died in childbirth and who is coming to visit Kipps in a few days. The grief felt by the parents of the fallen children only heightens Kipps' own fears.

There are several moments that, on the Internet, would be called shock videos. Everything seems normal, and then BAM, something pops out of nowhere. In lesser movies, this might be seen as a crutch, a way to stun your senses to get a particular reaction, but here it all fits in, and it conveys mortal terror. The Woman in Black's identity is revealed very early in the film, so the mystery isn't who she is but why these events keep occurring. Is it all superstition, or is there something more to the spiritual aspect of the plot?

The ending is tidy and satisfying, but it is by no means conventional or predictable. In fact, it opens up even more questions. But more importantly, director James Watkins and screenwriter Jane Goldman (based on a book by Susan Hill) do not take the easy way out. People do not necessarily live happily ever after. Story threads are not necessarily sewn up tight. It is a riveting film steeped in a macabre atmosphere teeming with the potential of death with every slow approach to a corner or a locked door.
104 out of 155 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.
196 out of 268 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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Plain and simple....a good old fashioned ghost story!
Campdmg4 February 2012
The film did not disappoint! In a day and age where a scary movie is about "how much blood can squirt out of a body and how far can it go", it is refreshing to see this good old fashioned romp around a haunted house.

Things jump out at the right moments, the imagery is creepy and disturbing. All the right makings to have people of all ages pulling their hoodies down over their faces.

The ending was Hollywoodized, but the move holds onto it's simple scary imaginative fun.

...and the house is spectacular!...as is it's location.
123 out of 182 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A quite superb reinterpretation.
Sleepin_Dragon24 March 2019
As a huge fan of the stage play, and Channel 4 film, I was ecstatic to learn the film was being remade, however when I heard that Daniel Radcliffe was to take the lead my heart sank.

However I must give credit to Radcliffe and indeed Hammer for giving us a rather excellent movie. It has so much tension, so much implied horror and some great, albeit too few scares. Radcliffe is excellent in the role, he's sincere and somehow innocent enough to fit the role incredibly well. Plaudits also to Janet McTeer, also excellent.

The production values are excellent, it's a beautiful looking film, it's eerie enough without being overdone, we don't have creaky doors or loose floorboards, just the right amount.

I thought the start was incredibly chilling, and helped to set the tone.

A truly excellent movie, a shame they had to follow it up with the slightly heavy handed second. 9/10
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not entirely perfect, but very atmospheric and genuinely scary
TheLittleSongbird19 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
There are a few assets that drew me into seeing The Woman in Black in the first place. One was to see if Daniel Radcliffe had grown as an actor and whether he would acquit himself well in a cast-against type sort of role. And there is also the support cast, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer, Roger Allam and Shaun Dooley are quite a cast don't you think, and especially that I loved the book, the 1989 TV version and stage play so much. I went to see The Woman in Black a few days ago with my 3 sisters, but I wanted to think about in depth what I thought about the film before writing about it. It was a film that I still can't get out of my head and even just yesterday my sisters and I were having this big discussion about what we liked and comparing it to its other mediums.

Regarding this 2012 film, all of us thought it was very good. It wasn't perfect, no, and it has received and perhaps continue to receive inevitable comparisons to the book which has many engrossing and telling chapters, the stage play which is the most chilling thing I've seen on stage since seeing The Mousetrap and especially the TV version which I regard very highly for its atmosphere and unforgettable conclusion. On its own though, it is a very solid and worthy film and adaptation. For one thing, The Woman in Black is very handsomely mounted. The Victorian period is very evocative in detail with beautifully tailored costumes and meticulous-looking scenery and settings and genuinely effective in atmosphere with the dark old house, spooky sea fog, foreboding marsh and faces at the window. The camera work is also very good with the close-up shock cuts particularly good, and the lighting is dark and atmospheric while never being too dark you can't see what's going on.

The music score I also took to, there is a haunting and hypnotic quality to it that suits the film's tone very well. Likewise with the sound effects mostly, the sudden loud noises and the starting quiet and crescendoing contributed much to the best scares of the film, though the earlier ones were a little obvious and predictable and had the audience laughing rather than biting their nails. Dialogue-wise, it is solid, staying loyal to the period generally and it kept me engaged with Arthur's predicaments and the mystery of The Woman in Black. After my viewing of the film I did have some questions such as why the Woman in Black still took revenge even when the body of her son was returned, but having the discussion with my sisters really helped.

When it comes to the story, it is a timeless one with a chilling atmosphere. The Woman in Black(2012) does a much better-than-expected job with adapting it in a short running time, a vast majority of scares are very atmospheric advantaged by the purposefully glacial pace, more the making-you jump kind than the gory kind, with the Woman in Black gliding down the corridor, the screech at the window, the hanging and the brief glimpse of the woman in black in the creaking rocking chair faring the best of them. Of the children's deaths, the most effective was that of the Fisher Girls, especially in a choreographic sense, just look at how perfectly in time their walking is and how their eyes absolutely make you believe they are in a trance. McTeer's "momentary mental instability" scenes were also very intense and heart-breaking.

Only two scenes weren't so good for me, other from one or two earlier predictable jump scares. One was the death of Lucy, while tragic in circumstance it was clumsily staged and lacked the magnetic quality the choreography of the very first scene did. The other scene, and I think the biggest let down of the film, was the ending. In a sense it was grim but there was also something uplifting and bittersweet to it, for me it juxtaposed too much with the film's overall tone and it was nowhere near as satisfying or as memorable as the conclusion of the 1989 version.

I also think two scenes from the book could have been added, making the film even better, Alice Drablow's funeral which introduced us to the Woman in Black and was one of the book's more telling scenes, and the Whistling scene which is the single creepiest and atmospheric scene of the book, just how it is written is enough to make your heart go in your mouth. This film was fine enough without them, it's just that I was wondering how incredible those two scenes would have been if they were included. The characters engage, Arthur Kipps is likable enough, but I found the Dailys and Woman in Black the film's most interesting characters, Sam Daily is so sympathetic and the Woman in Black is evil incarnate even evoking fear in the scenes she doesn't feature in.

The acting is very good. Daniel Radcliffe while I initially had reservations of whether he was too young for the role acquits himself quite nicely as Arthur, a role that is very cast-against- type, showing melancholy, sensitivity and genuine fright throughout, and this is in the facial expressions alone. Ciaran Hinds is excellent as Sam, and Janet McTeer gives a very moving performance. Roger Allam, Tim McMullan and Shaun Dooley are good in small roles, but other than Hinds and McTeer I was most impressed by Liz White as Jennett/Woman in Black, in a role that is so evil and so omnipresent whether in scenes where she's featured or where she is talked about or in thought White is absolutely terrifying.

All in all, a very good film, not perfect but atmospheric, scary and more than stands its own even if the book, TV version and stage play are superior. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox
13 out of 22 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 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
deserving an 8/10, well worth your time and money
bshannon7184 February 2012
OK, I'll admit, I went into this film with not very high expectations, I left on the other hand pleasantly surprised and genuinely creeped out. Daniel Radcliffe, while not the best actor, also exceeded my expectations. The movie theater was packed and people really seemed to be enjoying themselves. People screamed when they were meant to and shivered accordingly. At the end the theater broke out in applause, and it was the most packed theater I've seen since the midnight premiere of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2. Walking out into the lobby people were still blown away, and I myself could not believe what just happened. So what I'm saying is, if you're looking for a fun night to be creeped out in an old fashioned horror film sort of way, go see the Woman In Black, you will not be disappointed.
113 out of 181 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Finally a scary movie!
yaegernick154 February 2012
I went in to seeing this movie after reading the book, and personally I thought it was great. Horror movies these days get loss in blood and gore and that's what the work thinks is "horror" these days, thankfully this movie took a turn to what horror actually is. There are plenty of scenes that make you jump and keep you on the edge of your seat and the storyline is great too. The only weird thing was there were just a couple scenes in which I just couldn't help but think of Harry potter but that didn't even come close to ruining it for me. I was nervous because I thought they Showed all the scary moments through the previews but they did not! Daniel Radcliffe did a great job and I would go see it again with out a doubt. We need to see more horror movies like this one!
232 out of 339 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 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Chasing Shadows
ferguson-64 February 2012
Greetings again from the darkness. The quest for quality horror films is a never-ending project. Since low budget fright fests are the easiest way to make money in Hollywood, most take shortcuts that leave us feeling cheated. This remake of a 1989 British TV horror film actually has wonderful production design ... the Gothic mansion is a sight to behold. Unfortunately, the shortcut here was a story that offers little substance.

Daniel Radcliffe (yes, Harry Potter himself) plays a young, widowed solicitor named Arthur Kipps, who is still grief stricken, and now on the verge of losing his job. He is given one last chance to prove his mettle by going to a remote village to settle the affairs of recently deceased client. His young son (Misha Handley) and his nanny are to meet him in the village a few days later.

The local townspeople clearly don't want him there and are constantly trying to shoo him back to London. Of course, no one ever bothers to tell him why they are frightened and why they are so angry with him for going to the old house. This mansion is a work of art. It has the necessary creep factor to star in a real horror film. The furnishings and fixtures and decor are really the star of the movie. It's not giving away anything to say that every time Radcliffe sees this mysterious woman in black, something bad happens in the village.

The annoying thing about the film is that whenever we get a chill-inducing moment like a shadow in the background or a figure passing by a mirror, it is immediately followed up by a cheap parlor trick involving a sonic blast of music and an ear-piercing scream. It's as if the director (James Watkins) is convinced movie goers are too ignorant to know when to be scared, so he provides clues to say "Scream now!" Ciaran Hinds and Janet McTeer add a touch of class to the film as Mr.and Mrs. Daily, who recently lost their son. Mr. Daily has found solace in the bottle, while Mrs. Daily teeters on the brink of insanity. My theory that no film featuring Mr. Hinds can be all bad is tested here, and Ms. McTeer was seen recently as the best thing about the Albert Nobbs film.

On a positive note, this is a nice transition movie for Daniel Radcliffe. He has quite a career challenge as he tries to break loose of the Harry Potter clamp. He succeeds here with quite a different physical appearance, though he really has little to do but alternate between a distantly forlorn look and peering cautiously around dark corners. A couple of interesting notes: the boy playing his son is Radcliffe's real life godson, and the actor who played Radcliffe's role in the 1989 original is Adrian Rawlins, who played Harry Potter's father in those movies.
17 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Woman in Black – predictable, derivative, tedious and clichéd commercial mess
sashank_kini-123 February 2012
Night of the Living Dead, the independent horror film made in 1968 had perhaps the eeriest moment I have seen in film – the lady getting stabbed by her own possessed daughter while her screams are heard in the background. The repeated motion of the daughter's hand striking with the knife is seen, but I don't recall having seen the actual penetration of the knife. Although we do see the dead woman lying in the corner, with pain and shock on her face – this is true horror. Very few movies bring this kind of terror – Rosemary's Baby, The Blair Witch Horror, Carrie etc. The best part about them is how we are constantly aware of the imminent tension and are lead to it slowly, thus intensifying the impact when it hits us. Night of Living Dead kept me unnerved right to the iconic ending when it rained all its force with a sweep. How wonderful to have such movies among us!

Then there is The Woman in Black – predictable, derivative, tedious and clichéd. We are aware that there is going to be an element of horror because it written on Daniel Radcliffe's face even when he has not faced it. How many times do I have to see spooky children that seem to be controlled by some supernatural element? Their blank, expressionless faces their slow walk and synchronized actions. This time we have creepy dolls and toys as accompaniments; the mother who brings such toys for her children is an unfit one. Daniel Radcliffe plays Arthur, a young solicitor sporting some sideburns and a sweaty, haggard look, whose wife is dead and now lives with his four year old son who notices draws a stick figure of him with an unhappy look. Oh, such a clever boy (roll eyes)! He has to handle an estate which no one is ready to tread, especially the quiet, ominous country people, who believe the house is cursed. Daniel steps in and sights a woman veiled in black, hence the name. The villagers tell him to keep away as their children because of his visits to the place. But Arthur, for some reason known only to him, wants to unravel the secrets. Perhaps he may get a raise!

The movie is excruciatingly boring partly because Radcliffe looks tense when he isn't supposed to be and is relatively calm when he is supposed to be frightened to death. The direction itself is so indicative that it's a horror film, with the affected, spooked up style of talking, even in the exchange between Radcliffe and the lawyer. I don't like this senseless overstatement of fear, its shoddy. Radcliffe's Arthur smells a strange air in the village, with most of the residents being unfriendly and reserved. Everyone has that look which says 'Yeah, this is a horror film! Be frightened!'; I would not have been surprised if they had added Bela Lugosi's " Be Afraid!" monologue. The fear factor is close to nil; I swear the entire theater, mostly comprising of women and teenage girls, remained dead silent throughout. Even when the ghost's presence became more and more evident. And I disagree with Rotten Tomatoes' consensus that "it may not provide enough of them for viewers attuned to modern, high-stakes horror". It is a slighting remark since there are some viewers like me who are attuned to modern, high-stakes horror but appreciate more the horror that is subtly but effectively delivered. This movie was commercial mess.

I wouldn't recommend The Woman in Black to anyone – it is devoid of any unsettling moment and may be too boring even for 13 year olds.

My Rating: 2 out of 10
54 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Ten points to Gryffindor
dee-lish2 February 2012
I can honestly say that I have really never been more terrified in a film. Not that I can remember. From the beginning of the film, the mood is set - something is horribly wrong. The screenplay was simply brilliant. The adaptation from stage to screen was highly successful, in my opinion. The scenic designer did a fantastic job with everything from the nursery to the town Kipps stays at. The directing was also something to be applauded. Over all, this film was wonderful and I would recommend it. And I must say, Dan Radcillffe did a great job. He may not be the most incredible actor, but he has really improved so much. It's most evident here because he could not hide behind words or a wand, he could use just his face and body language. They are an actor's tool after all. To be able to carry a film with body language is something to be commended. Few actors can.

On another note, I adored the fact they never hid the Woman in Black. They embraced her from the beginning, with little traces of a face in the windows as they were passed. The simplicity of the film was what I think made it so terrifying. There weren't blood and guts flying around with a poor sap strapped to an operating table while a deranged lunatic tries to connect him to the anus of another. It was a simple, yet effectively frightening, ghost story. I can say I loved every second of it.

If you love horror films, give it a go. This is the first film I've seen in quite some time that was worth my entire $10.00 to see it.
332 out of 490 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 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Harry Potter and the Ghostly Drivel.
BA_Harrison23 September 2012
Because of the excellent job she did with Kick-Ass, I'd forgiven screenwriter Jane Goldman for the absolute drivel that was Stardust, but The Woman in Black has just put her in my bad books again, a more predictable, pedestrian, derivative and utterly boring ghost story it would be hard to envisage. Likewise, director James Watkins, who impressed me so with his superb debut Eden lake, hasn't exactly gone up in my estimations.

For those who grew up with Radcliffe as Harry Potter—a demographic most likely still fairly unfamiliar with the horror genre—this might succeed in coming across as both original and scary, but trust me when I say that everything in The Woman In Black has been done many times before, and often much better. In particular, I was reminded of Ghost Story (1981) and Dark Water (2002), although the tricks employed by Watkins to scare his oblivious young viewers have been pilfered from numerous other films. As for the dumb ending.... always hold on to a young child's hand when on a station platform—it's as simple as that!

The fact that this nonsense was filmed under the Hammer banner makes me want to cry.
20 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Super scary and super fun film!
80sHorror28 February 2012
occasional hints of the terror that is yet to come. There's no gore or cheap tricks, just scares in the best tradition of traditional ghost stories. In one scene a shot of an open door manages to cause hairs on the back of the neck to stand up. The story harks back to the M.R. James ghost stories with a well meaning man unleashing a malevolent force, in this case the Woman In Black herself.

This is one of the creepiest, spookiest ghost stories ever filmed. Adapted from Susan Hill's book of the same title, the tale centres around a young lawyer sent to settle the estate of a deceased old lady. At the funeral, he sees what he thinks is another mourner, a woman dressed all in black. When he mentions this to others however, he gets a strange reaction and quickly realises all is not as it seems. Whenever this woman appears, so local legend says, a child will die. From then on, things become more and more tense as he becomes haunted by this mysterious woman. This production uses no special effects or fancy sets and to be honest, I think it would have detracted from the film if there had been. Instead, the viewer is left to concentrate purely on the story which becomes increasingly tense as it develops. There are several moments that will make you jump or send a shiver through you. Watch it alone with the lights off if you dare!
17 out of 29 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 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Woman that had Potential
MovieProductions5 February 2012
** out of (****)

After the abysmal trainwreck that was "The Devil Inside", I was looking for a decent roller coaster ride of chills and thrills. The hoopla for this movie certainly rose to such gargantuan heights, and a good chunk of top critics took a liking to this, so what went wrong? Everything.

"Black" revolves around a young lawyer, who travels to a remote village where he discovers the vengeful ghost of a scorned woman is terrorizing the locals.

Being an avid horror fan, especially of the supernatural sub-genre (if you will), this movie basically shot up my adrenaline from the first shot of the trailer 'til the last. I was more than ready for this movie. So automatically, I am disqualified from the "hater bias" bullcrap you IMDb'ers like to toss around when us average Joe's get disappointed by a film, that we were actually rooting for from the start.

Well, first off, this film is just not scary. The first half of the film is conducive to cheap and generic jump scares, that just fall flat on their faces. Oh look it's some murky liquid leaking from a dirty faucet! Oh look it's just a bird! It was just all very cheap. From the first half, it is just tedious to endure. We don't establish a sufficient enough amount of character development and we really don't go in-depth with the premise. It is just a very stale first hour or so that's chock-full of filler, so as to consume most of its running time. Just lots of blabber about the town and tons of GOTCHA! moments that don't fully run their course.

Then we get to the second half which is a notch better from the first, but still don't bring us anywhere. Here we get even more jump scares, some which prove to be effective and others which are just tedious time-wasters. Here's a lesson to future filmmakers: You can use the cheap thrill tactic maybe about three times at the most. If you abuse your power, you're just downgrading your film and everything else just becomes that much more uninspired. But let's steer clear from my rant of jump scares. The story. From the trailer, the premise sounds bone-chilling and simple enough, right? The film overcomplicates everything and raises too many questions that are left too open-ended. And atop of that, the pacing is just way too slow. The whole film is just a slow-burn effect that amounts to absolutely nothing. And that ending? Oh boy, this movie is just a mess.

Well, there are a few good things I can say for "The Woman in Black". For one, the production crew did their homework. A lot of attention to detail is payed when organizing their pops and set designs. This is one of the most visually exciting horror films I've seen. And also, the performances are very strong. Daniel Radcliffe ditches his whole Potter affair and does something very worthwhile here.

All in all, "The Woman in Black" is such a huge disappointment. The scares go nowhere and are recycled, the pacing is just too slow and tedious that it's almost a chore to sit through, and the premise is even less than compelling. It's quite a shame considering it looked like a refreshing and nostalgic horror film that could've started '12 on a high note. Unfortunately, any potential it had was wasted. Well, I guess you can say it isn't terrible and actually raises a peak of interest here and there, but that doesn't amount to much when you're paying a hefty price for it.
28 out of 53 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
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed