The Woman in Black

[Impact]

Review, Discuss and Have Fun!

[Vanilla]

Very scary and well made film. At first I could not see Radcliffe as a Lawyer/father of a 4 year old boy but as the film went on the feeling went away.

8/10

[mattmav45]

The atmosphere, mood, and design were top-notch.

Unfortunately, this is where the compliments end. I give props to Radcliffe in that it seems he gives it his all, but I just don't think he's that great of an actor. There's no real story until about an hour in, and once the plot begins you immediately recognize it from films that have done it before (The Others, The Orphanage). It's never scary, never intense, and is just another lackluster, poor horror film in a genre that severely needs a potent shot in the arm.

C-/D+

[baumer]

I'm somewhere in the middle of matt and VS. I too was very impressed with the atmosphere and the mood. The chills and scares were very well done and it had me uneasy at times. But then the more I started thinking about the story, the sillier it became. I really didn't buy the motive for the ghost, the lady in black. There was really nothing explaining how she got to haunting the house and why she was able to. Nothing really terrible happened to her, so I didn't quite see why she was so pissed in the first place. And then once you get past the first few scares, you can see them coming later on. So I liked it, but it was in need of perhaps another two or three script edits.7/10

[baumer]

The more I think about the movie, the less I like it. The chills and scares were fine, but when you actually think about why the killer did what she did, and how she did what she did, it makes no sense at all whatsoever.5/10

[Crusader]

Was Radcliffe good IYO ?

[baumer]

Absolutely. Radcliffe was great!

[Heretic]

Wow this was actually really creepy...didn't expect it at all. I actually found it way more scary that Paranormal Activity 3....just because of the freaky dolls and the whole 'Gothic mood' which was constantly there throughout. You actually saw everything in this film rather than just invisible demons in PA... The suspense was top notch too.

Although it was quite strange seeing Radcliffe outside Potter, he suited the role brilliantly. I could easily see him doing more 'period' films than modern in the future.

B+

[hogwash13777]

"The Woman in Black" - Sorta Spoilers.I loved the story here, the 'villian', her motives, what the main character had to do to save his own family's life... the story was really set up well, or I guess more specifically the premise. I felt like it wasn't executed as well as it could have been. It felt very slow for about half of the movie, than they'd stuff Daniel Radcliffe into the haunted house for a countless amounts of jump scares. I did like the ending, and where the story ended up going, but the slow build up, all the cheap scares, and distant characters made me not truly warm up to it.4/10 or "Skip it."Note: Nothing after the credits!

Edited February 11, 2012 by hogwash13777

[Krissykins]

I thought some of the scares were really cheap, but some were quite effective.I was never frightened, nor too involved in the story....there wasn't much of a story.It, at times, felt like The Grudge to me.....long period of silence BOO....long period of silence BOO....long period of silence BOO!I felt that almost all of the scenes in the middle of the movie were just for jumps. and not for story.I liked the costumes, the location and Harry Potter wasn't too bad. Not great either.2.5/5

[The Creator]

When Daniel Radcliffe gets on a train near the beginning of the movie, I was thinking, "He's going to Hogwarts."

[Warhorse]

I haven't seen this movie, but I saw a bunch of tweens exiting the movie, scared to death. I had to laugh, they probably went to see it, following Radcliff, only, WIB is not the kiddy fair that Harry Potter was.I just don't get scared in movies, sometimes, things happen in the movie that stay with me (like Paranormal Activity, because everything happened in the attic, and the attic door is right above my bed, and it was just weird) but to see you all were a bit un-nerved, gives me hope. Maybe I'll see it this weekend.

[acsc1312]

The atmosphere, mood, and design were top-notch.

Unfortunately, this is where the compliments end. I give props to Radcliffe in that it seems he gives it his all, but I just don't think he's that great of an actor. There's no real story until about an hour in, and once the plot begins you immediately recognize it from films that have done it before (The Others, The Orphanage). It's never scary, never intense, and is just another lackluster, poor horror film in a genre that severely needs a potent shot in the arm.

C-/D+

Basically my thoughts, although I'd lower the grade to a solid D. I was laughing at how bad it was at parts.

[CJohn]

When Daniel Radcliffe gets on a train near the beginning of the movie, I was thinking, "He's going to Hogwarts."

Who didn't ?

[Kvikk Lunsj]

I liked the production designs and acting seem fine. Problems was the script and it was too scary. Any ways a fine film but nothing special.5/10

[JackO]

It was a really beautiful movie. Much better cinematography then most other horror films but my goodness the story collapsed on itself in the 3rd act. I give it a C- for being an ok film for 3/4 of the elapsed time.

[tommycruise]

Fairly solid horror movie, it never made me jump but it was pretty creepyAlthough I kept waiting for Radcliffe to expecto patronum the woman in black away.B

[Kalderic]

Pretty good... Had some decent scares except it took far to long to really get the thing moving. But overall, not the train wreck it could have been. B

[The Toymaker]

The Woman in Black

What a complete waste of my time. A film that relies on cheap, short, and hollow scares, instead of adding layers of atmosphere to create suspense, is not a film that I can praise at all. This is not surprising coming from Hammer Films judging from their back catologue of movies. There are so many problems with this film.

Firstly, the cheap scares do not work. I was pretty bored throughout the movie, and I yawned a few times. There aren't enough scares if that's what they were aiming to do, the first 25 minutes is 'scene setting', but it's a waste of time because they are creating a world that nobody cares about - bad film-making. There's about 6 scares in the entire movie. Apart from some eeriness (which isn't that eerie), it's pretty much just Daniel Radcliffe walking around not saying or doing anything.

Secondly, Daniel Radcliffe is by far the worst actor I have ever watched. Completely devoid of emotion and acting ability. He is the definition of 'lucky', just because he looked somewhat like the titular character in a popular set of books, he was launched into fame, regardless of whether he can act. He hasn't improved either, that's the shocking thing. He was the wrong choice for this type of film really. He's a young lad, so he is not believeable as 1) a lawyer, and 2) a father. Too young, cannot act, and looks lost and out of place in a film. Even the way he walks, it's too rigid and nervous. He looks like a little boy too afraid to talk. When he utters the lines that an adult would say, it's just laughable. This is a sad case of a producer getting a name (that's debatable) and lumping them into a movie. Instead, Radcliffe should have been screen tested first, then ruled out for this role. Or write the role around him and I'm sure the role would have changed dramatically.

Thirdly, the story was just lame. Really really lame, and boring.

The whole thing just reminded me of when I went to see The Haunting back in 1999. A 12/PG-13 rated horror movie that never really tries to scare is a horror movie that should have went straight to DVD, not the cinema. At least The Haunting had a bit of star power, this had fuck all.

The last scene when the woman in black goes toward Radcliffe and screams was chilling, but waiting a whole 90-minutes just for 30 seconds is not worth it. Confirming my opinion that he hasn't a trace of thespian ability; Radcliffe lays on the ground like he's licking an ice-cream on a summer's day in the park. He seems to just do what the director tells him to do, instead of actually being an actor and taking control of how he should act in the scene. I guess the director just let him run with it, therefore we get a nothingless performance. Calling it a performance is too generous, actually.

The cinematography, on the whole, was good. So well done only to Tim Maurice-Jones. Just a shame that Radcliffe had to be in most of the shots looking like a fish out of water. Let me clarify, though, Radcliffe didn't ruin the movie. He was just the worst part in an already terribly scripted, generic idea for a movie.

D-

Edited September 23, 2012 by The Toymaker

[Blankments]

Almost shocking in how mediocre it is, there’s nothing special about The Woman in Black. Radcliffe puts forward a merely serviceable performance with a dull protagonist with little likable or unlikable qualities. Watkins’ poor direction prevents any form of atmosphere being developed; the jump scares are silly and undermine the production design and intriguing imagery that could deliver a good horror film. Alas, The Woman in Black is wholly forgettable, being a disappointing beginning into my journey into horror films. D