The Woman in Black (2012)'s comments

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

ClassicLady

Enjoyed this movie. Radcliffe is so handsome and a great actor. The atmosphere reminded me of some if my favorite classic horror movies. Love the "less is more" concept when it comes to thrillers/horror. Quick movie that's great to watch on a stormy dark night.

10 years 1 month ago

Jashezilla

Great acting by Radcliffe and the suspension was definitely real. The ending just didn't do it justice.

7 years 4 months ago

toopsy

daniel radcliffe is a good actor, but... no atmosphere despite decent cinematography... unnecessary jumpscares... many cliches... and a subpar story in general

9 years 1 month ago

armyofshadows

I was really really bored, but then again I'm jaded. They should've done more with the theme of grief. Atmosphere was iight. Too many annoying jump scares and horror cliches.

9 years 3 months ago

toretorden

I thought the dramaturgy was not as well done here as in the 1989 movie. There were things they did in that version that made Arthur's story much more engaging.

Still, I had a good time watching this and all the creepy parts were definitely creepy so .. well worth a watch for a horror buffs.

11 years 8 months ago

Pad

Good atmosphere, good scenery, acceptable acting but very mediocre story. It's a shame, it could have been a good movie.

Average movie.

11 years 9 months ago

DJPowWow

Sadly average for a horror film. It had great atmosphere (thumbs up to the set designers and cinematography), and for the most part remained very spooky. Unfortunately, the director relied too much on "jump scares", which are never scary as much as frustrating. A few folks give Radcliffe flak for not seeming old enough to play a young widower and father of a 4 year old, but it didn't seem too implausible for me to see a nearly 23 year old Radcliffe in the role.

11 years 11 months ago

Torgo

Almost each of the top comments here criticizes the jump scares, but may I add MY GOD ARE THEY ANNOYING. The revived Hammer Studios apparently didn't want to pass on every other modern horror clichés they might have missed since the 80s, they're all there. Maybe with just 30.. okay, 50% less 'shock' moments this could be a more worthy film.

Else, it's effective enough for a certain audience; has good sets, neat cinematography (e.g. in the room of the villa with the antlers and candles, very nice); the handsome Radcliffe lead and great support by Ciarán Hinds.
Wasted opportunity.

3 years 1 month ago

Axel Fritzler

A great way to compact gothic terror and slow paced scares to a younger demographic more used to jump scares and shit like that.
Also, Daniel Radcliffe looks sexy af here.

3 years 6 months ago

Dan Bull

I was really looking forward to watching this film and was so disappointed.

It could have been a decent film if it focused on building the atmosphere instead of lazy jump scares. And the sound mixing during the many jump scares was ridiculous - volume ramped up to the point of distortion.

Startling people suddenly is not the same as scaring them.

6 years 5 months ago

justwannaboogie

Would have been much better with fewer jump scares, just letting the atmosphere do the work.
Beautifully shot though and I enjoyed it nonetheless.

7 years ago

samoan

Found this surprisingly boring. Visual a nice movie and good acting but boring, didn't really grab me at all. The story was interesting but didn't feel it did a good job of building up the suspense or scares, also really didn't tell it's story that well either. Plus the ending was very anti-climatic.

7 years 1 month ago