Cebalord
Very best movie i ever watch
Raetsonwe
Redundant and unnecessary.
Smartorhypo
Highly Overrated But Still Good
jesusfreaks1969
Suspense without all the blood, guts, nudity, and language!! They really had to think of scary scenes, lighting and childhood and adult fears! Loved it not predictable and very real storyline!!
Jon Corelis
The Woman in Black, is the best known version of a story which began as a novel and was made into a 1989 TV movie and a play, and has been followed by a sequel film. Starring Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame, and featuring Ciarán Hinds (Mance Rayder in Game of Thrones) and Roger (DI Fred Thursday in Endeavour,) The Woman in Black is an old fashioned Gothic horror story, set in a creepy house in a remote weird village, where the disconsolate ghost of a woman who had lost her child takes vengeance by killing the children of the village. Radcliffe plays a young lawyer sent to sort out the affairs of the house's deceased owner. The film is a mixed bag: the early 20th century atmosphere is very vividly realized, and the film gets its effect from well done continual menace rather than gory special effects. It's been criticized for going through every horror film cliché in the books -- mysteriously hostile village yokels, a haunted mansion, furniture moving with no one in it, etc. -- though these standard characteristics are very well done. My main dissatisfaction personally is that the film sets us up for a basically happy ending which it then fails to deliver.You'll want to watch this if you are a real fan of ghost stories. The CBS Films Blu-Ray disc is of excellent quality. Advisory: rated PG 13, the main caution is that some people (not everyone) say they find it genuinely scary.
alfiemachin
In the modern time i struggle to find a genuinely terrifying and enjoyable film. This film is brilliant at creating with intense build ups and bone chilling scenes. As it follows the novel by the author Susan Hill, it gives its own twists to allow its own originality.So do not decline watching this film because you think you know what happens. CGI is used in many cases however it is not over used yet can look slightly silly in same cases. The figure of the woman was well portrayed as unknown and the pale scarred face was particularly sinister especially when it adapted into the environment of multiple scenes. The Gothic, Victorian theme gave it a constant feel of uneasiness and the atmosphere uplifted a very miserable emotion by using foggy,rainy weather and other atmospheric details. Daniel Radcliffe playing as the main character Arthur Kipps was a well developed character and showed great faces of fear and other emotions to analyse to you watching how he is feeling and also adds towards the extreme intensity of the film. At some point i do feel as if the music was slightly over the top especially to uproar jump scares.To conclude this, i believe this to be a very thrilling and scary movie which is unique in many ways. I would definitely recommend this to a horror or Gothic enthusiast.
Tarx
I don't often watch horror movies, but this was an exception. I don't dislike the genre, I just prefer others. However I had heard good things about this movie and was able to watch it for free so I sat down with some friends and gave it a try. For the first act, I enjoyed it quite a lot. The lead character, played by Daniel Radcliffe, is by far the strongest part of the movie and as the entire first act was focusing on his characterisation I enjoyed it a lot. Daniel Radcliffe was perfectly cast in a refreshingly different role for him; he was realistic enough to believe and a well written character for the purpose of the story. My only gripe is that there were a couple of false notes in Daniel Radcliffe's acting which stood out once or twice, but nothing big. The rest of the cast is agreeable as well; the only other main cast member, Ciarán Hinds' Sam Daily was believable and did his job well, even if his character lacked an interesting enough arc. A major issue with this movie is that it is traditional and clichéd to a fault. The characters are very traditional to such a horror movie (there is of course the frightened locals and the sceptical rich guy who won't believe a word of ghost stories), and there are also the traits and clichés that you might find in any 90's horror movie. The third act is especially weak. It becomes unbearably traditional, in that it lacks originality. However the worst part of the movie by far is the extremely poor ending that not only undermines the rest of the movie but makes everything up to that point look weak. It's over the top, very predictable and perhaps even silly. Still, at least the movie doesn't bore.There are a few other ups and downs about this movie. There are some genuinely effective jump scares, and some good set pieces that work well to create the mood. The writing and directing is good enough, but nothing special. The soundtrack is good and sticks out in multiple scenes, and thus lifting the movie somewhat. Finally there is some poor editing (in particular in the sound department) that needs to be fixed, but nothing too big. In the end you will probably enjoy the majority of this movie, which is helpfully lifted by Daniel Radcliffe, but even he can't save some of the movie's flaws, in particular the very weak ending.
