sign in
register
Watch
Paramount Plus Paramount+ Amazon Channel Paramount+ Roku Premium Channel
+9
The Woman in Black
The Woman in Black
+9
JustWatch
Your probable score
?
The Woman in Black

The Woman in Black

2012
Drama, Suspense/Thriller
1h 35m
Young lawyer Arthur Kipps travels to a remote village to organize a recently deceased client's papers, where he encounters the ghost of a scorned woman set on vengeance.

Directed by:

James Watkins

Screenwriter:

Susan Hill, Jane Goldman

Starring:

Ciarán Hinds, Daniel Radcliffe, Janet McTeer, Roger Allam, Sophie Stuckey, Shaun Dooley, Liz White, Misha Handley, Jessica Raine, Mary Stockley, Alexia Osborne, Alfie Field

Genres:

Drama, Suspense/Thriller, Horror

Countries:

Canada, UK

Language:

English
imdb IMDb
Update history
Suggest edit

The Woman in Black

2012
Drama, Suspense/Thriller
1h 35m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 34.07% from 1600 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(1611)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
spaceechoSpaceEcho
Rated 16 Feb 2012
45
18th
"Harry Potter and the Woman in Black" stars Daniel Radcliffe as a frowny-faced Englishman who wanders around an old house examining things. Examining something for longer than four seconds results in a SURPRISE LOUD SOUND. Oh and maybe a ghost, too; but possibly just an angry bird or a noisy faucet. Co-starring: a small dog.
Rated 16 Feb 2012
spleenspleen
Rated 03 Jun 2012
88
91st
Despite the obvious absence of Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones and aliens, this still succeeds as an "in Black" movie.
Rated 03 Jun 2012
mustunseeMustUnsee
Rated 08 May 2012
20
6th
90 minutes of Daniel Radcliffe opening drawers with loud cranky birds in them
Rated 08 May 2012
beedubBeeDub
Rated 24 Feb 2016
78
39th
Intermittently spooky, and the cinematography looks great, but the lukewarm story doesn't go far enough in many aspects. The ending disappoints, too.
Rated 24 Feb 2016
kasperlKasperL
Rated 04 Sep 2012
60
50th
A good scary movie, relying on clean, conventionally created atmosphere rather than cheap scares. Not far from matching the original.
Rated 04 Sep 2012
cagedwisdomcagedwisdom
Rated 22 Mar 2012
25
17th
Jump scares are the horror equivalent of laugh tracks. The only thing creepy or scary about 90% of what's supposed to be creepy or scary, is that any second you know you could be startled by a white-faced female ghost screaming loudly. Essentially, The Woman in Black is lazy and exemplifies the reason why I can't be bothered with horror films any more. And god damn Ciaran Hinds has been busy lately. Fourth film with him in released in my area in less than 3 months.
Rated 22 Mar 2012
terrymacterrymac
Rated 01 Apr 2014
57
29th
Stylishly shot and well-acted intepretation of Susan Hill's novel; Radcliffe and Hinds are very watchable, and the setting and camerawork all contribute positively to the mood and flow of the piece. That said, the liberties taken with the source material are questionable, and the developing sense of tension and mood is occasionally clumsily interrupted with attempts at jump scares; It is uncertain as to the direction the makers wanted to go. Could've been great with more restraint and focus.
Rated 01 Apr 2014
carpetgiantCarpetgiant
Rated 29 May 2012
80
35th
After Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe had hit the sack. It had been too long - he was glad to be back. Yes, he was set loose from his yellow and red striped noose that kept his career hanging about. Now, he keeps looking at the sky where he used to fly high. Should he forget the hearse or will that part of his life ever die? It seems as though it has nine lives in the audience's eyes. If only Dan could use every one of them to run wild. Oh well, at least he's back. Back in "The Woman in Black".
Rated 29 May 2012
barthalenBarthalen
Rated 17 May 2012
62
41st
Predictable? Sure. But I enjoyed the old school atmosphere and some of the scares were surprisingly effective.
Rated 17 May 2012
coheedCoheed
Rated 03 Mar 2012
40
14th
For Hammer House's return to filmmaking, a tired recycling of haunted house clichés was a bad start. The atmosphere of the film and Ciarán Hinds made the film worth viewing, but this felt less like a Hammer film than a carbon copy of the tedious horror movies being made now, jump scares and all.
Rated 03 Mar 2012
moraesfelipemoraesfelipe
Rated 25 Feb 2012
42
18th
Too bad it seems there is no directing here, because every scene, even the the ones that really leave you scared, is automatically crafted as a part of a big gothic compilation of creepy doors and mists. It's the same old story about ghosts seeking revenge, and I'm now wondering that this could have been really good if Daniel were able to yell "expelliarmus!" and just end this.
Rated 25 Feb 2012
billyshearsBillyShears
Rated 04 Feb 2012
70
53rd
Jump scare tactics aren't scary at all, and this has a buAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!
Rated 04 Feb 2012
xacviantxacviant
Rated 04 Feb 2012
62
15th
Daniel Radcliffe's post-Potter career commences with this horror thriller, and to his credit, he does a fairly solid job; that he's paired much of the time with Ciaran Hinds (also excellent) helps, certainly far more than Jane Goldman's lame script, with its weak plotting and bizarre, misguided resolution. James Watkins' direction creates a fine, eerie atmosphere, and the marshes of northwest England are a great location, but it's never very scary...but it's also never less than watchable.
Rated 04 Feb 2012
calabriaCalabria
Rated 08 Mar 2015
76
39th
I made the mistake of watching this with headphones, which should have been cool because of the unprecedented amount of attention paid to the more subtle aspects of the audio, but every one of the 1,342 jump scares was like getting stabbed in the head
Rated 08 Mar 2015
hte624hte624
Rated 28 May 2014
100
98th
This film was utterly gorgeous. It had a terrific story, a fantastically tense set of scenes, one by one, and there was a great juxtaposition between the woman in white and the one in black - charming, all over.
Rated 28 May 2014
ytadelYtadel
Rated 10 Oct 2013
2
14th
A zero-energy slog without a trace of fun or excitement or life to any of it, without making up for it by being scary either. It's just a drag, man. I was bored from about ten minutes in straight through to the end credits. Nice cinematography, but that's about all I'll grant it.
Rated 10 Oct 2013
3drevelation3dRevelation
Rated 15 Sep 2013
45
10th
Creepy old house, apparitions, unexplainable sounds, local horror stories, and a bunch of other boring horror conventions that have been used in many other horror films. Somehow I knew that was what I would be getting, and I watched it anyways so fuck me right?
Rated 15 Sep 2013
filmfreak88filmfreak88
Rated 20 Feb 2013
40
15th
A traditional, well-shot, and mildly atmospheric horror film that relies too much on loud noises and creepy dolls but which fails to generate enough suspense or psychological insight.
Rated 20 Feb 2013
andreasthauAndreasThau
Rated 14 Nov 2012
35
16th
Eh, I deeply disagree with some reviews on this film, as I was scared almost solely from lame, foreseeable shocks and tricks. The story was badly told: "If you don't want the viewer to know anything, just let your main character be an unrealistic douchebag who isn't interested in asking all the obvious questions." I'll give the film some credit for the craftmanship, though, cuz it was indeed pretty. Also, I like good old Ceasar, Ciarán Hinds. The ending still sucks, though.
Rated 14 Nov 2012
adoubleadouble
Rated 13 Nov 2012
62
34th
Really never scary in the slightest, but it is decently creepy in spurts and the performances by Radcliffe and Hinds are above average for this kind of movie.
Rated 13 Nov 2012
leekennleekenn
Rated 29 Jul 2012
81
72nd
I'm surprised by the lukewarm reception this film has generated. I actually rated it a lot higher than your average flick of the same nature. The scares were measured and typical, but a rich and excellent back story as well as some good production values made them effective nonetheless. Furthermore, the main characters were charming and drove the story beautifully. All in all, a very good film that at times is genuinely scary.
Rated 29 Jul 2012
dunder74Dunder74
Rated 30 Jun 2012
6
46th
Jump scares are funnier than they are scary; that's the result of 20+ years of bad horror. The Woman in Black, a conventional film, does nothing to prove that truth wrong. Instead, it delivers a large array of "alright" cinematic properties: an alright script, alright performances, and so on. Had Daniel Radcliffe not been in this, it would have been released into obscurity.
Rated 30 Jun 2012
sirstuckeySirStuckey
Rated 24 May 2012
35
10th
A movie that lacks a climax, scares, or a competent ending. Radcliffe at least showed he has the ability to elevate past his Harry Potter acting (which was mediocre at best). Hopefully he gets parts outside of period piece horror movies where he is made to walk around a house very calmly even though it's clearly haunted by a lady ghost who shrieks way too much.
Rated 24 May 2012
kleaklea
Rated 14 Apr 2012
30
15th
The movie starts brain-numbingly slow and never draws you in as it proceeds. Quit watching at the 50 minute mark b/c I realized I still didn't care about the story or the characters
Rated 14 Apr 2012
bofbof
Rated 03 Apr 2012
39
13th
Period horror starring Daniel "stop making jokes about my wand" Radcliffe as a lawyer who comes to a creepy little northern English town to draw up papers about the Mysterious Death of an old woman in a Haunted House. Slow, uneventful, by-the-numbers, dull; could have been Local Hero meets Drag Me To Hell, but ends up a step back for the Hammer Films revival. Watch Wake Wood instead.
Rated 03 Apr 2012
tjekhovTjekhov
Rated 20 Mar 2012
50
40th
The biggest shock....... (it's a) REMAKE....
Rated 20 Mar 2012
davidjohnsonDavidJohnson
Rated 14 Mar 2012
25
9th
Unfortunately it is just a typical, generic supernatural horror film. I was hoping for more for Daniel Radcliffe for his first movie after the Harry Potter series ended. It wasn't really bad, but it wasn't very entertaining either. It's just jump scare after cheap jump scare, of which only one or two were actually scary. The scream of the woman just ended up getting annoying, rather then scary. At times it felt like a TV movie, and Daniel Radcliffe wasn't convincing as a father.
Rated 14 Mar 2012
hellsditchhellsditch
Rated 08 Mar 2012
73
27th
AKA "Jump Scare: The Movie". Makes a half-hearted attempt at everything that was awesome about the original made-for-TV Brit film and eventually gives up with a shrug in favor of caterwauling birds, dogs, toys and not-really-there specters. Radcliffe is just fine and some of the creepiness and classic haunted house set pieces are authentic enough but I can't help but feel this was completely unnecessary. Just see the 80s version.
Rated 08 Mar 2012
aceysaid10AceySaid10%
Rated 02 Mar 2012
75
18th
Barely worth watching in fast forward
Rated 02 Mar 2012
rihreyrihrey
Rated 27 Oct 2024
33
27th
It contains every cliché in the book. I feel like this was made with 12-year-olds that grew up with the Harry Potter movies in mind.
Rated 27 Oct 2024
glumpy99glumpy_99
Rated 22 Jan 2024
81
66th
If you’ve the mind, a kind of irresistible throwback to the spooky Hammer horrors of old - works best in the moments of Radcliffe running around the castle with an axe in hand growing increasingly more unhinged, and then finally the rolling in the bog and slime of the marsh, where Watkins comes close to capturing the damp and fetid atmosphere of the earlier efforts. Quite a bit of fun, with Radcliffe’s earnest underplaying a nice counterpoint to the outlandish horror moments.
Rated 22 Jan 2024
kuroelKuroel
Rated 05 Mar 2023
57
41st
I really liked the ending. Usually horror movies completely fall apart at the ending but this movie ties a bow on the package. A pity that it's not particularly scary before that. The horror is playing a second fiddle to some good mystery puzzling. But I didn't sign up for a period detective story. I wanted horror.
Rated 05 Mar 2023
videoetronVideoetron
Rated 01 Oct 2022
61
49th
Not the best, not the worst. The idea of all the children dying could have been creepy, but in the end, the marsh was scarier than the ghosts. The ending was fresh at least
Rated 01 Oct 2022
kfolkfol
Rated 30 Aug 2022
61
58th
The first part was bad, the score especially just was awful. When the typical drama music stopped the film got a lot better. The perfect amount of scariness for me, a great mix between chilliness and jump scares. The last scene where we meet 'the woman in white' I don't think was needed.
Rated 30 Aug 2022
amazedemonamazedemon
Rated 16 Mar 2022
61
25th
The Woman in Black is a painfully conventional gothic horror that cruises through in neutral letting the setting, costumes and music create the atmosphere; which is all this film is. Even with competent production the film still isn't very engaging, and it's defining attribute is merely featuring Radcliffe in his first post-Potter role. If slow pans, the occasional jump-scare, dead children, and crazy vengeful ghosts with poor motivation sound appealing, then you might enjoy this.
Rated 16 Mar 2022
hadleyreisHadleyreis
Rated 17 Sep 2020
45
21st
Unscary Potter
Rated 17 Sep 2020
luxnatalisLuxNatalis
Rated 15 Oct 2019
39
25th
Conventional thriller of the cheap kind. Do you really find that kind of stuff scary? Because something's dark and the picture's black doesn't mean it is. Classics like Halloween or Suspiria weren't relying on this kind of tricks in order to frighten you. It was the overall atmosphere built that could make you shit your pants. The 12 rating's fitting; I'd show this to my nephew, it would look like Harry Potter to him. Another addition to the mediocre horror films of the decade.
Rated 15 Oct 2019
bolivarbolivar
Rated 02 Nov 2018
60
22nd
stupid jump scares, weak acting and an even worse ending. great success!
Rated 02 Nov 2018
vv238vv238
Rated 30 Sep 2018
42
42nd
This movie tries to establish atmosphere but it can't help but throw random jump scares in to break the tension. It just ends up being very meh.
Rated 30 Sep 2018
timon88Timon88
Rated 11 Mar 2018
33
22nd
Some fantastic locations, and the thing looks great--concentrate on that and ignore the stupid plot. Daniel Radcliffe, you're so much better than the dreck you keep appearing in...but a boy's gotta work, I suppose.
Rated 11 Mar 2018
ikkegoemikkeikkegoemikke
Rated 16 Jan 2018
59
50th
More reviews here : http://movie-freak.be
Rated 16 Jan 2018
mandymandy
Rated 03 Nov 2017
6
43rd
Traditional Gothic horror story - intriguing, suspenseful and entertaining viewing.
Rated 03 Nov 2017
vandelay1Vandelay1
Rated 29 Oct 2017
38
32nd
not so good
Rated 29 Oct 2017
petrostserPetrosTser
Rated 25 Aug 2017
50
23rd
Decent horror offering featuring a good atmosphere, a competent Daniel Radcliffe and one particularly excellent jump scare. My main issue with it is not so much the lack of originality per se but the notion that a more complex, meatier script would redeem what essentially is yet another haunted house story where ghosts stroll around pestering people for the shitty things that happened to them while they stay there to solve the mystery instead of beating it in the first minute like we'd all do.
Rated 25 Aug 2017
kmilchev1Kmilchev1
Rated 23 May 2017
60
43rd
The representation of the Edwardian era and the cinematography were enjoyable, otherwise inconsistent and laggy at times.
Rated 23 May 2017
arossaross
Rated 21 Nov 2016
67
29th
Not awful but I didn't care for it.
Rated 21 Nov 2016
scorpionwaspScorpionWasp
Rated 18 Jun 2016
60
28th
This one relies way too much on the lowest form of horror: jumpscares. As if that wasn't enough, the jumpscares are utterly predictable. "Ok, so the movie is going to try and scare me right about...... now!" - Boooo, something random immediately pops up on screen. It also uses the "idiot ball" trope in a most cringe-worthy fashion to move the plot.
Rated 18 Jun 2016
fghtffyrdmnsfghtffyrdmns
Rated 10 Jun 2016
60
39th
Would be unsettling but the amount of reaction shorts and the gap in Daniel Radcliffe's eye brown were hilariously distracting. Clichéd and overly reliant on jump scares but still very enjoyable
Rated 10 Jun 2016
thegreyfoxthegreyfox
Rated 28 Mar 2016
50
21st
98% of this movie is of Daniel Radcliffe moving around really slowly with a candle in one hand, trying to get into rooms that are locked, but from which come ominous creaking noises. The other 2% is complete nonsense. In truth, most ghost stories are actually pretty daft, but this is dafter than most, and in a very English "Railway Children" type daft. Safe, slow, predictable, and totally reliant on cliches ... where would they be without mirrors, shadows moving around and nutty villagers?
Rated 28 Mar 2016
angrypierreangrypierre
Rated 30 May 2015
67
44th
Dear TripAdvisor. I spent a few days at old lady Black's spooky manor, and while I admit it was indeed spacious, secluded and quiet, and the kitchen facilities were more than adequate, having to share the experience with an angry ghost lady and several murdered ghost children did put somewhat of a downer on my getaway. Two stars.
Rated 30 May 2015
wayofthegunwayofthegun
Rated 27 Apr 2015
30
3rd
Cheap scares, boring story, not much to see here. I found myself at several points wondering what the hell was going on after several minutes of Radcliffe stumbling around not really doing anything.
Rated 27 Apr 2015
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 30 Mar 2015
61
28th
While solidly acted this lacks any real scares at all.
Rated 30 Mar 2015
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 09 Mar 2015
45
25th
Passes the time.
Rated 09 Mar 2015
mofazMofaz
Rated 03 Jan 2015
3
0th
Dull. Not scary in the slightest, you know it's bad if the jump scares don't even work. Radcliffe is dopey and spends most of his time staring or contributing little. Pacing is fairly irregular and editing needs work. Decent cinematography provide silver lining, but despite that the film lacks atmosphere, no dread, no tension, no creepiness, hollow. The antagonist is simultaneously poorly explained and represented. Not worth seeing.
Rated 03 Jan 2015
choco91Choco_91
Rated 18 Dec 2014
75
77th
Better that I thought, but it;s not a horror. A light thriller I think. Good Times, good characters
Rated 18 Dec 2014
muttermutter
Rated 16 Jul 2014
65
55th
A tasteful revival of shite chiller flicks.
Rated 16 Jul 2014
sdplisskenSDPlissken
Rated 09 Jun 2014
20
20th
There's no escaping that, even though he's not bad in the film, Radcliffe's casting gives this the feel of a horror film made for kids.
Rated 09 Jun 2014
ag0stomesmerAg0stoMesmer
Rated 30 Mar 2014
2
46th
The 'over-antiquing' of some sets, the informality and modernity of the dialogue and the inexplicable transformation from mild-mannered solicitor to man of action. Added to some shitty filters and over-use of music -a lot went against it. I liked the bits with the guys wife though, all the stuff on spiritualism was good. I'm sure there was a good cut in here somewhere.
Rated 30 Mar 2014
rttntomatoesrttntomatoes
Rated 03 Jan 2014
66
38th
Traditional to a fault, The Woman in Black foregoes gore for chills -- although it may not provide enough of them for viewers attuned to more modern, high-stakes horror.
Rated 03 Jan 2014
ljusbusLjusbus
Rated 05 Dec 2013
4
18th
The Woman in Black manages - like most Hammer horror films - to build a great atmosphere. In the end it even manages to become really suspenseful; a surprise, since the initial part consisted of only boring jump-scare (which were much too abundant throughout). Pretty mediocre overall though, with my main problem being Radcliffe - he simply didn't feel the part and wasn't convincing. Maybe it's because he himself shines through too much or that i think Harry Potter when seeing him.
Rated 05 Dec 2013
glm01glm01
Rated 10 Aug 2013
67
34th
66.500
Rated 10 Aug 2013
dylanwilson6dylanwilson6
Rated 21 Jul 2013
50
16th
Pretty disappointing, a bunch of "look nothing is there, and now it is front of your face." Surprisingly I did not think of Harry Potter once with Radcliffe on screen, which is a huge testament to his acting in the movie, along with Hinds. Nothing spectacular or truly defining, but not laughably bad either (except for the voice-over letter.....holy crap that was bad)
Rated 21 Jul 2013
nick-hamdenNick Hamden
Rated 06 Jun 2013
40
19th
http://gorgview.com/the-woman-in-black
Rated 06 Jun 2013
natzillaNatzilla
Rated 30 May 2013
55
4th
Had a lot hope for this one, and it fell so, so flat.
Rated 30 May 2013
matthew_parkinsonMatthew Parkinson
Rated 14 May 2013
40
31st
The Woman in Black opens strong, with a lot of creepy imagery and sounds, but it eventually dies down due to repetition and the direction the story has to take. I can appreciate the intent in a film like this one, but it's the execution that I had a problem with. It has its effective moments, but it feels far too long in the second half to really be worth your time. And, please, someone take Daniel Radcliffe to an acting coach. If your house was haunted, you wouldn't just feel mild amusement.
Rated 14 May 2013
lilarcorLilarcor
Rated 19 Apr 2013
64
25th
Some of the scares actually work pretty well and makes the movie unsettling, but the movie is let down by poor dialogue, periods of nothing happening and subpar acting.
Rated 19 Apr 2013
hroyhroy
Rated 14 Apr 2013
55
11th
Radcliffe is decent. Some okay scares. At best competently filmed, but utterly pointless.
Rated 14 Apr 2013
axleblazeaxleblaze
Rated 09 Mar 2013
35
6th
Boring and aggravating. For most of the movie there's no sense of why we should be scared so I wasn't and it kind of all wraps up in a weird way that left me desperately trying to figure out what this was even trying to say. It does have one good, uniqe jump scare but it's in a sea of shitty, unscary LOUD MUSIC SUDDENLY ones.
Rated 09 Mar 2013
raven77raven77
Rated 28 Feb 2013
2
6th
Disappointing, nothing new here, and it just didn't grip me.
Rated 28 Feb 2013
abunchofcatsABUNCHOFCATS
Rated 13 Feb 2013
70
29th
Jump scares done right.
Rated 13 Feb 2013
danastevensdanastevens
Rated 30 Nov 2012
70
61st
If, on the other hand, you're not above acknowledging the trans-historical creepiness of a good dusty windup-doll shelf (Come on! It includes one of those hyper-realistic monkeys playing the cymbals!), this pokey, modestly budgeted thriller isn't without its shivery delights.
Rated 30 Nov 2012
rthornhillrthornhill
Rated 11 Oct 2012
83
33rd
old school horror....suspense over gore. bravo, we need more of these.......
Rated 11 Oct 2012
tarwebroodtarwebrood
Rated 06 Oct 2012
55
25th
not yet rated, 6okt2012
Rated 06 Oct 2012
disconnecteddisconnected
Rated 06 Oct 2012
30
3rd
The jump scares are effective, which is damning it with the faintest possible praise, and it fails at creating any kind of convincing atmosphere.
Rated 06 Oct 2012
tjlmovfrks23TjlMovFrks23
Rated 24 Sep 2012
65
30th
Daniel Radclife attempt to define his acting in this horror movie will be counted.however,the movie will not define horror genre. "The Woman in Black" is a mediocre horror movie.it is not entirely terrible,but it didn't turn out great either.the whole movie is just flat.the scare factor is only being built on atmosphere instead of suspense.although it has some dark moment and it was haunting during the climax.nevertheless,the film suffers from becoming predictable near the end of the movie.
Rated 24 Sep 2012
rossRoss
Rated 26 Aug 2012
60
57th
It adds nothing new to the genre, but it is very solid. It uses all the clichés to great effect.
Rated 26 Aug 2012
darkmandarkman
Rated 19 Aug 2012
50
7th
I don't like it at all.
Rated 19 Aug 2012
esmerodoEsmerodo
Rated 11 Aug 2012
80
74th
A nice Victorian Gothic ghost story. Dark and bittersweet.
Rated 11 Aug 2012
myfavchordsmyfavchords
Rated 07 Aug 2012
59
12th
This movie is very creepy and it sets the right tone for the duration. However the script is weak and the ending is very unsatisfying. The directing and acting are fine in this film but the story is uninspired. The flaws in the script make this a disappointing movie.
Rated 07 Aug 2012
daisylegsdaisylegs
Rated 01 Aug 2012
56
34th
suffers from face-in-window-itis
Rated 01 Aug 2012
nathan_sNathan S
Rated 27 Jul 2012
1
6th
A bit of a gutless film, afraid to really embrace its own bleak premise. It certainly doesn't break any new ground, succumbing to predictability and heavy handed scare tactics. The dialogue is terrible, and the generally moody visuals are periodically disrupted with pathetic CGI. However there is something about its reliance on old fashioned formalism that sets it apart from its contemporaries.
Rated 27 Jul 2012
iyisinekiyisinek
Rated 03 Jul 2012
75
67th
hayalet, ev, lanet, oyuncak, cocuk ölümleri, londra yakininda kasaba, gel-git, denize kordonla baglanan ada, (intikam alan ruh)
Rated 03 Jul 2012
gabitheizengabitheizen
Rated 02 Jul 2012
100
98th
This film is original and with lots of great scenes.The story was very good and really interesting.With amazing actors.The Woman in Black in one of the best horror films of our time.The use of shadows and the soundtrack in it intensified the atmosphere of suspense.Dan was amazing in this film and proved that he really is an excelent actor.
Rated 02 Jul 2012
entertainmeEntertainMe
Rated 30 Jun 2012
32
7th
Radcliffe's career is alive. This movie is pretty generic.
Rated 30 Jun 2012
sirrobbieSirRobbie
Rated 26 Jun 2012
50
8th
....sleeping...remember....glimpses.....only..... blimey!!...where's Ron and Hermione??....
Rated 26 Jun 2012
rafalivrarirafa_livrari
Rated 18 Jun 2012
66
28th
Meio tenso. Mas não gostei.
Rated 18 Jun 2012
deanazhollisdeanazhollis
Rated 17 Jun 2012
83
29th
If you like the classic of horror, then you would quite enjoy this one. I felt that some of the build up and the shocking scenes took too long and there were too many of them. If it was intermixed more of discovery each step of the way the reason for the killings, making them a bit more equal between scenes, then it would have worked better for me. Otherwise, it was a nice take, wonderful scenery of a classic horror tale. I really liked the ending.
Rated 17 Jun 2012
gideonGideon
Rated 16 Jun 2012
1
16th
Badly paced, poor scarefest
Rated 16 Jun 2012
zioZio
Rated 12 Jun 2012
40
25th
Working on creating tension and a creepy atmosphere unlike the most recent horror-gore films, The Woman in Black falls short by being predicable at most turns. Competently acted and a commendable job to Daniel Radcliffe for his first foray in a movie role that isn't a wizard. The story leaves a bit to be desired however.
Rated 12 Jun 2012
roofsrunnerroofs_runner
Rated 11 Jun 2012
64
26th
The premises looked quite intriguing with all the distinctive English landscapes and haunting atmosphere. However, somewhere in the middle only thick mist, creaking doors and rapid succession of the noisy scenes turned out to be the only means to scary the viewer.
Rated 11 Jun 2012
jetboyjetboy
Rated 10 Jun 2012
60
20th
embodies every bad cliche, horrible ending
Rated 10 Jun 2012
leonardisLeonardis
Rated 08 Jun 2012
82
38th
I don't think anyone who likes modern scary movies (Insidious, Drag Me to Hell) will like this too much, but The Woman in Black is very well crafted and I think Radcliffe did a good job, even though he will forever be known as Harry Potter. I found this to be scary in some parts, and it's definitely a chilling movie.
Rated 08 Jun 2012
moribunnyMoribunny
Rated 30 May 2012
20
9th
I don't usually watch remakes of horror films I haven't seen, but I took the opportunity to see this and predictably, I suppose, it turned me off the idea of watching the original. It's a cliche-fest, mostly haunted-house sort of thing, so pedantically generic and proper that it seems scared to overstep any boundaries. Yes - rather than being frightening, it's a frightened little movie.
Rated 30 May 2012
damildamil
Rated 28 May 2012
40
13th
I spent most of the time making Harry Potter jokes. I still don't think Daniel Radcliffe can show emotion on film. I like the idea of having an old-fashioned ghost story, but this was the typical modern horror movie that startles rather than scares. Plenty of things jumping out with loud music cues. I think my main problem with it was that nothing happened. The plot was almost non-existent. It was just Radcliffe's character putting himself in scary situations over and over.
Rated 28 May 2012
dst7175dst7175
Rated 25 May 2012
40
27th
Harry Potter is to young to play this role.
Rated 25 May 2012
supergloosupergloo
Rated 14 May 2012
2
4th
They don't make 'em like this anymore. Unfortunately, somebody did.
Rated 14 May 2012
muutanetmuutanet
Rated 08 May 2012
32
24th
Technically I liked the old fashion style and mood, but the story was non interesting what so ever. Sure there was some good shakes, but I do not like much of cheap thrills; anybody can make that. The paper thin story did not give for me anything I expected.
Rated 08 May 2012
chmulcr0nchmul_cr0n
Rated 07 May 2012
57
24th
Not well written, plot's very random, dialogue's cheesy, but it's scary as fucking shit. I mean, awesome play with shadows and lighting and sounds and music...all the effect-greatness you want from a horror movie. Unfortunately all that tension and suspense doesn't get resolved, it just dissolves into thin air. Which fucking sucks. Every time Ciaran Hinds just appears out of fucking nowhere and everything's normal again. What the fuck. :( And the ending was retarded, too. What a bummer. :(
Rated 07 May 2012
mojojojoMojo_Jojo
Rated 06 May 2012
46
29th
Fairly creepy in places, but unsatisfying.
Rated 06 May 2012
therealj_roTheRealJ-Ro
Rated 05 May 2012
65
31st
I know it's supposed to be a horror movie, but there was a line that really made me chuckle; Kipps' son saying "That's what your face looks like" when asked why he drew a picture with him looking sad. Radcliffe plays tormented to a T. I was a little iffy on the movie's internal logic in parts, then again, it's a horror movie. Follows a rather simple script with a good-enough atmosphere in and around the house, but, not much we haven't seen before. Very well-done ending brings it up a notch.
Rated 05 May 2012

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...