Directed by:
James WatkinsScreenplay:
Jane GoldmanCinematography:
Tim Maurice-JonesComposer:
Marco BeltramiCast:
Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds, Janet McTeer, Liz White, Roger Allam, Sophie Stuckey, Shaun Dooley, David Burke, Jessica Raine, Mary Stockley, Alisa Khazanova (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
The tale of Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe), a lawyer who is forced to leave his young son and travel to a remote village to attend to the affairs of the recently deceased owner of Eel Marsh House. Working alone in the old mansion, Kipps begins to uncover the town’s tragic and tortured secrets and his fears escalate when he discovers that local children have been disappearing under mysterious circumstances. When those closest to him become threatened by the vengeful woman in black, Kipps must find a way to break the cycle of terror. (Momentum Pictures)
(more)Reviews (13)
After a long time, finally a proper ghost story. The Woman in Black may be considered a safe bet that builds everything according to a long-established template and in the end brings nothing surprising, but as far as the content is concerned, the film cannot be faulted much. The chilling atmosphere of misty moors and a remote and dark manor keeps the viewer's attention throughout and James Watkins, even though he does only a routine job, should be praised for the precision and efficiency with which he doses all the tension. Daniel Radcliffe hasn't yet grown up for the role of a dad and the magic wand won't be taken away from him just like that, but otherwise he handles it very well, he was basically the cornerstone of the whole film, and this shows he has talent. If I were to compare it to the much-praised Orphanage, which I’ve seen recently, this British production left me with a much more wholesome and likeable impression. Good job.
()
The Woman in Black is technically very well made. The environment, atmosphere, a shroud of mystery – everything works. But the screenplay doesn’t bring anything new. And the jump scares rely more on sound effects than image and editing inventiveness. Daniel Radcliffe looks too young to be the father he plays, but his performance is flawless. Ciarán Hinds gives the film some dignity. The young Harry Potter fans who haven't yet seen a hundred similar movies will be satisfied.
()
A simple horror story in the beautiful settings of an English seaside village. I didn’t mind the lack of originality and the simplicity of the plot (Hammer has never made intellectual and sophisticated films), what I did mind, though, is that in such beautiful setting, all the film can do to generate fear is to use cheap jump-scares that follow the template of “show anything” + “raise the volume”. Visually, I enjoyed it very much, both the haunted house and the village, but the fear hardly shows up at all. One look at the woman in black in the more than 20 year-old TV adaptation made me tremble in terror a lot more than all those jump-scares put together. Daniel Radcliffe delivers a decent performance. The climax was disappointing, just like a couple of very unconvincing scenes (the lady with the dogs, the bird in the boarding house). I’m giving it 7/10. I liked The Woman in Black, but unfortunately, with all the aforementioned reservations. I expected something great, but it doesn’t come close to that.
()
James Watkins completely flipped the script when he went from aggressive teenagers to a classic art nouveau ghost story. Yet he definitely reached the heights of his reputation set by his first film because it washes over the viewer with such vigor that I wondered where the hell the man had been all these years when everyone was crying about the genre's decline. It's quite a cool thing to scare audiences so predictably yet with the kind of cheekiness and implacability in which little children die, and the mystery unravels rapidly. Meanwhile, the film maintains deliberate British detachment and slight distance. It's only kept from perfection by the miscast Radcliffe who - nothing against his performance - just hasn't grown up enough for such a role yet. Otherwise, I give a deep bow to the director. 4 ½.
()
The Woman in Black is a great atmospheric horror film taking place in an absolutely amazing location, with great actors and awesome directing that made sure there was just the right creepy atmosphere that gave me chills for hours after watching it. I immediately forgot about Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter. In this movie I perceived him as a great actor who can play many emotions, including fear. Truth be told, if I were him, 20 minutes in that haunted house would make me go crazy, but he fought it off and pulled it off amazingly. The screenplay is great as well. These ghost horror movies usually don’t get good endings, but in this one everything is very interesting. Hats off. The movie brought me a four-star experience and memories that I just can’t get out of my head. I wish there were more films of this quality.
()
A film folk haunting novel that perfectly exploits the conventions of Gothic horror and the Victorian aesthetics of ghost stories (the author of the book, Susan Hill, is an expert on them). Watkins chose the ultimate digital look, which is sometimes gorgeous (color contrasts and delicate work with light in neat interiors), and sometimes very artificial and implausible (especially the modified exteriors). The atmosphere is nice, and blaming it for its predictability is nonsense - the film is a de facto stylistic exercise with clear rules that need to be followed. The inclination to have cheap jump scares bothered me a bit, but those long walks with a candle darkened house are dense. In addition, Radcliffe acting like a lost frightened puppy can believed without difficulty. Pleasantly old-fashioned, from the veil to the ankle boots.
()
The fog thickens, the water rises, dead faces peek out from behind bushes, and the sound of a rocking chair brings back goosebumps, from memories in places we don't even talk about. Daniel Radcliffe gives a very captivating performance, and in anticipation of all his critics, I had to smile from the beginning that he portrays Arthur in a manner not even vaguely reminiscent of Harry. Although it never lets up with its train rides to places full of ghosts, don't go expecting to see Nearly Headless Nick. As long as an unfamiliar silhouette turns in the background, everything is pleasantly chilling, but when a face appears in the window or a mark is left on the glass, my stomach shrinks to unpleasantly small dimensions. The Woman in Black is limited most by a relatively clichéd plot premise that faces a tough choice in the end: whether to give you a happy ending, which could be considered trite, or to intensify the organ music and face the risk of overdoing it. The viewer must see for themselves how it turns out, but the film as a whole, thanks to truly unexpectedly impressive moments and the feeling of "if you go back into that house, I'll turn it off right away," convincingly stands its ground.
()
It had an oppressive atmosphere at times, the right tones, the breathless quality horror movies ought to create, but unfortunately it always sort of dissolved into the unknown, so you had no idea if you were really scared or just telling yourself you were scared. It really irritated me that dear Arthur didn't ask any questions – they send him home, strange things happen, but then he doesn't even think to ask why, what, how, when? It had a mystery to it, but to my infinite disappointment it remained unsolved. I haven't read the book, but the whole movie seemed like this, not completely thought out. Harry – er, I mean, Arthur – gave sort of a good performance, but it didn’t strike me as any kind of tour de force. Even so, I feel like he squeezed what he could out of it; after all, in my opinion he’s just not that great an actor... But back to the film itself, and its ending, which didn't work: first they swam in the mud, then got a pat on the back from a train; it seemed pretty self-serving, especially the diving in the mud – was that just so they could cram another screaming scene into the film? If the mystery had been unraveled more and if I had known whether I was actually scared or just fooling myself... I would have given it a higher rating.
()
I hadn't seen such an impressive and mysterious horror in a long time since Amenábar's film The Others, and I have to say that this one really pleased me. It's actually nothing groundbreaking, but it's pleasant to see someone successfully returning to the foundations of the genre. The film doesn't experiment and sticks to proven filmmaking techniques, Watkins' direction is reliable and precise even in the details. The director knows when to use a jump scare and when to let the camera capture impressive images of gloomy nature and interiors marked by human malice. I didn't have a problem with anything about the film and nothing got in the way or stood out or annoyed me. Even the ending, which may have disappointed some viewers, fits into the thinking of the late Victorian era and similarly toned literary stories. When you think about it, everyone ends up where they belong. Overall impression: 90%.
()
Very pleasantly surprised. The beginning is boring gibberish during which snappy lines referencing Potter spring to mind, but the atmosphere thickens, mud starts flying, dead children start appearing... the shocking moments are very, very effective. Danny acts well, the fact is that he isn’t old enough to play the father, but at least he has the balls to shake off that magician’s cape, I’m sure his erstwhile fans will certainly go to see his films in any case. And a superb ending, even if a little predictable.
()
An honest old-fashioned horror film with an atmosphere as thick as the fog that envelops everything and haunts everyone in it. No grossness, just suspense, not so many scares that its excessive, and lots and lots of impressive scenes - the one with the carriage pulling is clearly the best. Perhaps only Daniel Radcliffe seemed too young for the lead role - if his son were a few years younger, it would have been more natural and believable.
()
Daniel Radcliffe has really been "hurt" a lot by the Harry Potter series in terms of acting. I just didn't believe he was an adult lawyer with a four year old child and a widower to boot. Formally, however, this is a decent horror film with some really good scares and suspense. The story is unremarkable at first glance, but the theme follows the template of other ghost movies, so nothing particularly new. Of the cast, I was most impressed by the Daily couple, who could also be the main characters. In short, genre-wise, this is a good horror film that lives up to its parameters but offers nothing I haven't seen before.
()
As far as Daniel Radcliffe is concerned, I wasn't particularly surprised by the reaction of the majority of the audience. "So sad that he’ll never shake the shadow of Harry Potter, however otherwise excellent his acting is" (I'm paraphrasing). From my point of view, Daniel Radcliffe's performance is really outstanding, although he is understandably painfully young for the role of a father struggling to save his family. But as I've already written, this minor casting flaw is amply compensated for by his acting skills, and I'm very curious to see what future roles "Harry" ;-) will appear in. I had the opportunity to see it in the cinema, so the "audio" scares (the vast majority of the scary scenes here are based on sound work) were not bad, but when watching it in a quiet and warm home, their intensity is almost nil (verified:)) The script may not be all that original, but Eden Lake director James Watkins is adept at his craft and visually his The Woman in Black is a very accomplished affair. The intro is especially wonderful.
()
Ads