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)
Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe), a widowed lawyer whose grief has put his career in jeopardy, is sent to a remote village to sort out the affairs of a recently deceased eccentric. But upon his arrival, it soon becomes clear that everyone in the town is keeping a deadly secret. Although the townspeople try to keep Kipps from learning their tragic history, he soon discovers that the house belonging to his client is haunted by the ghost of a woman who is determined to find someone and something she lost and no one, not even the children, are safe from her vengeance. (Roadshow Entertainment)
(more)Videos (27)
Reviews (13)
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.
()
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.
()
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 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.
()
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.
()
Ads