The Woman in Black

CBS Films | Release Date: February 3, 2012

6.4	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 344 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

violetheartFeb 13, 2012

I was told before seeing this movie by my friends that it was the most frightening movie in the universe. Worse than Saw II. Filled with twists and turns that left you gasping for breath and culminating in an ending so tragic that the averageI was told before seeing this movie by my friends that it was the most frightening movie in the universe. Worse than Saw II. Filled with twists and turns that left you gasping for breath and culminating in an ending so tragic that the average moviegoer would end up wanting to jump in front of a train. I entered the theatre doing breathing exercises to prepare myself for the terrifying moments to come. Yes, this film has received a LOT of hype in the "oh-my-God-it's-so-scary" department. All I can say is- what a rip off. There is absolutely no genuine horror in this movie. The "scary moments" are nothing more than clichÃ©d groans of music which grow ever louder as Harry Potter runs frantically around a haunted house until something jumps out at him. Oops. Did I just say Harry Potter?That's the other thing. It's extremely difficult for me to forget that throughout my life Daniel Radcliffe has always been a boy wizard fighting to save the world from Voldemort's evil clutches. But, actually, I was impressed. Radcliffe, although only needing to use about two of his expressions in this movie (scared, freaked out, scared, etc.) did a good job. Sometimes I even looked at him for at least a couple of seconds without thinking "Why don't you try Expelliarmus on that ghost?" So the four points I gave this movie are solely dedicated to Radcliffe's acting. I felt that all other parts of the film were uncreative and predictable, and frankly, a waste of time.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

TVJerryFeb 10, 2012

Daniel Radcliffe plays a London solicitor who's sent to a creepy village to wrap up an estate, but that's just an excuse for an old-fashioned haunted house expedition. Nothing's original about the approach: lots of wandering dark hallsDaniel Radcliffe plays a London solicitor who's sent to a creepy village to wrap up an estate, but that's just an excuse for an old-fashioned haunted house expedition. Nothing's original about the approach: lots of wandering dark halls accompanied by ominous music and punctuated by sudden, loud noises. There are one or two genuinely shocking surprises, but they don't provide enough tension to sustain the dull parts.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

HDeezyFeb 8, 2012

This film is utterly unsatisfying.
Not even slightly entertaining, some of the performances were utterly laughable, and the script was horrifyingly bad.

3 of 9 users found this helpful36

All this user's reviews

TastyJamProjectFeb 8, 2012

In comparison with other horror films released in the last year, The Woman In Black is in a class of it's own. It's exciting, compelling, thrilling and runs smoothly. That being said, it's hard to take seriously. In a cinematic world whereIn comparison with other horror films released in the last year, The Woman In Black is in a class of it's own. It's exciting, compelling, thrilling and runs smoothly. That being said, it's hard to take seriously. In a cinematic world where filmmakers now strive for stark, brutal realism as real disturbing horror, the horror of yesteryear (The Mummy, Dracula, Swamp Thing, the Wolfman, etc), bearing the "Hammer Films" name, (which TWIB does) seem old hat. If you enjoy quick scares and a predictable mystery plot, you'll probably love this film. Radcliffe is great, but it's still hard to lose sight of him as his breakout role. It'd be nice to see him in a modern, non-magic, non-supernatural setting, and the supporting cast is game. However, if you can't take supernatural horror seriously, (like me), and easily deconstruct plot structures, there's not much here for you. All in all, itâ… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

BHBarryFeb 7, 2012

6 of 9 users found this helpful63

All this user's reviews

Olidegu2012Feb 6, 2012

Well, this being my wildcard of the weekend, I decided to see it anyways and was not impressed though my expectations were already in the thoughts of well, you're taking Harry Potter and thrusting that actor into a horror movie role.Well, this being my wildcard of the weekend, I decided to see it anyways and was not impressed though my expectations were already in the thoughts of well, you're taking Harry Potter and thrusting that actor into a horror movie role. Radcliffe's acting was not bad, actually it was decent, however it was the boring script and thrills and spooks around every corner that you could see a mile away that really bring this movie down in my opinion. The movie itself, not the acting was the disappointment to me and though as some reviewers have said that this is the end of Radcliffe's career, let's be honest here. Every actor needs to take chances and this was just one chance that turned into a bad one for the young actor. He will rebound (it is not like he needs the money) just not with this movie.… Expand

5 of 8 users found this helpful53

All this user's reviews

thomashughes123Feb 6, 2012

Good, but I was disappointed, I thought it would have been more subtle horror, but instead its just jump scares, the story was all right, and the acting was great, especially Daniel Radcliffe, who is fresh from the Potter series.
My reviewGood, but I was disappointed, I thought it would have been more subtle horror, but instead its just jump scares, the story was all right, and the acting was great, especially Daniel Radcliffe, who is fresh from the Potter series.
My review would be a seven, its just that some reviews are bashing down this movie, so I want it to do well.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

GBEFeb 6, 2012

If Human Centipede is your idea of a good genre film, stay away from this movie. I really liked it. It's atmospheric and melancholy and has some good old fashioned spooks. The art direction and cinematography are sublime. It's definitely aIf Human Centipede is your idea of a good genre film, stay away from this movie. I really liked it. It's atmospheric and melancholy and has some good old fashioned spooks. The art direction and cinematography are sublime. It's definitely a throwback to the old fashioned British Horror films of the 60s and 70s and a welcome return of Hammer Films, who created some really iconic films back in the day. Recommended if you love old stories about haunted houses and castles and weird old towns with superstitions and stuff. I suspect that the general public will find it a bit boring since it lets the story slowly evolve and doesn't feature any gory deaths or people getting tortured or silly gimmicks. Daniel Radcliffe was pretty good, if a bit young for the role. Here's hoping for more alternatives to the usual torture porn and Japanese horror remakes that have become the boring norm lately.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

alienchaosFeb 5, 2012

I have to start out by saying that I'm not a big Harry Potter fan at all. The theater was a great one to see it in as the crowd was quiet. However, I hadn't seen a movie on the big screen in a few months and thought this one might be worthI have to start out by saying that I'm not a big Harry Potter fan at all. The theater was a great one to see it in as the crowd was quiet. However, I hadn't seen a movie on the big screen in a few months and thought this one might be worth the effort. I was wrong...The movie begins innocently enough and we develop some empathy for Radcliffe's character. However, the first hour of the movie has a couple of very cheap scare tactics with birds and the such followed by some little girl's death. The house he has to visit looks great atmospherically but the setup is never taken advantage of. The ghost is anything but scary or intimidating. The plots twists (if you can call them that) are derived and unbelievable. Radcliffe's character never demonstrates any true terror and never seems disturbed by the events beyond a yawn or two. The side characters are pointless as are most of the directions that the plot attempts to develop. All in all, a big disappointment.… Expand

2 of 9 users found this helpful27

All this user's reviews

ABNMPFeb 4, 2012

Adds nothing new to the genre. Actually slept for the first 30 minutes? Good for the PG-13 family experience, but even my kids were disappointed. I would save my money and wait for a release on Dvd or Netflix.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

RonaldOVOXOFeb 4, 2012

This movie was kinda unique but not the one i was looking for. Even though it had its moments it just wasnt enough for me to like it. I loved radcliff in the harry potter series but she should do other movies before he goes to horror

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

BigDingus04Feb 4, 2012

One of the better scary movies I've seen in the last few years. As long as you don't go see it in a theater with a bunch of little kids trying to be funny the whole time, or scream at every part (then proceed to laugh because they screamed),One of the better scary movies I've seen in the last few years. As long as you don't go see it in a theater with a bunch of little kids trying to be funny the whole time, or scream at every part (then proceed to laugh because they screamed), this movie will genuinely creep you out. I literally got goose bumps at one point just out of sheer creepiness. I honestly can say I've NEVER had that happen to me in any scary movie - ever. If you like gothic horror films, definitely check this out. I have no idea how the 2 negative reviewers felt the way they did. I do not share a single feeling with anything they said.… Expand

8 of 9 users found this helpful81

All this user's reviews

KotaFeb 3, 2012

I once heard that Daniel Radcliffe, or more widely known as "Harry Potter" , never had to work again due to the series Harry Potter. From the acting he performed in this movie and the overall performance, that rumor should have stayed true.

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

dartlanFeb 3, 2012

Boring with poor special effects. There were several scenes where the Harry Potter kid seemed to be in physical pain like he had to go poop or something. I saw a couple of groups leave theater early.

2 of 9 users found this helpful27

All this user's reviews

ReviewCriticFeb 3, 2012

The Woman In Black is an EPIC FAIL! Never have I seen a horror movie worse than this. Daniel Radcliffe was boss in Harry Potter: his career is now officially over.

5 of 18 users found this helpful513

All this user's reviews

prev next

Page: