The Woman in Black

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. (21/02/2012)

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. (25/02/2012)

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. (09/03/2012)

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%. (05/04/2017)

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. (25/07/2012)