The Woman in Black

[hudweiser]

Stage show: Incredible use of next to no props and three actors.

1989 TV film: Incredible use of restraint and unsettling imagery.

2012 movie: Some spooky shots but no subtlety on show whatsoever.

In short, they made it into a teen horror film. There are about a dozen jump-scare moments, all of which are telegraphed well ahead by the photography used. If the camera goes in tight on Daniel Radcliffe's face, you know as soon as he turns around something will be right next to his head.

The Woman is shown way too much and there are a couple of moments that are purely there for the audience (as in, Radcliffe's character is not witnessing the apirition so it serves not purpose in the story).

Radcliffe does ok for a film with long sections where there's no speech, just him walking around with a candle, but he doesn't convince as a father and widower.

The Woman herself is quite eerie in places, but her overuse renders it redundant come the end. In the older film I think she's only shown 3 or 4 times, making her more elusive and unsettling.

[cherry20]

Personally I thought it was a great film, although I haven't seen the stage show or the TV movie. My sister had seen the stage show though, and thought the film was scarier (although not necessarily better.)

I think Daniel Radcliffe appeared too young to have a four year old son, although I suppose in the time that it was set it wouldn't have been that unusual. Other than that he did very well in my opinion, but I guess it wasn't a very difficult part to play.

[Christopher]

Better than I thought it would be, but it was basically 2 hours of boring plot punctuated by 15-minute bursts of almost irritating suspense-jump-gags.

[moorje]

It was alright. I agree that they did show too much of the woman in black, but a teen horror? Don't be ridiculous. It's very much a traditional Hammer film but with better SFX. The Times made a good point though that Daniel Radcliffe has just swapped walking through dark corridors and caves with walking through a dark house. He was alright but too young to play the lawyer. The play is better but it is very basic 'boo in the dark' stuff. Effective though.

[hudweiser]

It was alright. I agree that they did show too much of the woman in black, but a teen horror? Don't be ridiculous. It's very much a traditional Hammer film but with better SFX. The Times made a good point though that Daniel Radcliffe has just swapped walking through dark corridors and caves with walking through a dark house. He was alright but too young to play the lawyer. The play is better but it is very basic 'boo in the dark' stuff. Effective though.

Young "heart throb" actor from massive franchise + surplus jump scares = teen horror.

Not in the traditional T&A slasher film sense, but this was definitely engineered to pull in the Harry Potter crowd.

It had more in common with The Grudge than Hammer.

[steste]

I was quite surprised by how well it did to scare considering it's rating and I loved the ending, but I got lost in it and not in a good way, I zoned out quite a bit.

Unpopular opinion perhaps.... I kind of felt like Daniel Radcliffe was just reciting his lines than acting them.

I watched in America, that was one hell of an experience. The laughing, screaming, shouting - insane.

[jinzo]

Okay, so I went to watch this last night..

2/10.

So I had a few hang-ups:

1) Daniel Radcliffe is not someone's father. He was in a totally unrealistic role. If it was Colin Firth or someone, y'know, that looks like they've even lost their virginity, the film would probably improve drastically. And he himself lacks any kind of genuine emotion or versatility.
2) For a horror, there really weren't any scary bits. Like yeah, there was the odd noise from a wind-up toy or the ghost mother doing a scream, but it was all very basic.
3) The ending. Wha? So uninspired. Like, to just leave it without any sort of closure on what happens with the mother or any real insight into her breakdown into losing her kid initially?
4) It was far too long, yet as I've mentioned above, too soon to finish. The actual getting into the meat of the film was drawn out for way too long. I was sat there for far too long trying to actually figure out what the whole point/anchor of the plot was. For all the ~tension~ it tried to create by steadily building up plot lines, it was just a bore-fest.

5) A small continuity error I spotted- y'know the photograph where Jennet is looking out of a window to the family from a distance? On one photo, she's to the left of the window. At another, she's to the right. It's clear that from noticing stuff like this, I need a life.

[confess85]

The opening music sounded like a creepy mix of Put The Needle on It.

[hudweiser]

5) A small continuity error I spotted- y'know the photograph where Jennet is looking out of a window to the family from a distance? On one photo, she's to the left of the window. At another, she's to the right. It's clear that from noticing stuff like this, I need a life.

I noticed that!

The ending of the old movie is better:

**SPOILERS** (although the film is incredibly rare)


Kipps returns to London and his wife (who's not dead) and child. All's well. Happy, happy, joy, joy. Montage of family happiness. They go boating on a lake in central London and he looks up and sees The Woman on the shore. He screams as a tree falls down and lands on the boat, taking all of them out in one Final Destination-y swoop.

[robots need oil]

I really, really hated that they made the woman all 'screamy' in the film, I mean, really, she's scary enough as it is - the play works fine without that (and the book I guess) but other than that I actually enjoyed the film.

Although yes, Daniel Radcliffe is faaaaaar to young looking to play a convincing dad, and as Hudweiser said **SPOILER****SPOILER****SPOILER****SPOILER** the book ends a bit like that too, but he doesn't return to a family, he gets married and has a child 5 or so years later (who then both die after he sees the Woman).

I did love the 'twins' though.

[RobR]

Sooooo shit.

I really wanted to go and be scared, I pretty much made the choice to go and watch this film specifically. I jumped maybe once or twice but didn't feel any sense of suspense or horror at any point.

Really really disappointed.

[Itty Bitty Piggy]

I thought it was quite good.

I suppose it helped that I saw it with a group of complete wet-blankets, with a warped view on what makes a film scary - my boyfriend found this more chilling than The Exorcist!

It was enjoyable enough, but not as spine tingling as the book.

I did really enjoy the triplets killing themselves and the horrific toys. Also the marshes and Eel Marsh House were done very well.

[GhettoPrincess]

I thought it was decent personally but so over-rated when it comes to people saying its scary. It has its spooky moments but its not that scary.

[hudweiser]

I happened to go again with a friend today and it was a little better second time, strangely. Noticed the WIB in the background a bit more and a girl in the audience really squealed at the rocking chair bit.

[_hazzie_]

I saw this and thought it was equal parts terrible/scary. I couldn't help but laugh in parts due to Daniels Harry Potter connection, we had a laugh about the rocking chair banging being an escaped bludger...

[JakeMagnus]

I thought it was pretty scary. Loved the sets, and Daniel does a decent job.

[David_X]

I absolutely shat myself watching this, but that's because I don't like sudden loud noises. Aside from that the only genuinely scary bit of the film was the closing shot.

[evangelion]

I was disappointed. All the scares were the same. Woman screaming, woman running screaming, woman screaming, child screaming, woman screaming. screaming screaming screaming.

[wickedbruv]

Basically shat myself watching this. I've seen the play when I was younger and that has stayed with me. Was just about getting over it, then decided to see this.

Horrible.

AND there was a boy there who could not have been older than 9. Insane.

[DanielS94]

I much prefer the book (and I'm never one to say that, I feel like such a snob haha!) but I still enjoyed this. The rocking chair part was really scary and made me go "oh shit" but the ending was terribly cheesy. It also missed a lot of the points I think the book was trying to make, such as how Arthur changes drastically throughout the ordeal from kind of optimistic and full of life to like a depressed nervous wreck in the book but he was so mono throughout the whole film with no change whatsoever just "sadface" all the way through. They definitely should have stuck to the book's plot much more but I understand that's not really the formula for a box office $ma$h.

[GhettoPrincess]

I think Daniel Radcliffe was a bit miscast really, he just looks too young for the part... thats how I feel personally and whilst I think he can act, he isn't brilliant.

[Tribal Spaceman]

I saw it tonight and thought it was very good. I was surprised just how much of the story they'd changed, but then I remembered that every adaptation has done it's own thing in the past anyway.

I wasn't a big fan of the latter scenes featuring the Woman, they made her needlessly screechy and jumpy, which was clearly a Grudge influence, but overall I was impressed.

Daniel did a good job of not being Harry Potter, but even so I was still expecting Kreacher to pop up from behind a door clutching an armful of jewels, and the ghostly train station at the end did make me wish Dumbledore would walk out of the mist and offer some reassurance.

[Right_Direction]

I loved it, can't believe it's a 12 & also can't wait to buy the American Unrated version to see what the UK sensors cut from it originally being a 15 to a 12.

It was very jumpy & I loved the atmosphere, the only issue I had with it was Daniel Radcliffe, he was completely out of his depth as an actor, too young for the part & his one vacant expression worked well in Harry Potter but was just annoying in this.

They should of gone with someone older & not so well connected to a franchise.

But him aside, it was a good movie.

[IMHO]

I don't find ghost stories all that scary to begin with, as they're too formulaic and there are no real rules or logic for them to follow, so they can do what the like to point where the goal posts are always moving.

With that in mind, The Woman In Black didn't do much to convert me. What with the predictable 'boo' scares and never ending cycle of following one creepy noise or sight into one room before it inevitably stops and moves into the next.

The ending was a bit of ridiculous 'Death's not so bad' cop-out as well.

[miklc]

I didn't find it that good. The only one scary bit was the mirror thing. Daniel R was surprisingly ok though.