Home > The Woman in Black (2012) - 7 > The Woman in Black (2012) – 7

The Woman in Black (2012) – 7

Director – James Watkins

Cast – Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds, Janet McTeer, Misha Handley, Lucy May Barker, Shaun Dooley, Mary Stockley, Tim McMullan

Release Year – 2012

Reviewed by John of the Dead

While not initially stoked when I first learned of this remake/adaptation of the 1989 TV film and Susan Hill’s 1983 novel of the same name, I was eventually brought on board the bandwagon when I saw the first trailer for this one. The trailer looked dark, gothic, and like the Hammer films of decades ago that so brilliantly employed atmosphere to sell their work, and I must say that this work of the rejuvenated Hammer Films stayed true to form. This effort also stayed mostly true to the original story, giving us good levels of creepy fun as scares were chosen over gore, and with good direction from Eden Lake director James Watkins and positive usage of Daniel Radcliffe in his first post-Harry Potter role we are given one of the better horror remakes of recent time.

Daniel Radcliffe stars as Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer tagged with the responsibility of traveling to a small village to sort through an old widow’s paperwork at her island-esque estate. After arriving at the remote seaside village he learns that there is much more to the estate than paperwork when he comes face to face with the ghost of a scorned woman terrorizing the locals.

This is one story that I just love. The original novel terrorizes the reader, and based on that novel we have now been given two adaptations that both provided their own usage of the original story to provide good horror. Naturally there are some differences, like name changes, certain details left, and additional ideas thrown in that were not in the original story (changes in the way characters die). Aside from those differences the two films give the same overall storyline, and both result in a good horror experience. In regards to this newest version of the story, adapted by Stardust/Kick-Ass/X-Men: First Class writer Jane Goldman, we are given all of the most important of the original storyline and in well-told fashion. The story paces very well, taking its time but managing to deliver enjoyable scares early on. It does not take long before Arthur Kipps arrives at the small village and begins to suffer the haunting trauma that the townsfolk have suffered for years, and from then on our the scares and jolts never subside for longer than required to move the story. I applaud Jane Goldman, in her first horror writing credit, for giving us mostly well-written scares that were simple yet effective so long as the director does his/her job (more on that later) and not settling for too many cheap gimmicky scares, although there were a few of them. I was not surprised to see a few cheap scares given this is still a PG-13 Hollywood effort, and thankfully did they little to ruin the horror. The usage of the woman in black was positive and reminiscent of the TV movie that preceded it, and we were given more usage of the supernatural than merely the woman in black. The dialogue was great and it made for good character play between all of the characters involved, most of whom were used pretty well and not so much just to take up space. We witness Arthur suffer much hostility from the townsfolk as his very presence brings forth death to their quiet and subtle community, making for good conflict and additional obstacles to stand in his way as he aims to complete his work in a weekend’s time. In addition to the conflict associated with being harassed by a vengeful spirit and the townsfolk we also witnessed Arthur experiencing personal conflict regarding his family. His young son lost his mother during his birth, and Arthur’s job has kept him away from his son during a developmental age where parenting is very important. Of course, there is also the possibility of harm done to his son due to his interactions with the woman in black.

Director James Watkins did a pretty good job executing this piece, with much of his success resulting from his excellent use of dark and gloomy atmosphere. The sets are fantastic, bringing forth a big sense of eeriness throughout the small village that was made even more remarkable during the scenes at the old woman’s estate, an estate surrounded by muddy marshlands that make the place an island when the tide rides in. This atmosphere was essential to providing good horror as it made for many dark shadowy corners for the woman and other ghosts to hide in, and when they made their presence known it usually resulted in something good. The jump scares were so-so, with one of them giving me a nice jolt, but the rest of the scares were simpler yet very effective thanks to Watkins’ execution. Most of the ghosts are CGI, especially the scenes with the woman in black, but surprisingly enough the CGI did not detriment from the film and I suppose made possible some scares that would have been hard to achieve via live-action FX. So, how was Daniel Radcliffe, one of the film’s highest selling points? He did a pretty good job in this piece, as did all of the other actors involved.   Long gone was the young boy who grew into a young man while dressing funny and carrying around a magical stick for almost a decade– instead we are given a young solicitor(lawyer) with a lot to lose if he fails to finish the job, and he takes on the woman in black headstrong. I admit it was kind of fascinating to watch him portray such a mature character after playing the same one for a decade, but he managed to sell each emotion in his performance as a veteran actor should – although only a few emotions apply in this case.

Overall, The Woman Black (2012) is a positive adaptation of the esteemed classic novel that much like its TV movie predecessor brings forth a great experience of spooky supernatural horror by focusing on simple but effective scares and a darn good story that will keep you engaged throughout.

Rating: 7/10

  1. February 7, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    I’m actually looking forward to this movie — not big on gore, but love suspense…so this seems right up my alley! 🙂

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:11 am

      I just saw the movie last night, I really enjoyed it! I’m also not a fan of gore, and this movie wasn’t like that at all. It was really suspenseful and kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time. I think you’ll enjoy it as well.

      • February 9, 2012 at 12:03 am

        Glad you enjoyed it Julianna.

  2. DCM
    February 7, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    I love scary movies!

  3. February 7, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    Good review. Well done. It’s not my kind of film actually but based on your review I think I’ll pop along. Our literary festival http://kempsfordliteraryfestival.wordpress.com/….. has Susan Hill as the opening speaker. It’ll be interesting to see what she thinks of the film.

  4. xscx
    February 7, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    oooooooooooooooooooh dude I cant wait to see that movie … I hope its worth my moms eight dollars and fifty cents O.O 😛

  5. February 7, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Thanks for your review! My husband and I have wanted to see this for a while after catching the previews. We are looking forward it to it after reading your review.

  6. February 7, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    The scarier the better , cant wait to see this one!

  7. February 7, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    I feel this review was well written and very informative. My only objection was the light type used in the piece. Reading, even with glasses, very light type, gets harder and harder on one who is past the Seventy mark (meaning…myself)..

  8. February 7, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    This one was intriguing, but the ending was HORRIBLE!

  9. February 7, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Very good review, it was very extensive and puts my review to shame (has not gone up yet). Props to you! 🙂

  10. Rae
    February 7, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    I’ve been debating whether or not to see this, thanks for the in depth review!

  11. February 7, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    I really enjoyed your review. I cannot wait to see this movie! Thanks for sharing.

    • February 7, 2012 at 10:11 pm

      You are very welcome. I’m glad you read my piece and hope you check my other reviews out to aid you in finding other worthwhile horror films. If you do give this one a watch I’d like to read your thoughts on it. Take care.

  12. yaykisspurr
    February 7, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    Hmm. I wanted to see this from the trailer even though I’m not typically a horror fan. I was worried about the writing aspect but it sounds like a go. Great review! Cheers.

    • February 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm

      Thank you. If you do decide to give this one a go I’d be glad to read your take on it. I personally enjoy reading/learning the opinions of non-horror fans so that I can write a few remarks in my reviews based on their perspectives and what they look for.

  13. February 7, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    Interesting review. I’m really nervous about this film (and not in a good way). I love the book and there’s a fabulous stage adaptation that’s been playing at the Fortune theatre for years (well worth a visit if you’re passing this way). Good to know you thought it worked though – maybe I’ll have to give it a shot…

    • February 7, 2012 at 10:06 pm

      YES I have heard/read many great things about the play, that it is truly haunting and outdoes both of the film adaptations. The book is definitely the better bet in the book-to-film comparison, although you may want to (if you have not already) check out the TV effort. It is definitely a simpler effort of a much lower budget but it does provide a supreme scare sequence that this latter effort failed to match. I appreciate you reading, and reminding me of the play that I just have to see sometime, and if you do watch this effort I’d be glad to read your take on it. Thanks again.

  14. rmv
    February 7, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    up front, we know that daniel radcliffe was the draw for this film. instead of just telling us he was “pretty good,” give us some details that brought you to that conclusion.

    if you’re going to say “the dialogue was great,” give us an example of what brought you to that decision.

    • February 7, 2012 at 9:59 pm

      Thank you for your feedback, I have edited the review a bit to try and address your warranted concerns, and I admit that I gave this review a “rush job” given my late viewing of it. Of course, I had no idea it would be placed on WordPress’ homepage and viewed by many!

  15. February 7, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Old School!!!

  16. February 7, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    Thanks for discussing the relation between the novel and the film. I had read the novel some time ago; and when I saw the trailer for this new adaptation, I was curious as to how closely it kept to the original story. Good to know the film doesn’t distort it. It sounds like it will be a worthwhile view.

    • February 7, 2012 at 8:51 pm

      I believe it to be a worthwhile view overall, and especially for those who are familiar with the original story. It’s always fun to compare a film to the book, although the book usual wins.

  17. February 7, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    I have seen the trailer and even that terrified me!

    • February 7, 2012 at 8:47 pm

      Haha, then you are in for a treat with the full-length film.

  18. February 7, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    Reblogged this on MY TOUR DIARY.

  19. omaymen
    February 7, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    Thank u for your efforts.

    I realy like the way u analyzed the movie.

    • February 7, 2012 at 8:45 pm

      You are very welcome. I tried to focus on the things people would notice in the film, of course I did not expect it to be viewed by so many people. Haha.

  20. February 7, 2012 at 4:37 pm


    Catchy photo.


    • February 7, 2012 at 8:43 pm

      Sure it catchy, I just hope I never see her in real life.

  21. February 7, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    one of the finest review i have been through.. the poster looks amazing..

    • February 7, 2012 at 8:43 pm

      Thanks a lot for reading. The poster looks great and the film looks just as good thanks to the director giving us awesome dark atmosphere.

  22. February 7, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    Seems like a great movie.

    • February 7, 2012 at 8:42 pm

      If you do happen to check it out let me know what you think.

  23. ekr1984
    February 7, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    Great review. I was already stoked to see this movie but you sealed it for me. Thanks!

    • February 7, 2012 at 8:41 pm

      Thank you and you are welcome, I hope the film is as enjoyable for you as it was for me. Also recommended is the TV movie by the same name, if you can find it on a dusty video shelf somewhere.

  24. February 7, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Can’t wait to see. Thanks for the review.

    • February 7, 2012 at 8:40 pm

      Thanks for reading, the film is worth a watch.

  25. February 7, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    I want to see it because it is Daniel’s first acting role after Harry Potter.

    • February 7, 2012 at 8:39 pm

      I’m sure that was the biggest reason to watch the film for the vast majority of it’s viewers, and he did well in not playing Potter in this one.

  26. February 7, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    This movie is worth seeing, the story is very good.

  27. reinaldobanh
    February 7, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    Reblogged this on reinaldobanh and commented:
    It looks sad.

    • February 7, 2012 at 8:36 pm

      Thanks for the reblog. By “sad” do you mean it’s a stinker, or a somber film? Somber was more like it I think, but I’m sure it is a stinker to some. Heh.

  28. February 7, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    I’m not so interested in horror films, but your review of this movie makes it sound like a good movie to see.

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:29 am

      Thanks. If you give it a shot and find the time to do so…please let me know what you thought.

  29. February 7, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    Great review. It’s so good to see a movie that actually scares the bejesus out of you.

  30. February 7, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    Harry Potter all grown up


  31. Elliot Gray
    February 7, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    Thank you so much for sharing! I’m excited to see this film for myself 🙂

  32. February 7, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    Great review. From what I can see the art direction looks fantastic and it also looks to be a somewhat original type of horror film. Originality is is sadly short supply in film these days.

  33. February 7, 2012 at 11:56 pm

    I gave this one a lot of love when I reviewed it. Nice writing! Check mine out at http://www.didyouseethatone.com

  34. webbookmark
    February 8, 2012 at 12:40 am

    Excellent movies


  35. February 8, 2012 at 1:22 am

    Your review made me want to watch this movie. I enjoy horror films but I prefer to watch them with a friend. It spooks me out when I watch alone! Haha! Great post! 🙂

  36. February 8, 2012 at 3:55 am

    I’ve seen the theatre adaptation and am looking forward to seeing this movie. I am ashamed to say I have not yet read Susan Hill’s novel, but will be downloaded onto my kindle within a minute of finishing this comment.

    Thanks for a great review.


    • February 9, 2012 at 12:23 am

      You are very welcome, and I hope you enjoy the novel as well. I personally recommend reading it before the movie as it is always, ALWAYS fun to compare the novel the the film in these cases.

  37. February 8, 2012 at 5:27 am

    Excellent write up/review.

    Gave me a good insight on the movie.

    I’m gonna watch it soon

  38. February 8, 2012 at 5:51 am

    I’m comforted by the fact that a newer filmmaker has crafting a charming, old school horror film. The recent “torture porn” phenomenon, with increased gore and humiliation, as well as the equally boring (not far less offensive) trend towards self-aware horror films, has left me feeling disheartened for the future of the genre. This review comforts me.

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:20 am

      If the filmmakers got one thing right about this flick it was the atmosphere and the film’s overall presentation. Now if a writer true to horror form were to pen a film with execution such as this one’s then I would expect it to bring back the horror we love and miss.

  39. February 8, 2012 at 6:59 am

    Nice review. Now i have to buy the dvd when it comes out.

  40. February 8, 2012 at 7:01 am

    Reblogged this on Jenjen0201's Blog.

  41. February 8, 2012 at 7:28 am

    Nice review. Liked the movie, even though I thought the ending was a bit of a letdown.

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:18 am

      I am a fan of such “sad” endings, but this one was definitely made to fit the typical Hollywood format and was made a bit to “happy” in my opinion. The climaxes in the novel and TV movie were much more horrific and didn’t include the silly “feel good” aspect brought on in this effort.

  42. February 8, 2012 at 7:50 am

    This is a great review. I was kind of on the fence on this one but after reading this, I really want to see this movie now.

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:16 am

      Great! I hope you find it worth the outrageous price your theater most likely charges.

  43. Claire Cappetta
    February 8, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Thank you for your review. I saw The woman in black at the Fortune Theatre years ago in London. It started a little slow but we ended up being riveted to our seats! There were only two actors and stage props, so when I saw it had been made into a movie I thought it might not measure up to the stage play.
    After reading your review though I think I will definitely go and see it, thank you.

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:10 am

      You are very welcome Claire. I am sure that neither of the films will stand up to the amazing play (that I have sadly yet to see but have heard wonderful reviews of), but for a film I think this is a worthwhile experience.

  44. February 8, 2012 at 9:11 am

    It’s not for me. I can’t cope with gore but I do like the actors. Who knows I may change my mind as your review was compelling.

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:09 am

      There really is no gore in this film. There are a few deaths, but they show no gore. The film instead relies on scares and atmosphere, which I enjoyed.

  45. February 8, 2012 at 9:17 am

    Just want ot thank you for rating Silence of the Lambs as a 10; although I still maintain that the lead actress was not a good match for Sir Anthony Hopkins. I would have given it a 9.5.

    I don’t think any flick should get a 10, unless someone actually dies within 24 hrs as a direct consequence of seeing the movie.

    There has never been any flick like that, as human comprehension of sheer horror is still limited by the actual level of fear they’ve experienced themselves.

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:08 am

      Your last line is tremendous, I cannot agree more. I used to (and still mostly do) feel that there is no film really worth of a 10-rating, however some are just so damn close to it I’ll give it to them. If my professors can up my 99 to a 100 then why can’t I do it for the film? Heh.

  46. February 8, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Gosh! all this happens in the World or it is just a man made creation.Ah! harrow write ups are becoming popular some of these days.

  47. February 8, 2012 at 10:29 am

    I hope I don’t have nightmares now….

  48. February 8, 2012 at 11:01 am

    This has probably been one of the better January/February’s we’ve had for movies in years

  49. February 8, 2012 at 11:13 am

    Nice review. I’ve been on the fence about this movie for a while. Thanks!

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:01 am

      You are welcome, I hope it is worth the horrendous price theaters charge these days.

  50. February 8, 2012 at 11:31 am

    Thanks for the review. Sounds like a movie with good, spooky atmosphere. Just the way I like them 🙂

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:57 pm

      Movies with good, spooky atmosphere are the best ones in my opinion. I love them dearly. Thanks for reading.

  51. February 8, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Saw this last night and wasn’t impressed. I’m a fan of scary movies and this one really just wasn’t. Building suspense is a tricky thing to do – you need enough time for the atmosphere to sink in, but not so much time that you get comfortable and start waiting for the scare. This movie didn’t really pull it off. It was very slow in parts, and fairly predictable when it came to the “jump scares”. It’s a great story though and definitely got better near the end as things started happeneing faster.

    Only thing to really take away from this movie is the fact that they made some damn creepy toys back in the day!

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:56 pm

      Oh yes the toys were used very well, fantastic I think. Yeah the scares did come off cliche, which I did not prefer but was not surprised to see either given this is a Hollywood film that is sure to bring in the boring and easily-entertained masses looking to see Daniel Radcliffe in a new role.

  52. February 8, 2012 at 11:52 am

    I just saw this last night and I was disappointed the friend and his wife weren’t in on the women in black somehow. I was so expecting them to be!

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:55 pm

      Yes from the moment Arthur goes to the couple’s home I had the feeling they were in on it too, but I guess not…THIS TIME. I really wanted to know more about the couple that was watching the Woman in Black’s son, but they didn’t delve into that either.

  53. Steve
    February 8, 2012 at 11:59 am

    I saw the Woman in Black in theatre once and it was fantastic. Might just have to watch this to see if it has the same effect on me.

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:53 pm

      That would be a nice comparison, although I am sure the theater performance would be the film every time.

  54. February 8, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    Great review. I’ve been wanting to see it, but was not sure if it was going to be worth the money, along with the fact that I hate horror movies because they are so cheesy and I have trouble sitting down and watching them without making a sarcastic remark.
    Plus, I’m a wee bit of a huge Harry Potter fan, and am excited to see Daniel Radcliffe break out of his comfort zone. Glad to hear that he preforms well in another character’s skin.
    Hopefully I’ll see this one soon!

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:51 pm

      Thanks Michelle, as a non-horror fan I think you can find joy in this one as a Radcliffe fan, plus the story is a great one regardless.

  55. February 8, 2012 at 12:35 pm
  56. February 8, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Great review! Can’t wait to see it now. I went to see the ‘woman in black’ stage show a while back in Covent Garden and it was fantastic!

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:48 pm

      Yes I have heard amazing things about the stage play, it is definitely on my “to-do/to-watch” list.

  57. Fia
    February 8, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Oh! I must see this movie! 🙂


    • February 8, 2012 at 11:48 pm

      Yes you should Madame. Thanks for stopping by.

  58. February 8, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Good review. I had planned on seeing the movie soon, but now I think it will be even sooner than expected.

    God bless,.

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:46 pm

      Thank you Ancil, I appreciate your reading of my review and your thoughts. God Bless as well.

  59. Smiley
    February 8, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Thanks for the enlightening thoughts on this movie. I debated on going at first because movies are not as scary as they once were to me. But this sounds like a winner!

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:45 pm

      It was surprising how enjoyable the scares were, and I credit them to the awesome atmosphere. For the most part this is a winner indeed.

  60. February 8, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    I must saw I couldn’t have written a better review of the movie after reading this. Love the blog. 🙂

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:44 pm

      Thanks, I’m glad you like my work. Hope you give the movie a watch too.

  61. February 8, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Really interesting! I am too scared to watch it by myself but I do still want to see it!

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:30 pm

      Oh but they are best viewed alone and with all of the lights off. Heh, hope you make it out alive!

  62. KTroilo
    February 8, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    classic gothic horror. big house, eerie/dark feeling throughout. haven’t seen it yet but definitely will if only to see how radcliffe looks in a different role than being harry.

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:30 pm

      You can’t go wrong with gothic horror and the elements you mentioned. It really was intriguing seeing Radliffe in this role, definitely worth a look.

  63. February 8, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    I was thinking about going to see it, simply because of Daniel, but I was unsure whether to or not. Now I think I will.
    Thanks guy.


    • February 8, 2012 at 11:29 pm

      No problemo. I think the majority of the buzz behind the film is Daniel, but thankfully the rest of the film was enjoyable as well. Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy it.

  64. February 8, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    dudeeeee!! I soooo wanna see this movie! its looking so scary and AWESOME!

    • February 8, 2012 at 11:27 pm

      I was surprised at how great the atmosphere was, and that definitely played into how much I enjoyed the spooks.

  65. February 8, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Did you know that there is also a play adaptation by Stephen Mallatratt? It’s the second-longest running show in London’s West End and a truly amazing play. I really enjoyed the film too. 🙂

    • February 8, 2012 at 10:13 pm

      I would love to see the play first-hand as I am assured it is an amazing experience, but being from the States I doubt I will be able to anytime soon. I really do find it very cool to see women giving us same damn good writing in the horror genre, which always leaves me wondering if most people know that last year’s Academy Award winner for best director, Kathryn Bigelow, got her start in the horror genre with Near Dark (which I have a review for on this site). Thanks for reading and reminding me of how awesome London’s West End must be. Haha.

      • February 9, 2012 at 7:57 am

        I saw a local production (I am also from the States) about 6 years ago. My husband and I have a small theatre company in northeast PA and we hope to do the show sometime in the near future. I’m sure it’s around and about the country, though! Maybe it will come by your neck of the woods now that you know to look for it. 🙂 Nice blog, btw!

      • February 9, 2012 at 11:09 am

        If it ever comes within reasonable distance of me (I live in South Texas so the closest place to most likely get it would be San Antonio) I will definitely make the effort. I’ve never reviewed a play, so that would be a first for me on multiple levels. Thanks for checking out my blog and leaving me feedback too Madame, I appreciate it.

  66. February 8, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    I watched the play in london years ago. It was really good, Not sure if i will be able to believe Radcliff’s character though i will be waiting for ‘Expecto Patronum’ throughout.

    • February 8, 2012 at 10:09 pm

      Haha yes I was not really used to him playing a non-Potter character but was able to forget about it early on thankfully. I have yet to see the play but have heard nothing but very positive reviews on it, I hope to see it someday.

  67. February 8, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    You’ve made me want to watch both movies AND read the book! Entertaining review.

    • February 8, 2012 at 10:08 pm

      Thank you, I hope you do get around to checking them all out as they are all worthwhile in my opinion.

  68. February 8, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    I was able to drag my lady friend to this (I got a text a 3:00 a.m. this morning saying she was too afraid to sleep lol)- At first I did not want to see it at all- But, I had a dream about it just before opening night and to me, that warranted going to see it. I will just say that I have not had to close my eyes in a movie since I was 10 yrs old. Definitely one of the greatest (and at least the scariest) movies I have yet seen.

    • February 8, 2012 at 10:08 pm

      Haha, it’s always a good sign of a horror film’s success when people cannot sleep or you have to close your eyes. Glad you liked it.

  69. February 8, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    I prefer suspense over gore… I grew up in the age of friday the 13th, freddi and all that, didn’t like it then, don’t fancy it now. Give me something to make my senses explode with suspenseful fear and expectation….

    • February 8, 2012 at 9:55 pm

      That is really how this film comes off – more suspense and atmosphere with very little gore (if any, I don’t really remember seeing gore).

  70. February 8, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Entertaining, thorough review of the film. Kudos to Radcliffe for making a smooth transition from Harry Potter to more mature roles, far from the plague that struck many past child actors. I’ve heard many people rave about the film; you’ve helped steer me in the right direction. p.s. Congrats on making the home page!

    • February 8, 2012 at 9:54 pm

      Glad to read, I hope you find the film worth your time and maybe even worth the ridiculous theater prices these days. I was very surprise to see that I made the home page, so I appreciate you giving my review a read and making it worthwhile.

  71. February 8, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    I saw the original you wrote about and it is one scary movie! Very well done. I don’t know if I’m up for the remake. 😉

    • February 8, 2012 at 9:49 pm

      Oh Geraldine, just from that smirky smiley face I have a good feeling that you are up for the remake. Teehee.

  72. February 8, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    Yeah, when I saw the trailer of this months ago, I was instantly hooked. I can’t wait to see this! So glad you made a review 🙂

    • February 8, 2012 at 9:48 pm

      Glad I helped, let me know what you think of the movie if you like.

  73. February 8, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    I’m so glad to see Hammer studios back. Also glad to see Daniel Radcliffe stretching as an actor. Thanks for the cool post, I’m glad to see a horror review on Freshly Pressed.

    • February 8, 2012 at 9:47 pm

      I was very surprised to see my post on Freshly Pressed as well, it’s the only thing horror-related I have seen there so kudos to WordPress. I too am glad to see Hammer back, they did great with Let Me In and fairly well with Wake Wood.

  74. February 8, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    I’m looking forward to seeing this as well. Very thorough review!

    • February 8, 2012 at 9:44 pm

      Thanks! Hope you enjoy it enough to warrant the crazy theater prices these days.

  75. February 8, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    This movie was the worse horror film that I have seen as of late.

    I will be honest, I didn’t know it was a remake, but neither will most of the American Market.

    Instead, the Director, James Watkins, who you gave kudos to, will bank alot of money for pimping out Daniel Radcliffe in this movie.

    Let’s be realistic, the set was cheap as hell and so were the special effects.
    90% of this movie was camera shots of the “dreamy” Daniel Radcliffe posing to win over the teenies that followed him through Harry Potter.

    Definitely disappointing following his career in Harry Potter…I hope he rebounds.

  76. February 8, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    You scored it 7/10……I give it 2/10.

  77. abbyo
    February 8, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    Nicely done! You really gave this some thought, which I appreciate.

  78. February 8, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    Reblogged this on JarIAktif-JarIKreatiF.

  79. February 8, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    Largely agree on the movie, but what was that ending? Was that original to the novel as well? It felt incredibly anti-climactic.

  80. February 9, 2012 at 3:38 am

    Great review and great site. Drop on over to my fledgling blog: http://moviesyoushouldsee.wordpress.com

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm

      Thanks. I checked out your blog and was glad to see quite a few abnormal films that I had yet to hear of. Good work.

  81. February 9, 2012 at 4:23 am

    Looking forward to watching this at the cinema. Sound like a good Sunday night film! Seen the stage play a few years ago in the Grand Opera House Belfast which itself is apparently haunted!

    Taken from the Internet…..
    “Cast members coming down from dressing rooms on the top floor of the opera house have often seen another face looking in at them as they have passed a round window. Other members of staff have been spooked by the feeling that someone was behind them when no one was there, especially when crossing the stage. A woman who was alone in the theatre one morning heard something behind her and then looked up to see a figure in a long black robe on the fly floor. When she looked back, it had disappeared.

    The Northern Ireland Paranormal Research Association recently investigated the opera house and claimed to have contacted the spirits of Harry and George, who worked there as stage crew in the 198Os, a woman spirit who liked to tidy the place up and the spirit of an electrician. As one of Belfast’s great Victorian landmarks, the Grand Opera House is rich in atmosphere, entertain ment and, it would seem, ghosts!”

    Loved the stage version in the Grand Opera House, hope I like the film just as much 🙂


    • February 9, 2012 at 12:43 pm

      Oh wow, I am sure it is fantastic to watch such a spooky play at a haunted opera house. I wish I could experience that. Hopefully you find some joy in the new film as well. Thanks for reading and for the cool info.

  82. February 9, 2012 at 5:02 am

    Wow. Good detailed review. I can’t wait to go see this movie now! Thank you very much 🙂
    Keep up the great writing.

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:33 pm

      Thank you Madame, I will definitely keep up this highly rewarding hobby of mine. I hope that you enjoy the movie as well and that you find it worth the prices your theaters charge in the UK. In the States our theater prices are pretty bad.

  83. February 9, 2012 at 5:09 am

    Nice Review. After reading it I may just go see the film. Suspense over gore wins every time!

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:25 pm

      It sure does. When you manage to scare the viewer with simplicity over anything else it is a sign of a good filmmaker.

  84. February 9, 2012 at 5:23 am

    HELP! i have just created ANOTHER PAGE on my blog. I have no IDEA how to publish new posts on that particular page. They all keep coming on my homepage??? PLEASE HELP. I’ve tried the ‘help’ pages but they are of no use.

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:27 pm

      Oh yes I went through that at first. Basically I started creating “Categories” as my new pages. Basically, every Review I post is a “category”. I then added a drop-down list used alphabetically to list all of my reviews/categories. If you create categories you can then post to that specific category anytime you want when you are editing your post. I’ll go ahead and email to your personal email with more.

  85. kpbergman
    February 9, 2012 at 6:04 am

    Good thorough reviews. Look forward to reading more on your site. This seems like an interesting movie to put on my list.

    • February 9, 2012 at 12:24 pm

      Thanks, I try and touch base on what most readers would be interested in regarding each movie. Check my site out for more good horror movies. Pretty much anything with a 7-rating or higher is worth a watch.

  86. February 9, 2012 at 7:06 am

    This is one of my favourite books; I do hope that this adaptation has not torn it apart in favour of shock.

    • February 9, 2012 at 11:12 am

      It definitely did not go as much towards shock value as most recent horror films have, which is why I gave it some praise in staying mostly towards the feel of the book. The book is definitely the better of the two and this film does stray from it at times, adding its own tweaks to the story, with my biggest book-to-film complaint being the film’s climax. The book’s climax is great, as is the climax of the 1989 TV movie, but this one, while still being “dark” in a sense, is the happiest of the three.

  87. February 9, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Reblogged this on Talk Art2me and commented:
    What better to do on a cold night than to cuddle up with a good book or movie. John of the Dead’s review of the latest retake of The Woman in Black is a good one. While John goes into great detail of the special effects and mood setting, the story is a good one making the film not just another horror flick. All in all, John’s review is a good read and has inspired me to check for show times.

  88. February 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    Great review! Thanks a bunch – planning to see this over the weekend.

    • February 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm

      You are welcome. I hope you find it worth the insane theater prices these days.

  89. Kim
    February 9, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    Thanks for reviewing this! I’m glad it lives up to the trailers. So many movies don’t.

    • February 9, 2012 at 1:31 pm

      Yes and I hate that so many trailer give away the best points the film has to offer. Thankfully that did not really happen with this one.

  90. February 9, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    I saw this movie just yesterday and was both excited and weary about it. My mother-in-law had seen it a few days prior and hadn’t liked it, but I was fascinated by the trailers and have become a Daniel Radcliffe fan from his work on Harry Potter. I think your review of it does a fantastic job with describing my emotions toward it. I thought it was a great story and I enjoyed it thoroughly as did my husband. I hope to read the book and see the TV-movie version of it soon. Again, great review!

  91. February 9, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    Great review and nice blog. I have just started my interactive novel: QD3000. Please have a look.

  92. February 9, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    I love Jane Goldman so I was only on board after you mentioned her name. Radcliffe seems to be moving away from being Harry Potter quite successfully.

  93. February 9, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    For the most part, I can’t sit through a horror film as I’m the type that scares easily. However, I would love to see Daniel Radcliffe perform in his first non-Potter role, and hearing that the movie was good overall, I am very tempted to see it.

  94. February 9, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    This is also a very long running play in London. The play was without a doubt the single most terrifying experience of my entire life. I HIGHLY recommend it

  95. Derek Diaz CVAS-Computer Training Instructor
    February 9, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Reblogged this on cvasderek and commented:
    This looks like a good movie.

  96. Ed Voyles CDJR
    February 9, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    Thank you for this very detailed and informational review makes us more interested in it~

  97. February 9, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    I hope to watch soon here in Brazil. I liked your reveiw.

  98. February 9, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    One thing’s for sure … I definitely want to watch this movie when it gets released in Malaysia! 🙂

  99. February 9, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Ha! I love your use of the phrase “essential to providing good horror” in regards to the atmosphere. Like you said, there were a lot of cheap scares, as is natural for PG-13 horror movies — suspense over gore. But a lot of the R rated movies focus more on gore rather than true suspense. Atmosphere seems to be one of the few things that bridges between both types of films. A haunted mansion in the middle of a marsh? Love it.

  100. February 9, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    an awesome review

  101. February 10, 2012 at 12:09 am

    I used to own a DVD of the TV film and enjoyed it. That one very scary scene with the Woman and Arthur in his bed (people who’ve seen the TV movie know what I’m referring to) actually gave me genuine chills — I can count on one hand (with a finger or two left over) the number of times any movie has done that to me. I regret selling it on eBay!

    I never read the novel because I didn’t know there was one – now, I want to read it. I was excited to see it was being remade.

    I really hope they didn’t make a mess of things by employing cgi for the Woman. I was impressed by the TV movie’s use of a live actress as the Woman — she was very good at projecting a sense of malice.

    And changing Arthur Kipps to a struggling ”single dad”? Sheesh. Typical Hollywood, can’t portray people of the past without casting modern culture onto them. [Warning: SPOILER alert] Furthermore, if memory serves, a big part of the shock of the TV version’s ending involved it happening to Kipps and his wife and child.

    Still, I am looking forward to seeing it.

    Hey, congrats on the increased traffic. Gotta love WordPress!

  102. February 10, 2012 at 12:28 am

    I saw the Woman in Black in theatre once and it was fantastic. Might just have to watch this to see if it has the same effect on me.
    br />

  103. February 10, 2012 at 1:13 am

    Great review–looking forward to watching this movie!

  104. February 10, 2012 at 4:24 am

    Reblogged this on Sketches, rubbish, string and commented:

  105. February 10, 2012 at 7:48 am

    Reblogged this on thefleshycore and commented:
    Daniel Radcliffe’s new movie!

  106. February 10, 2012 at 7:58 am

    Great review, thanks. It’s nice to see Radcliffe transitioning into adult roles.

  107. February 10, 2012 at 8:01 am

    I have yet to seen this movie, but once I get some friends together we are heading towards that movie ASAP! lol
    It’s interesting to see Daniel Radcliff to play a role besides Harry Potter. For all these years, I’ve seen him carrying a wand and fighting against Voldermolt. Now, he’s advancing his acting career. Which is good.

  108. February 10, 2012 at 8:17 am

    I definitely have to stop putting it off and see this movie immediately! Thanks for the review.

  109. February 10, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Nice review!

  110. February 10, 2012 at 10:11 am

    Reblogged this on 4theloveofearth.

  111. February 10, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    Was not as thrilled with the trailer as I was with the book but I will surely give it more than a passing glance now! Sounds like a decent film in the midst of all of these crappy “horror” films. Thanks for the actual review on the content instead of the usual play by play!

  112. February 10, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    Interesting review. Have you seen the theatre adaptation in London’s west end..? Excellent production which I enjoyed much more than the film version. Still definitely interested in seeing the film though and your review helped – thanks!

    • February 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm

      No I have not but I have heard it mentioned quite a few times so it must definitely be a great experience. I’m sure both the theater adaptation and the novel are better than the films, but when you need your film fix I hope the films will do just fine.

  113. February 10, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    Reblogged this on mercimercyme.

  114. February 11, 2012 at 5:51 am


  115. February 11, 2012 at 6:39 am

    mmm interesting! i’d like to watch that movie..

  116. February 11, 2012 at 8:13 am

    Amazing storyline! Thanks for sharing

  117. February 11, 2012 at 9:51 am

    I can’t wait to see this movie. The trailers have been exciting me to no end- I love all things horror/terrifying! Nicely written review!

    • February 12, 2012 at 3:09 pm

      Thank you Julia. I hope that if you do see the movie that you enjoy it enough to not hate me for saying it’s worth watching, haha.

  118. February 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Great review! I’m really interested in Daniel Radcliffe’s career post Harry Potter. He has been making some really interesting choices.

    • February 12, 2012 at 3:08 pm

      Yes I think he did well with this one, especially given it was fairly different from the adventure-esque films he had done previously.

  119. February 11, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    I saw the movie last night with my boyfriend, and man did it scare the hell out of him lol. I’ve been watching horror movies since I was about 7 years old, so it takes a lot to scare me. I definitely jumped a few times, and we both gasped at the ending. Great review, btw. It has gotten mixed reviews, but yours is a good explanation and observation of the film and its history.

    • February 12, 2012 at 3:08 pm

      Thanks for the input and I’m glad you found my review to be a good explanation of the film. I try my best to explain the film so that my readers can decide on whether or not they want to view the flick. I’m also glad to speak with a lifelong horror fan such as yourself, I hope you continue to check out my blog for more worthwhile horror films.

  120. February 12, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    Going to see this tonight! Really looking forward to it! =D

    • February 12, 2012 at 3:06 pm

      I hope that you find it worth the insane theater prices these days. If you have the time, let me know what you think of it.

      • February 12, 2012 at 5:28 pm

        I’m just back now… Luckily I am a student so I got a discounted price! I thought it was amazing… Much better than the trailer made out! Some great jumpy bits just to get your heart racing and I though the ending was very good too! Great watch I must say! =]

      • February 12, 2012 at 6:14 pm

        Awesome, glad you enjoyed it. I wish I got student discounts for stuff like that.

  121. February 12, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    Looks like a scary flick! Thanks for the review… Not sure if I could watch this one by myself!

  122. February 12, 2012 at 10:12 pm

    I linked to this in my earlier blog post about the same movie. I don’t have your film knowledge, I learned so much from reading this. Thank you for adding the detail about the Hammer Films, etc. This was brilliant. I look forward to reading your other writings. The purpose of my post was just a quick aside that related the movie to a book I liked. Your review is stellar.

    • February 13, 2012 at 9:43 pm

      Why thank you, I do appreciate that and you reading my blog.

  123. forestfae
    February 13, 2012 at 4:19 am

    Having just finished reading the book on my Kindle, I am now ready to watch the movie. Even more so after reading your review 🙂

    • February 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm

      AWESOME. I’m glad you took the time to read the book first, it definitely makes for a more engaging experience that may not live up to the book but at least you can compare the two.

  124. February 13, 2012 at 6:57 am

    Excellent review. Oddly enough, just last week my husband asked me if I remembered the TV movie of this remake, they showed it in England in Christmas Eve years ago and it remains one of the creepiest things I’ve ever seen. I heard Daniel Radcliffe was in this movie and wondered if it was a remake but hadn’t had time to investigate. Looking forward to this being on general release.


    • February 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm

      If you live in England I hear there are fantastic theater adaptations to the film that are much better than both of the films, if I had the chance I would definitely give them a look. Thanks for reading. This may not be as creepy as the original, but it’s still creepy.

      • February 14, 2012 at 6:44 am

        I haven’t lived in England for the last 18 years, so unless someone decides to bring the play to Michigan any time soon I don’t think I’ll be seeing it. Of course, having a major release with Daniel Radcliffe in it might raise more interest in the stage version in this country too.

  125. February 13, 2012 at 9:02 am

    I really liked the film, the lighting was orgasmic and gave it a really spooky and Daniel was great, but I wished there was a bit more story. Also, the ending was great but slightly disappointing…

    • February 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm

      Yes I feel that the ending was the worst of the two films, and paled in comparison to the book. It was more Hollywood than the rest of them, so go figure.

  126. February 16, 2012 at 4:49 am

    i love scariness with suspense.

  1. February 12, 2012 at 10:27 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: