The movie starts brain-numbingly slow and never draws you in as it proceeds. Quit watching at the 50 minute mark b/c I realized I still didn't care about the story or the characters

Period horror starring Daniel "stop making jokes about my wand" Radcliffe as a lawyer who comes to a creepy little northern English town to draw up papers about the Mysterious Death of an old woman in a Haunted House. Slow, uneventful, by-the-numbers, dull; could have been Local Hero meets Drag Me To Hell, but ends up a step back for the Hammer Films revival. Watch Wake Wood instead.

Nothing new here, no real atmosphere and the scares are all 'jump scares'. Even though Daniel Radcliffe didn't display an amazing performance, it was good to see him sit well in another role.

Contains every theme expected in a haunting movie, but not much more. Several good gotchas made it worthwhile.

Poprawne ghost story - kilka szlifow i bylby naprawde bardzo dobry horror. Mozna smialo obejrzec.

its not a childish movie as harry Daniel :) U coud be a better dady:)

Bad horror.

The biggest shock....... (it's a) REMAKE....

Jump scares are the horror equivalent of laugh tracks. The only thing creepy or scary about 90% of what's supposed to be creepy or scary, is that any second you know you could be startled by a white-faced female ghost screaming loudly. Essentially, The Woman in Black is lazy and exemplifies the reason why I can't be bothered with horror films any more. And god damn Ciaran Hinds has been busy lately. Fourth film with him in released in my area in less than 3 months.

Predictable? Sure. But I enjoyed the old school atmosphere and some of the scares were surprisingly effective.

They don't make 'em like this anymore. Unfortunately, somebody did.

A movie that lacks a climax, scares, or a competent ending. Radcliffe at least showed he has the ability to elevate past his Harry Potter acting (which was mediocre at best). Hopefully he gets parts outside of period piece horror movies where he is made to walk around a house very calmly even though it's clearly haunted by a lady ghost who shrieks way too much.

Fairly creepy in places, but unsatisfying.

I know it's supposed to be a horror movie, but there was a line that really made me chuckle; Kipps' son saying "That's what your face looks like" when asked why he drew a picture with him looking sad. Radcliffe plays tormented to a T. I was a little iffy on the movie's internal logic in parts, then again, it's a horror movie. Follows a rather simple script with a good-enough atmosphere in and around the house, but, not much we haven't seen before. Very well-done ending brings it up a notch.

izlemeyen hicbir sey kaybetmez bildigimiz holivud korkusu ancak ben gerek korku film kulturum olmamasindan gerekse sinemada izlememden dolayı begendim kimi yerleri. heri porter abimiz daniyel redklif de bayagi guzel oynamis.

Not well written, plot's very random, dialogue's cheesy, but it's scary as fucking shit. I mean, awesome play with shadows and lighting and sounds and music...all the effect-greatness you want from a horror movie. Unfortunately all that tension and suspense doesn't get resolved, it just dissolves into thin air. Which fucking sucks. Every time Ciaran Hinds just appears out of fucking nowhere and everything's normal again. What the fuck. :( And the ending was retarded, too. What a bummer. :(

90 minutes of Daniel Radcliffe opening drawers with loud cranky birds in them

Technically I liked the old fashion style and mood, but the story was non interesting what so ever. Sure there was some good shakes, but I do not like much of cheap thrills; anybody can make that. The paper thin story did not give for me anything I expected.

Unfortunately it is just a typical, generic supernatural horror film. I was hoping for more for Daniel Radcliffe for his first movie after the Harry Potter series ended. It wasn't really bad, but it wasn't very entertaining either. It's just jump scare after cheap jump scare, of which only one or two were actually scary. The scream of the woman just ended up getting annoying, rather then scary. At times it felt like a TV movie, and Daniel Radcliffe wasn't convincing as a father.

Dan Radcliffe stars in this ghost story. Trying to change his image from Harry Potter, he takes on a very different role. The role of a quiet father who has to settle the estate of a lonely woman who has died. This movie had one of the slowest starts I've seen in a movie. Once it got moving it picked up pretty well but I think that it was too late to make a good impression on me. One main thing is, why would he stick around with all this craziness? To keep his job? Not good enough to stay.

"Harry Potter and the Woman in Black" stars Daniel Radcliffe as a frowny-faced Englishman who wanders around an old house examining things. Examining something for longer than four seconds results in a SURPRISE LOUD SOUND. Oh and maybe a ghost, too; but possibly just an angry bird or a noisy faucet. Co-starring: a small dog.

a fun ghost story, not as good as the original but a good modern horror hammer flick

I give it some scare-points. Had me gasping a few times and covering my eyes. Though, I'm sort of a wimp. Overall, the plot was okay. It keeps your attention. The ending was supposed to leave you scared, but just left me and my friends disappointed.

It uses every horror movie rule in the book, but it's entertaining. There are genuine creepy moments and the atmosphere is wonderful. But ultimately this is another haunted house movie, you've seen it a million times. Ghosts stalk people in the house, doing random things just to get some jump scares. I liked the ending, though.

Jump scare tactics aren't scary at all, and this has a buAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!

Daniel Radcliffe's post-Potter career commences with this horror thriller, and to his credit, he does a fairly solid job; that he's paired much of the time with Ciaran Hinds (also excellent) helps, certainly far more than Jane Goldman's lame script, with its weak plotting and bizarre, misguided resolution. James Watkins' direction creates a fine, eerie atmosphere, and the marshes of northwest England are a great location, but it's never very scary...but it's also never less than watchable.

so terrible

It'd probably land with a thud upon second viewing, because it relies so much on cheap jolts and boo moments and things leaping outta the dark. But you can't deny the craftsmanship at work here; the crowd I saw this with was ducking and jumping and bobbing and weaving like they were on a roller coaster. It is a haunted house movie without cynicism or pretension--it aims to give you a few really good scares, and that's exactly what it does. No more, no less.

I'm not gonna lie, I don't remember too much about this as I was just making Potter jokes the whole time. What I remember wasn't that great though. Whilst not exactly cliche, "The Woman in Black" is less of a traditional throwback and simply more predictable and boring. The story is just your average vengeful ghost tale (although it is an adaptation so I can't really fault it for that), the scares are non-existent, as is the atmosphere and Radcliffe's likability. Try harder, Hammer!

The watchword is fear, specifically cheap thrills that keep you on the edge of your seat. I appreciated the jolt but would have appreciated it even more if the performances were given as much direction as the more technical aspects of the film, I would have liked to see Radcliffe's range but he wasn't given much to do here.

Well, generally it was not a outstadning movie, but I actually died for fright

Not my kind

I enjoyed the ghost scares, but the plot is lacking. It's great to see Hammer back with a period piece no less. Now they need to cast Monica Bellucci in some Ingrid Pitt remakes.

Pretty decent. Not the best story ever, but the scares were good. Nope factor: 8/10.

Starts off very very slow. Finally when the horror starts you've fallen asleep.. Crappy directing, but the acting was pretty decent. Hated the unoriginal 'forced' ending.. Also crappy plot. The trailer is the best part of the movie!

AKA "Jump Scare: The Movie". Makes a half-hearted attempt at everything that was awesome about the original made-for-TV Brit film and eventually gives up with a shrug in favor of caterwauling birds, dogs, toys and not-really-there specters. Radcliffe is just fine and some of the creepiness and classic haunted house set pieces are authentic enough but I can't help but feel this was completely unnecessary. Just see the 80s version.

Not very faithful to the book, but solid performances by all.

"James Watkins can frame a fierce image along a diagonal line, but he has few tricks up his sleeve, often recycling similar shots from scene to scene, as well as spring-loaded scares that would get Roger Ebert's blood boiling." - Ed Gonzalez

Too bad it seems there is no directing here, because every scene, even the the ones that really leave you scared, is automatically crafted as a part of a big gothic compilation of creepy doors and mists. It's the same old story about ghosts seeking revenge, and I'm now wondering that this could have been really good if Daniel were able to yell "expelliarmus!" and just end this.

Not bad, it has some genuinely creepy moments, but its nothing you haven't already seen.

For Hammer House's return to filmmaking, a tired recycling of haunted house clichés was a bad start. The atmosphere of the film and Ciarán Hinds made the film worth viewing, but this felt less like a Hammer film than a carbon copy of the tedious horror movies being made now, jump scares and all.

Barely worth watching in fast forward

Watkins clearly has some talent as a horror director even if he lacks much by the way of originality. I certainty wouldn't call this a bad film, in fact its a well constructed horror that is actually damn scary at times. The trouble is that there is very little by way of story, or character development beyond finding an excuse to put Radcliffe in this haunted house. The plot line involving his son could of saved this had it been explored anywhere other than the poor ending.

Such a wasted of resources... Has some creepy moments but overall it's just a stupid ghost/haunted house movie with every cliche possible... Bad start for Daniel Radcliffe after Potter series..

Watkins use all the horror tools available in the book and especially the child's room is creepy. I usually hate horror/slasher/I-want-you-to-jump movies, but this one is very decent indeed.