The Woman in Black

A film folk haunting novel that perfectly exploits the conventions of Gothic horror and the Victorian aesthetics of ghost stories (the author of the book, Susan Hill, is an expert on them). Watkins chose the ultimate digital look, which is sometimes gorgeous (color contrasts and delicate work with light in neat interiors), and sometimes very artificial and implausible (especially the modified exteriors). The atmosphere is nice, and blaming it for its predictability is nonsense - the film is a de facto stylistic exercise with clear rules that need to be followed. The inclination to have cheap jump scares bothered me a bit, but those long walks with a candle darkened house are dense. In addition, Radcliffe acting like a lost frightened puppy can believed without difficulty. Pleasantly old-fashioned, from the veil to the ankle boots. (2013-02-02)

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. (2012-02-24)

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. (2012-02-21)

The fog thickens, the water rises, dead faces peek out from behind bushes, and the sound of a rocking chair brings back goosebumps, from memories in places we don't even talk about. Daniel Radcliffe gives a very captivating performance, and in anticipation of all his critics, I had to smile from the beginning that he portrays Arthur in a manner not even vaguely reminiscent of Harry. Although it never lets up with its train rides to places full of ghosts, don't go expecting to see Nearly Headless Nick. As long as an unfamiliar silhouette turns in the background, everything is pleasantly chilling, but when a face appears in the window or a mark is left on the glass, my stomach shrinks to unpleasantly small dimensions. The Woman in Black is limited most by a relatively clichéd plot premise that faces a tough choice in the end: whether to give you a happy ending, which could be considered trite, or to intensify the organ music and face the risk of overdoing it. The viewer must see for themselves how it turns out, but the film as a whole, thanks to truly unexpectedly impressive moments and the feeling of "if you go back into that house, I'll turn it off right away," convincingly stands its ground. (2012-03-14)

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. (2012-07-25)