Awesome Movie

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

For a 12 rated horror film, this is packed with suspense and very effective. The storyline was engaging and intriguing.The only thing that could have been improved was the likeness to the novel it is based on, as there were some major events in the book that were totally changed in the film, which kind of ruined it (as I had read the book first, you see). Overall, a very good movie.

The story is basically about a young man who travels to a village and comes across to know that the village is being terrorized with someone that has a vengeful mind.If you want to get good scares this movie had all those elements such as unexpected scares, spooky toys, children, etc.For me there were still something messed up with the story line for example the occupation of the hero, why did he come to that house in the village at the first place and the flash back story of the woman I had to do research and get all the details I needed to know but it could have been explained much more better in the movie and not complicate things. Acting vise Daniel Radcliffe did a wonderful job as well as the others. The ending of the movie was also really good and unexpected. Will be looking forward to seeing the sequel soon and reviewing that title tooPersonally I would recommend this movie to anyone.Notable ActingDaniel Radcliffe his other famous movies you can watch are the harry potter series and many moreCiaran Hinds his other famous movies you can watch is frozen and many moreMy Rating 7/10

It's sad that a film can do so much right... from sharp and crisp visual direction to wonderfully atmospheric and Gothic music to top- notch performances from a wildly talented cast... yet still come up short and even stale at times. But such is the case for 2012's "The Woman in Black", the second adaptation of a 1983 horror novella by author Susan Hill. While the film is certainly one of many strengths and is sure to raise some goosebumps from general audiences, the fact of the matter is that anyone with even a passing knowledge and appreciation of horror will likely recognize and bemoan the fact that the film falls into the same trappings and faults of many other modern releases- that being an over-reliance on the same old clichés that pollute the genre as a whole, and for its woeful over-reliance on jump-scares. Still, the film is most definitely an enjoyable experience. It just falters a bit too often to be anything more than "average" and "adequate." Which is a shame, given the rampant talent that is obvious both on-screen and behind the camera.In Edwardian era England, lawyer Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is dispatched to the town of Crythin Gifford, where he is set to work on the sale of a massive estate. However, not all is well in Crythin Gifford- and it soon becomes clear that a dark and vengeful specter of the past is haunting the town, claiming the lives of local children and driving them to commit suicide. And it is up to Arthur and his associates to solve the mystery and try and save the town from this vile entity... But at what cost?Helmed by "Eden Lake" director James Watkins from a script by the ever-reliant Jane Goldman, I do think the movie has a lot going for it. Watkins has a very keen and wickedly stylish eye, and seems to relish in delivering the most wonderfully oppressive and dreary visuals possible. It's a very slick and moody film from an aesthetic standpoint, and I absolutely love the tone that Watkins establishes early on and builds off of with each passing scene. Goldman's script is generally tight, concise and moves at a fairly good pace, and her structure works well at building the mystery and suspense for much of the runtime. Add to that a genuinely disturbing and freakish musical score from the wonderful Marco Beltrami and a first-rate performance from star Daniel Radcliffe, and you should have a sure-fire winner.Unfortunately, as I noted above... there's just too much of the same-old, same-old here to really get excited. What promises to be a tense and exciting supernatural horror in the first act quickly degenerates into a by-the-numbers thriller by the film's midway point. While I refuse to spoil any of the twists and turns of the tale, I will say that most fans of horror and suspense, or even people with the most basic interest in film structure will see everything coming from a mile away. It does take away some of the potential suspense, and outside of a generally surprising climax... most people will be able to call the shots way ahead of time. And then there's the jump-scares. My god... the jump-scares. It's really kind of irritating how so many modern- day films think that random jolts are a proper substitute for horror. Jump-scares are not, well, scary. They're startling. And their effect is only minimal and fleeting. They need to be earned and artfully used in moderation and in key-moments to be effective. And for the most part, they aren't earned and they most certainly aren't used in moderation here. You can't just keep throwing something in the audience's face over and over with a loud stinger and expect it to be "good horror." It really betrayed the genuinely and truly disturbing sequences of fear and anguish throughout the film. There are so many good and freakish sequences, that the random jumps that keep popping up end up dragging the whole film down. They cheapen the experience.Still, it's not a total loss. The film is filled to burst with wonderful Gothic style, some fantastic sequences of dread and tragedy and admittedly a great turn from Radcliffe in one of his most notable roles outside of the "Harry Potter" universe. It might be pulled down a few pegs due to its admittedly large faults, but I think general audiences will get enough of a kick out of it to make it worth at least a rental. Just know that if you're a horror junkie or a genre enthusiast, this isn't really "great horror." This is "popcorn horror" for the masses.I give "The Woman in Black" a ever-so-slightly above average 6 out of 10.

It could have been worse, but also a lot better. The atmosphere is great, Gothic, darkly and captivating, the first half an hour is interesting enough, but after a while it all goes astray. Plenty of cheap jump scares (way too many), all of the same kind (a sudden apparition), the storytelling gets slower and slower and nothing much happens until the very predictable climax. There's also an attempt at a twist end, but that doesn't work either.What got me the least about this movie is the huge amount of horror clichés, I won't spoil anything, but let me just say that the story itself is a clichè in its entirety. And also the acting of the main character is disappointing, it is quite dull and lacking any expressiveness. The guy only has one single expression (something like an astonished fish) throughout the movie, whatever occurs to him or to other people around. If you get scared by this and you're past your teen years, probably horror is not your genre of film and you should watch something else.