If I had a nickel for every film I badly wanted to see and never got the chance to, I'd be rich. Daniel Radcliffe is a terrific actor, first of all, that's one of the reasons why I wanted to watch this. Also, it just seemed different from any other horror films released in a long time. My sister saw it, she said it was amazing. Then again, that's because she has a crush on Daniel Radcliffe. Maybe she'll buy it and I'll check it out. The cover is awful. It looks like one of those straight-to-dvd horror films.

Michael Greenwaldt wrote: This was disappointing. The mystery is not compelling which results in this feeling terribly slow. The atmosphere is great, but the movie is never scary. The mysterious woman should have been creepy-as-hell, but they go too over-the-top with her. Too much CGI. It's a very good looking film and I even really liked Radcliffe in the lead, but it just doesn't live up to its potential. The director's film "Eden Lake" (with Michael Fassbender) was a much better horror film, albeit a totally different type of one.  

I find myself agreeing with everything you post

horrorfan, i agree w/ you. i didn't hate this movie but it's pacing is totally off. his exploring the house for the 20th time was brutally boring. and i may have missed it but Kipps finding the (trying not to spoil here!) IT where he did (when his friend uses the car to achieve the find)...so NO ONE tried looking there before Kipps did?!!  and yeah, the very ending could be looked at as a gift from the Woman in Black lady or a big "Fruck You!" from her! LOL. the movie does have incredible atmosphere and cinematography though. i also like the cover art for this.  

I liked it better than The Chronicle (which I saw on the same day).  It was a nice creepy atmospheric film

llama wrote: I haven't seen this yet, but I look foreward to watching it--even if it's awful, it's going to be freaking gorgeous. I mean, judging by the trailers, the photography is pretty as f**k. Also, that cover sucks. It looks like it should be for a Nickelodean TV movie.

Trust me, I thought the same thing. The visual spectacle wears off fast. Real fast. Oh well, hope you enjoy it.

I thought this movie was really boring.

I didnt love this film and its very slow at times HOWEVER there is a middle stretch that scared the hell out of me and for that i have to recomend it. I agree with the complaints tho, especially the ending. I wish i could figure it out but i dont even think the director knew what to make of it

This movie was terrible. Coming from a die-hard horror fan, especially with the supernatural subgenre and being a fan of Daniel Radcliffe's, this movie was just a complete letdown. For starters, the pacing is just godawful. You have an hour of just Radcliffe flipping through papers and visiting parts of the village. I can see if this time was used for say character development or creating an atmosphere but it does none of these. By the time it hits the mark, sure there are a few GOTCHA! moments that are creepy, but that's just it. A few moments in a full length film. Out of the one hundred jump scares or so, probably 4 or 5 got me at the most.

To top it off, the direction is very jumbled. The story is just all over the place and what you think starts out with a simple premise descends into an over-complex one that really doesn't make that much sense. And that ending? You've gotta be kidding me. "The Woman in Black" might've not been in "The Devil Inside" territory (meaning it just blew), but oh my was it a clunker.

Decent enough, but Daniel Radcliffe skews a little young for the part and it drew me out of the picture at times. Glad it represented a solid showing at the box office for Hammer though since none of their previous films had done particularly well and the best of their recent movies--Wake Wood--was for all intents and purposes a straight-to-video release.