Your Garage Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Amazon's Choice Computers Starting at $39.99 Luxury Beauty Handmade Mother's Day Gifts STEM Book House Cleaning henriettalacks henriettalacks henriettalacks  All-New Echo Dot Starting at $89.99 Kindle Oasis National Bike Month on Amazon disgotg_gno_17

Format: Blu-ray|Change
Price:$9.99+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-10 of 2,226 reviews(Verified Purchases). See all 3,801 reviews
on April 30, 2015
Before I get to the review, first let me say congratulations to Daniel Radcliffe for shaking off the role that made him a household name and moving on with a surprisingly solid performance in this picture. As I watched the movie, I actually forgot all about his previous character, and was drawn in by this NEW character. Radcliffe is a young man now, and he did a splendid job in this dark ghost story. I must shamefully admit that I almost didn't watch the movie because, I too, could not imagine Harry Potter all grown up and having the audacity to try to pass himself off as anyone else BUT our hero from Hogwarts! Well, he deserves some serious recognition for his acting skills...Because he CAN act in other roles. He CAN make you forget about the young boy that was a famous wizard! Maybe he will NOT suffer the fate of so many others that were forever doomed by playing such a popular role. It's happened time and again and the young superstar tragically fades away into obscurity. And not only did Radcliffe do good work in this movie, ALL the actors involved did very well. As a matter of fact, I have a hunch that if more people KNEW how good this movie was they would have watched it. But, they were probably still grieving the end of the famous series by JK Rowling! Anyway, I am confident that we will be seeing a lot more of Radcliffe. ***Here's a short summary on this haunting movie: A young and upcoming lawyer is on the verge of losing his job. The depression brought on by the death of his wife during childbirth is beginning to affect every aspect of his life. He gets one more chance to snap out of it before he loses everything. He is sent to settle the affairs of an old estate. But from the very moment he arrives, he is shunned and avoided by the small towns inhabitants. He is warned to stay away from the house, because if he persists, he will bring about the wrath of a vengeful spirit. ***
This was a pretty cool watch. I thought I'd check it out before watching the recently released, The Woman In Black 2... And I am glad I did. Watch this, it's worth the price of a rental.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 1, 2012
The story for Woman in Black is mysterious and begs the viewer for their attention. The opening scenes are depressing and sad, but good building blocks for the over all story. As the movie continues you are filled with questions and suspense. Why do people seem to shun him away? What's their problem? Why is no one cooperative when it comes to dealing with the house and estate? Then, when he finally gets to the house, the subtle creepy sounds, look and events are perfect. Not over the top scary, but enough to put a shiver in your spine. The entire movie is suspenseful, intriguing and creepy-the story line is creative, believeable and heart tugging (especially if you are a parent). I was surprised to see Daniel ratcliff in such a dramatic role so soon after his epic Harry Potter movies, but was pleasantly surprised at his performance. This was a very mature role for him in the wake of his "harry" image. And i must say, I commend him. He did well. A standing ovation! (But it doesn't stop one from screaming "pull out your wand, Harry!" during threatening parts of the film. Ha ha.) Overall, a good movie for horror, suspense and thriller film appreciators alike! I highly recommend The Woman in Black.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 30, 2013
In view of the fact that the original Woman in Black (1989) is not available I suppose this film will have to do. The 1989 version was far more scarier, although there are a few moments in this version that raise the hair a wee bit. The advertisement warns not to view it alone, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The plot, although predictable, is good if you can get by seeing "Harry Potter" where Daniel Radcliffe is concerned. The scenes were shot in very dreary locations and the house is absolutely perfect for conveying the environment needed for the plot to succeed. All of the actors were quite convincing in their respective rolls which added to the films suspense. And I believe that the attitude and superstitions of the local villages was conveyed perfectly.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 2, 2014
I hadn't read the book before watching this movie.

As an author, I wanted to see how this subject was handled. I was interested in the pacing, the plot twists, the setting, and so on.

As a fan of Daniel Radcliffe, I wanted to see how he handled this kind of role.

In general, the pacing was slow, exactly as you'd expect from a classic gothic tale. The setting was a visual delight, and I recommend watching the movie with the commentary turned on (after seeing it, start to finish, without the commentary) to get the most from the way the movie was designed and produced.

Radcliffe's performance was remarkable. Large portions of the movie focus on him, alone, in a mundane (but creepy) setting. He has no dialogue in many (perhaps most) scenes. Despite that, he's able to convey the emotions of the character, and maintain interest. Frankly, his performance is so compelling, it's almost hypnotic.

Unfortunately, the movie isn't completely worthy of Radcliffe's efforts.

One major problem was: the movie didn't convey a solid enough "character in his normal world" foundation at the start of the film. We're too quickly thrown into his grief. Almost from the start, Radcliffe's character is a haunted man. (No pun intended. ) We see him living his life in the shallow, by-the-numbers manner that many grieving people adopt while they recover from a stunning loss.

This film also falters due to some frankly cheesy visual elements. I won't spoil the movie with details, because I think this IS a movie well worth watching, and owning for the special features included in the DVD. However, the very last scene was such a cliche, it spoiled much of what had come before. I couldn't help laughing when I saw it.

I feel that the director tried to be all things to all moviegoers. If he'd remained more faithful to the book, or to a classic "hero's journey" plot, or committed to making this a date-night horror flick, the movie would have been more successful. Instead, it's part art film, part horror, and it's not full satisfying on either count.

I'm reminded of the movie, "The Haunting," based on Shirley Jackson's novel. The 1963 version was a classic -- now a little dated -- and inspired Disney's "Haunted Mansion" attraction. However, the 1999 remake tried to be an updated, more socially relevant tale, and it failed badly. Like "The Woman in Black," it lapsed into cliches at the end.

After seeing the movie, "The Woman in Black," I read the book by Susan Hill. It's a modern classic and follows the well-worn traditions of gothic horror novels. The tale is slow paced and reflective. The book is also very different from the movie, from start to finish.

All in all, I think devoted fans of gothic-style horror will enjoy this film enough to want to own a copy. Just be sure it includes the special features.

And, for authors, this film is a good study of pacing, plotting, and what can make a story compelling, despite other shortcomings. While part of that is a credit to the director and screenwriter, as well as the movie's visual design, I'd give most of the credit to Daniel Radcliffe. He portrays a man numbed by grief, with surges of frustration and plunges into apathy. It's never a one-note or two-note performance, though it easily could have been.

If the producers had committed to making this an artistic, classic gothic tale, and incorporated more of the "hero's journey" structure, this could have become an enduring, five-star, must-see movie.

Fans of Daniel Radcliffe will be impressed with the subtleties of his performance. And, it's still a good movie, if you're a fan of gothic tales or horror films. But, it falls short of being a success for either audience.

Get the DVD and make sure to see the movie with the commentary on, to get the most from this. The special features on the DVD make a world of difference. If I were to see just the film itself, this would have been a three-star review, at best.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 4, 2012
I loved this movie. It was brilliant! If you get this, please take the time to watch the special features and especially the commentary while the movie is going. It harkens back to an older era of film making and it is pure genius. However, if you loved this movie, you're going to love the book even better. I bought the audio book with Paul Ansdell as narrator and rapidly discovered it was similar, but very different from the movie. The movie cannot do justic to the exquisite writting of Susan Hill and her descriptions of things that just are not in the movie. So, get both and be prepared for a fantastic journey!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 6, 2016
Let’s get one thing straight from the start: Woman in Black is only as well reviewed as it is because of all the Daniel Radcliffe fangirls (and boys) who, still fawning over his performance as “Harry,” would have liked this film even if he’d adorned blackface and acted like a chimp. There is nothing that could have sunk this movie at the box office. NOTHING. The only confusing bit about Woman in Black is that people haven’t since come to their senses about how painfully uninspired it is now that the Harry Potter furor has died down (as much as it ever “dies down,” anyway).

Make no mistake, folks. Woman in Black is as cookie cutter as horror gets. (Minor spoilers follow)

Without spending too much time recapping the plot, the gist of the movie is this: Danny-boy is sent to handle some lawyerly papers (which he never gets around to) to do with a deceased woman’s estate; once in town, everyone tries to get rid of him without telling him why, and when he goes to the estate to handle that business he never handles, he encounters—get this—strange things, every single one of which you’ve seen in multiple other horror movies. It’s not even worth recapping what they are—they’re the same worn out devices and jump-scares you get with seemingly every modern horror flick, and there’s no fresh spin on any of it, either.

To the film’s credit, I did make it to about the 1-hour mark before I realized it did not have any redeeming value and was unlikely to develop any, a realization that the last third of the film confirmed. So at least I can compliment the filmmakers for camouflaging how boring the movie is halfway decently. But if that’s the best I can say for it…

Look, folks: The only real item of interest in Woman in Black is determining at what point you’ll get bored when you sit down to watch it. Save your time and money.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 15, 2017
Spoilers................

Boring horror that's paint-by-the-numbers typical ghost film, with noting really scary. The acting is sub par at best, and the special effects are just cheap ghost children in makeup. The ending and it's idiotic plot hole just basically makes Arthur's(Daniel Radcliffe) attempt to reunite son and mother to pass on completed dumb and pointless. Instead of being at peace with finally having her son's body returned to her to move on in the afterlife she decides to still get revenge on him and his kid?!?! Okay...even if they were going for a Grudge like thing with her spirit and curse, it's dumb! Why would her spirit get him and his boy killed, then let them reunite and leave with his wife who died during his kids birth?? It's like the spirit said, "I'll do him a solid, he misses his wife so much I'll kill them both so they can live together in eternal peace.....I'm so nice."

She keeps the souls of all the other kids she's forced to commit suicide, but lets them stay together and leave? That breaks the spirits MO, and it is a bad way of saying "Thanks!" See how dumb that is.....that's basically the train of thought for this plot. Why not just let them live a normal life with a close train scare, or the ghost of Arthur's wife saves them. Something other then that nonsense ending would've been much better.

Wasted a few hours and was hardly entertained....boring and predictable...even the ending they spoil right before the scene at the end starts....urgh.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 6, 2016
Awful. The story line had huge holes. If children were being killed off, why would villagers lock up a children still alive as if that would protect them rather than leaving the village? How could the ghost's dead child's body show little sign of decay when it's mother's remains were nothing but bones? Why after spending the last almost half of the film reuniting the ghost with her dead child's remains and thereby putting the ghost at peace and everyone else at rest that the curse had been lifted, does the ghost suddenly take violent retribution against the main character and his child? The movie had plenty of the typical scary cut-aways, but with the incongruities, and particularly an ending that leaves the viewer wondering "what the . . .?", I can't recommend this to anyone.
11 comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 10, 2013
This is a fine and extremely suspenseful film adaptation of Susan Hill's stellar gothic novel of the same name. The setting of Hill's story fairly oozes with atmosphere, and the film captures the creepy yet romantic vibe really well. Radcliffe is near perfect in the lead role as a grieving widower and young father. On a side note, I was disappointed with the way the screenplay departs from the novel in places, especially at the end, but this is still a film I will revisit as it is high caliber movie-making and I adore the setting and drama the film presents. I also highly recommend reading Hill's original novel--one of the top gothic literary works in my book...
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 10, 2016
I normally don't watch horror movies, but I like Daniel Radcliffe so I decided to watch it. So realistic,it literally gave me chills that warmed my heart in the end.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse