I really love Hammer films so I'm going to be a bit biased in this review because this film was truly a Hammer film.  If that's what they were after when they made it then they succeeded with flying colours.  

Will the dated Gothic atmosphere and ghostly storyline turn some people off?  Yes, but not me.  This atmosphere and the storyline of this film were perfect - for a Hammer film.

What was wrong about it?  Well, first off,  even for a Hammer film the ending is a bit corny -- and if it's me saying that then you should definitely believe it to be true.   As a matter of fact, I wavered a bit on whether or not I liked this film until I removed the ending from my decision making process.

But enough about that.  Who else wouldn't like it?  People who don't care for jump scares won't like this movie because the movie is built on them.  And some of those jump scares are executed masterfully.   I don't often jump at movies, but I did at this one.

The other thing people might complain about is that Harry Potter is in the movie.  The good thing is that he doesn't resemble HP anymore and that he's had just enough acting experience to pull a role like this off - not that the role required any huge stretch of anyone's acting ability (Look sad, Look brave, look afraid...)

One cool thing in this movie is the toys in one of the rooms.  They were so creepy.  I don't have a particular fear of clowns but there was one clown toy in this movie that just was...  well, if you see the movie you'll understand.

And there you have it.  If you like Hammer films, you'll probably like this movie minus about five minutes of the ending.  If you don't like Hammer films or Gothic Horror then stay away or something bad will happen.  

Quoted from mcornetto I really love Hammer films so I'm going to be a bit biased in this review because this film was truly a Hammer film.  If that's what they were after when they made it then they succeeded with flying colours.

Hey Michael,

I'm pretty stoked to check this one out.
Hammer films released a isolated village horror flick last year.
Have you seen "Wake Wood"?



I enjoyed the first 80 minutes a ton.

Regards,
E.D.

I did see Wake Wood and I thought it was a pretty good Hammer flick, worth the watch.  However, they did much better with The Woman in Black (except for the last 5 minutes).

Saw Wakewood on Netflix couple weeks ago. Never posted a review. They had me going early. Really intrigued. Thought it lost its way towards the end. Will watch the Woman in Black when I get the chance.

James

Haven't sen Woman in Black, but did see Wakewood on Netflix and agree early on it looked like it would be really good, but I thought it got downright ridiculous once the kid was brought back - and I actually fell asleep even, and had to watch it again the following night.

I got to agree about 'Wake Wood', I was pretty disappointed by it. It started with a good eerie feel but it went a bit stupid by the end. I do really want to see 'The Woman in Black' though. I'm a huge fan of Hammer and grew up watching the originals on vhs, glad to see them making good horrors again.

I pretty much agree with all you said, Michael, apart from how you view the ending. It was a tad trite, I guess, but it completed the story for me. There was a definite sense of having gone full circle. It's hard (for me, at least) to envisage an ending that brings that same sense of completion to the story.

James Watkins evidently knows what he's doing and I agree that he handled the tension and 'jumps' like a man who knows his stuff. Viewed on its own, The Woman in Black is a tad slow but ultimately delivers. I found Radcliffe to be a little unconvincing, but acknowledge that may be in part to my own baggage in viewing him as Harry Potter. I do wish Watkins had taken a project with the energy and freshness he explored with Eden Lake as his follow up, though. But that's unfair on the film.

The set design and wardrobe stood out - they did an excellent job of creating the period. I don't recall the score in any way (I did view it a couple of weeks back), so can only say it must have been adequate rather than memorable.

I guess my only real disappointment was that they underutilised Shaun Dooley who as well as being an excellent actor, almost stole the show at the ending of Eden Lake.

Not a bad film at all, really.

I liked this, wasn’t expecting much but came away very satisfied. I think the scares were well done and Mr. Potter did what was required from him. I actually liked the ending, very corny but tied up our portag’s journey.

One of my only disappointments would that I didn’t see this in the cinema because a lot of the scares would have been a lot better in the theatre.

Another interesting fact I found while trying to figure out what time period this movie was set in, the Rolls Royce in this movie is considered the most valuable vehicle in the world with an insured value of 35 million dollars. Now that’s insurance.

Anyway, a good movie to turn the lights off and the volume up to add to the atmosphere. I’ll be honest and say that I jumped a couple of times during this one.

I saw this a few weeks ago and it just didn't really impact me at all. It had really great production values, and the acting was acceptable. Not award-worthy, but still decent. It's real weakness is that it relies heavily on shock value to make it scary, and yet there's very little shock value at all in the film. The "creepiness" wears off after about ten minutes and then it's just boring.

I give it a C+.

I'm thrilled to see Hammer Films enjoy boxoffice success with this one.
It's only the third film under the new regime. And it was a very profitable venture.
It was a bold move to cast Radcliffe untested post Harry Potter.
Maybe that's why they got him right away!

The production is great and Radcliffe is serviceable in the role.
But I too was left wanting by the resolution.
The story felt malnourished to me. I wanted dessert too.

Typical Hammer fare dictates the protag's flaw drive the story.
And that will usually result in their demise if they don't rise above it.
I never felt Radcliffe's flaw come through.
Quite the opposite in fact with the disenchanting ending.
Hence a less satisfying horror experience for me.

There's a prequel in the works, but I'll pass on that.
But this one is definitely worth 90 minutes, even without a full blooded ending.

E.D.

Very enjoyable.

Had that classic Hammer, Gothicky vibe, but was brought up to date with the modern style scares.

Nothing new, but the production work on the house and the locations really sold it for me. The house looked great.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

The ending left me slightly confused as to why they got off with having to hang around the woman in black at the end...I think the fact his wife is sort of around throughout the film means it makes sense...she comes to essentially save them...but it felt a bit cruel that innocent children were doomed for all eternity just because no-one was around to help them.

I too like some of the old Hammer films, even though I haven't seen any in years. Seen both versions of The Woman in Black, wasn't a fan of either.

Extremely dull and slow as a jar of molasses.  I actually fell asleep numerous times and then gave up long before the finale.

I'm with you Jeff, I thought it was very boring. Thought HP did well, but the film itself just wasn't up to my speed.  

It was pretty slow.

It worked for me though...I think the slowness added to the feeling of isolation and suited the period it was set in, and the location.