The Woman in Black
162 user reviews
7.3
/10
| Average votes grouped by age and by sex: | |||||||
| Age: | 1-12 | 13-17 | 18-25 | 26-35 | 36-49 | 50+ | Total |
| Men: Votes: |
9 1 |
7.7 8 |
5.9 10 |
7.8 13 |
7.4 24 |
7.3 15 |
7.3 71 |
| Women: Votes: |
8.5 4 |
7.7 24 |
8.2 18 |
6.7 12 |
6.3 15 |
6.3 6 |
7.3 81 |
| Total: Votes: |
8.6 5 |
7.8 34 |
7 31 |
7.3 26 |
6.9 39 |
7 22 |
7.3 162 |
| Total includes those who didn't specify sex. | |||||||
Reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 162)
Terrible... it's boring when nobody dies in a movie, like sign. Terrible "suspense" and btw Daniel is terrible overall. [...]
| 3/10 | lolyoublow@ - 123 reviews 5.27.2013 - age: 18-25 |
Not a great movie, there isn't much to the plot and the ending was poorly done. Some chills and thrills but definitely not the most exciting horror flick out there.
| 6/10 | jjackzhang@ - 9 reviews 2.18.2013 - age: 18-25 |
I never saw the old one but when I heard this one I had to see it. Daniel Radcliff (Harry Potter in Harry Potter movies) plays a young lawyer trying to sell an abandoned house where all of the family died. And that's when he meets The Woman In Black. Gave me chills from beginnig to end! Loved It!
| 8/10 | lance.g2012@ - 46 reviews 12.31.2012 - age: 13-17 |
The first time I watched it, I thought it was a pretty much standard classic horror flick, however, with a few more viewings, I think it is a really good classic horror flick.
| 9/10 | j10man@ - 2 reviews 10.29.2012 - age: 26-35 |
Not a terrible movie had a few jump parts, not all in all actually scary most movies aren't though. Radcliff did an alright job with the part I just felt at times it was dull and boring, good late night watch though.
| 6/10 | jer_duarte@ - 96 reviews 7.9.2012 - age: 18-25 |
I thought the movie was ok and somewhat scary but not at all exceptional. So a decent movie for a DVD rental on a scary-mood night.
| 6/10 | sacoca_@ - 656 reviews 5.23.2012 - age: 26-35 |
Reminded me of the old Hammer films out of the UK back in the 60's, especially the atmospheric house with the cobwebs, creaky staircases and locked doors. I enjoyed it mostly in the beginning then it sort of became a one trick pony. Radcliffe was good. The ending had to be one way or the other...
| 7/10 | richardstoller@ - 23 reviews 4.25.2012 - age: 50+ |
Not bad for a rental that is. Lots of shockers here and there. It was scary enough and it was also meaningful. A very slow going scary movie.
| 7/10 | shazjoao@ - 1748 reviews 4.19.2012 |
Had some "jump out of your seat" parts, but over all the movie was slow and a bit confusing. I wouldn't pay to see it again and probably seeing it even once, was enough.
| 5/10 | mayson7@ - 10 reviews 4.18.2012 - age: 36-49 |
I admit, I was mostly curious to see Daniel Radcliffe play his first mature role after "Harry Potter". He did not disappoint. The film is an excellent old fashioned ghost story in its truest sense and I can see why it's the highest grossing UK horror film in 20 yrs. There are wonderful scenes set in an Edwardian England's village and at the creepy Eel Marsh House. The fact it is set on a marsh tidal flat becoming an isolated island twice daily is brilliant. Don't miss the wonderful shots of the Silver Ghost Rolls Royce driven by the supporting actor Ciaran Hinds (who incidently played Prof. Dumbledore's brother in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) It may be the most valuable and beautiful car ever made. The sound track is perfect for the mood of this excellent film. Composer Marco Beltrami has a successful soundtrack album from the film to prove it. Delightfully Frightening.
| 8/10 | roy.vanluven@ - 9 reviews 4.16.2012 - age: 50+ |
Really enjoyed this movie, at times it sent chills through my body. A well done suspense, supernatural, thriller. Bravo two thumbs up.
| 8/10 | harveypeter@ - 20 reviews 4.4.2012 - age: 36-49 |
I came into this movie expecting something mediocre. Instead I got one of the scariest movies this year! I found this movie scarier than any of the paranormal activities! Daniel has moved on from Harry Potter!
| 8/10 | jejs19@ - 42 reviews 3.24.2012 - age: 13-17 |
If you don't watch this kind of movies often, I'm sure you would find it scary. I've been a scary movie fanatic for a LONG time and I found that lady screeming actualy a bit funny... the movie was alright... Did not like the end at all!!!
| 6/10 | kidatheart@ - 38 reviews 3.24.2012 - age: 36-49 |
This movie is incredibly creepy with lots of pop-outs, I recommend it to anyone, the creepiest movie of 2012!
| 8/10 | v_morozova_b@ - first review 3.22.2012 - age: 13-17 |
It's scary, it's awesome, and Daniel Radcliffe is amazing. Perfect movie if you love suspense.
| 9/10 | jesusofsuburbiagreendayju@ - first review 3.16.2012 - age: 13-17 |
Super scary! I had my eyes closed a lot of the time.
| 9/10 | larianne123@ - first review 3.16.2012 - age: 18-25 |
It was what I would expect with a haunted house, horror, thriller type movie. Sets very well done.
| 7/10 | wing.rider@ - 36 reviews 3.14.2012 - age: 50+ |
A good old ghost story. It has its moments as far as creeping you out goes. But it's the old fashioned stuff where you can still watch while being scared -- that's important, otherwise, why go? I'd see it again. And watch. And be creeped out... FUN!
| 7/10 | damedenise@ - 11 reviews 3.14.2012 - age: 50+ |
It is terrifying yet brilliant. Never letting me down. I could sense when something would happen then BAM it would happen. Thrilling, Thrilling movie.
| 10/10 | corndogs94@ - 2 reviews 3.13.2012 - age: 26-35 |
This movie was good but I tought I would be more scared, it did not live up to my expectations, but Daniel Radcliff was really great!
| 7/10 | lamarks@ - 10 reviews 3.8.2012 - age: 36-49 |
It was very well done artisticly, and actually very creepy.
| 9/10 | sandee624@ - first review 3.8.2012 - age: 18-25 |
Finally, a coherent supernatural suspense/thriller. :-) It's a ghost story.
| 9/10 | queenink81@ - first review 3.8.2012 |
If you like the Gothic suspense/horror movies this is very good. You must like this genre before you go see it or there is no point in you seeing it. The ghosts, the mirrors, the slamming doors, sudden appearances to spook you. Perfect - ly scarrry.
| 9/10 | ildiko.t@ - 20 reviews 3.6.2012 - age: 50+ |
Daniel Radcliffe is as wooden as a plank. But this was scary, my friend screamed and screamed.
| 6/10 | dannimac@ - 67 reviews 3.6.2012 - age: 36-49 |
It's a great movie and pretty scary as well! A lot of creepy and scary moments happened. I would recommend this movie to those who love sad and horror movies!
| 8/10 | marcr103@ - 51 reviews 3.6.2012 - age: 13-17 |
Did not hear about the movie before so was unexpectedly great! Of course I expected Radcliffe to come out with his wand at some point however the location alone was well portrayed for the piece as well the story line was somewhat different.
| 8/10 | pulki@ - 11 reviews 3.6.2012 - age: 26-35 |
The woman in black isn't scary but has a good story.
| 7/10 | canadian_4life_26@ - 17 reviews 3.5.2012 - age: 18-25 |
I enjoyed this movie! I found it very suspenseful and in places, positively nerve racking! I sat on the edge of my seat - I even covered my eyes at one point because I was so apprehensive about what would happen next! I haven't done that since I was a kid! My heart was racing and can you believe it? I went on my own!
| 8/10 | ken.bren@ - 2 reviews 3.5.2012 - age: 36-49 |
Keeps you on your seat and always wanting to know what happens next! One of the best scary movies that messes with your mind from start to finish!
| 9/10 | alloraw@ - first review 3.4.2012 - age: 13-17 |
I was expecting it to be scarier than for a frightening movie. It was ok, but could have been better.
| 6/10 | ditiberia@ - 85 reviews 3.4.2012 - age: 36-49 |
When I went into this movie I was hoping it was going to be like one of thoes old scary house thrillers that would be unforgettable but it turned out to be one of those moves that relied on boo scares and I did not even jump at all, the only thing that is scary is the atmosphere and the dolls that don't even see that much. But the story and the end are what saved the movie for me and the acting as well. It was not bad or great, it was solid 6.9/10.
| 7/10 | canadian26_4life_@ - first review 3.4.2012 - age: 18-25 |
The movie, was really exciting. Some parts, didn't really make sense. I wouldn't really recommend it to anybody, but I guess you could say it was a good movie. It really frightened my husband.
| 5/10 | fatima1@ - first review 3.3.2012 - age: 36-49 |
I was disappointed, not very scary, just some creepy moments that are not enough to endure the whole movie.
| 6/10 | beachandtennis@ - 242 reviews 2.29.2012 - age: 50+ |
Loved it! This movie is the best horror film I have seen in a while!
| 10/10 | amanda.elena@ - 6 reviews 2.28.2012 - age: 18-25 |
It started off really boring to me... then scenes would become unexpected filled with little things to scared you, and the ending ended very dumb but overall it was an okay movie! I expected much more than this though, Daniel Radcliffe is a good actor.
| 6/10 | dee94@ - 5 reviews 2.25.2012 - age: 13-17 |
It was a gr8 movie! The was a lot of action and some of the parts even made me jump! Worth seeing I would want to watch it a second time.
| 9/10 | amandahes1@ - first review 2.24.2012 - age: 1-12 |
Really good movie if you're looking for thrills and chills.
| 9/10 | troyrocks55@ - first review 2.23.2012 - age: 13-17 |
Scary movie, had some pretty intense scenes, but I did not think it was the greatest scary movie ever. Still it is worth seeing.
| 7/10 | georgiana.stroe@ - 84 reviews 2.22.2012 - age: 26-35 |
I would give it a ten but Daniel Radcliffe is a horrible actor. In trying desperately not to be Harry Potter his performance was wooden. Otherwise it was a very enjoyable movie.
| 9/10 | bognay@ - 5 reviews 2.22.2012 - age: 26-35 |
I thought is was a great movie, because the suspense and the woman was scary. I haven't jumped so munch in a while, I had to sometimes cover my eyes, but couldn't because I had to know what was coming next. I also screamed in some of the scenes. I give it a thumbs up!!!
| 8/10 | lkjones2005@ - first review 2.22.2012 - age: 36-49 |
It is such a good movie I loved it even though I threw the popcorn a couple times, it is so good watch it, the woman in black is so creepy she wears all black.
| 10/10 | aleahskyybird@ - first review 2.21.2012 - age: 1-12 |
I found this movie was really well done, it had a very good story line for a thriller movie, watch this movie if you want a good scare.
| 8/10 | amjhabsfan@ - 5 reviews 2.20.2012 - age: 13-17 |
This looks like a really GREAT movie definitely to see and worth the money and time I could watch it all day everyday :)!!! :D ;D :0
| 10/10 | sabihabird23@ - first review 2.20.2012 - age: 50+ |
I thought this was going to be a cookie-cutter haunted house type of movie, but it turned out to be a movie that I lost myself in. Excellently crafted and keeps you interested from beginning to end. The ending still gives me shivers.
| 8/10 | troyrog001@ - first review 2.20.2012 - age: 36-49 |
I wouldn't qualify this movie as "scary", but more like eerie. I like the dark, mysterious atmosphere during the movie. The plot is rather twisted and keeps you guessing almost until the end. I've never seen any of the Harry Potter movies myself, so it's a first time seeing Daniel Radcliffe on the big screen, and as something else than a magician. He's grown-up now and delivers a fine performance, along with Ciaran Hinds. Would be interesting to see him in other dramatic roles.
| 7/10 | thejpster@ - 4 reviews 2.19.2012 - age: 36-49 |
Note: User reviews posted on this page are personal opinions of our readers. We are not responsible for their content.
Did you see ''The Woman in Black''?
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
© 2007-2013 Movie Clock Corporation
