Clevercell Very disappointing...

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Leofwine_draca Regarded by those who have seen it as one of the scariest films ever made, this subtle exercise in haunting terror is more frightening than any other '80s horror film you might care to think of. If you're a fan of the BBC Ghost Story for Christmas series which ran back in the early '70s and used M R James' stories as a basis, then you'll recognise many elements which are similar here. The period setting, the lone, isolated protagonist, and the seriously spooky black-clad figures are all present and correct. Fans of gore-filled slashers need not apply as this is an extremely slow-moving ghost story which relies on a build-up of atmosphere mixed in with the odd physical shock or two to get your pulse racing. While the low budget is apparent, the attention to period detail is great, as is the authentic acting from a mostly unknown cast. Adrian Rawlins and Clare Holman are, in particular, fantastic, Rawlins utterly convincing as the man slowly driven to the edge by the sinister ghost.The supernatural events are some of the most spine-chilling ever put on screen. The parts which affected me greatly were the bits where Kidd hears a carriage crashing into a marsh and the screams of the dying; extremely chilling moments. Also there's another jump-out-of-your-seat moment which comes out of nowhere and is guaranteed to give you nightmares. The ending is downbeat and conjures up a nice sense of impending calamity. In a way it's funny to think that over twenty-five years ago Central Television were capable of producing accurate, classic material like this. They certainly don't make stuff like this anymore. THE WOMAN IN BLACK is a modern classic, and a film which lives up to its reputation as a haunting masterpiece - it's just a shame that so few people have actually seen it!

Johan Louwet This was obviously a TV-movie with a small cast and the focus mostly on lawyer Adrian Rawlins (played by Arthur Kidd) who goes to investigate a house so it can be sold. He gets intrigued by the mysterious fog, the apparitions of the woman in black, the sounds of childish laughter. Even though the movie really dragged in some parts I thought it was done way better than the remake. Everything was way more threatening even if there didn't really happen much. The inclusion of the little doggie as his companion was great too. He eventually goes crazy, who wouldn't. I missed however that the village and the children lived in fear of this spirit, she seems to only haunt poor Adrian.Even though enjoyable I don't think I would re-watch it. The mystery is interesting but it stays pretty vague, the motives of the woman in black too, but that could be me not having understood everything. Still I know much more than when I watched the remake. I do remember very little of the remake only that I was totally unimpressed by it and had a pretty stupid ending. Radcliffe as the lawyer seemed to go pretty emotionless through the scenes while Kidd showed genuine feelings of fear. I think it's just the story which isn't interesting enough for me to give it a high rating.

ctyankee1 A young lawyer named Arthur Kidd gets sent to settle the estate of a woman that died.Nobody in the town likes the people in this house. When he got to the house it was dark and empty. He started hearing noises and having nightmares.It seems a young woman not married had a son and put him up for adoption. The boy later dies.There is a lot of fear and tense moments in the story but it does not explain what the story is about.It had a terrible violent end and I still cannot figure out what the theme of the story was. So there is a woman in black, big deal. She says nothing in the story and just appears on the surface of water and in a cemetery. She is Pauline Moran who played Poirot's secretary in the TV series and is a good actress. The only thing she did was stand in the water and also scream and makes scary faces that terrorized Mr Kidd.Clare Holman/Mrs Kidd plays Inspector Lewis's pathologist/coroner and girlfriend. She is Mr Kidd's wife and is younger than when she played in Lewis.I don't know, maybe I missed half the story, I did fall asleep. But what I did see did not make sense. I saw it on Youtube.

nowanunome OK, so there is a new version in Cinemas right now. Its what made me go find this the original version of the book brought to the big screen. Please don't think me a spoil sport awarding the score I have as I do own a formidable library of what I hope are some of the best films made! I try daily to find and see great movies. OK...the movie...It is filmed in what looks like video for a start. The style also lends somehow to the period. It looks OLD! It starts well enough with great sets, clothes and locations. Everyone so far looks and sounds the part. Its eerie. Its misty. It has the right weird locals (see American Werewolf in London) It builds nicely. There is some suspense there. There is no sign of it being bad for quite a while....there is a graveyard sequence that only helps stoke the imagination into thinking this could be a gem. I mean it is being re made by a big Hollywood studio an a massive budget. It moves to a house on an island where the recently deceased lady who's accounts the solicitor has to root through and make sense of lived. This is when it all becomes quite apparent that the effects and acting department...I mean producing and Direction is blatantly not on the ball. The small budget spent on actors shows through. It goes from bad to worse. When does this happen? Well in what I have read to be the most chilling scene in the movie. THE ONLY chilling (can you call it chilling after seeing it) scene in the movie. The make up is so awful!! The acting gets worse. The story more unbelievable. Maybe it was heavily edited or just badly. It starts to make little sense. The ending which I won't spoil is...well...it left me open mouthed as to why I had bothered to watch a movie that I should have first looked up properly in critics reviews. As I have seen no really great critics had said anything on it! OK it got a 7.4! That is why I felt obliged to warn some other poor viewer not to waste time seeing this! The new 2012 movie looks great, it also seems to be truer to the original book. Watch this at your peril!!!