Krishna
Two things stand out when you go to see the Woman in Black: The period piece set up is fantastic and you see no traces of Harry Potter reminders in Daniel Ratcliffe, whose first post Potter movie is this one. He is convincing as a husband and father of a young boy.
First, the period setting. The village Crythin Gifford and the mansion that Daniel, a young real estate agent, is trying to sell are done well. The extra detail of the lonely path being isolated also adds a bit of an eerie factor to the movie. It is an old type thriller because it is an old movie remake and it happens in the Victorian era.
The story is well told and comes together well. The villagers’ animosity, the cast of characters, all seem to be selected to add the creep value and the foggy British environment adds to the mystery.
All good so far but the movie seems to sag at times, and you feel that Daniel is going alone interminably from room to room in the creepy environment to add to the horror value. The classic scream moments could have been from any movie and in some places are even predictable.
The ending is unexpected (for me) and that was a good twist. Did the movie seem longer than it is for any of you due to the drag factor? Or am I alone in this?
The movie is reasonably good and is worth a visit. You would not come away from it feeling greatly satisfied or full of admiration, but you would not regret having gone there either.
So, the child who plays the son of Daniel (or Arthur Kipps to give him his character name) is a girl? Interesting!
Let us say 6/10
— Krishna