karlmardson One of the most underrated horror films ever made, this made for TV film shows how to employ atmosphere and vibe on a minimal budget and get away with flying results. The entire film, shot on 16mm film and shot on location is scary from start to end. The story is already pretty well known- A young solicitor is invited to a far flung location to see a strange happening: A female ghost terrorizing the land. It is based on a novel and a famous Daniel Radcliffe version was also made recently in 2012, but this is the film to watch in my opinion.

vishnu-dileep08 The story is basically about a young man who travels to a village and comes across to know that the village is being terrorized with someone that has a vengeful mind.If you want to get good scares this movie had all those elements such as unexpected scares, spooky toys, children, etc.For me there were still something messed up with the story line for example the occupation of the hero, why did he come to that house in the village at the first place and the flash back story of the woman I had to do research and get all the details I needed to know but it could have been explained much more better in the movie and not complicate things. Acting vise Daniel Radcliffe did a wonderful job as well as the others. The ending of the movie was also really good and unexpected. Will be looking forward to seeing the sequel soon and reviewing that title tooPersonally I would recommend this movie to anyone.Notable ActingDaniel Radcliffe his other famous movies you can watch are the harry potter series and many moreCiaran Hinds his other famous movies you can watch is frozen and many moreMy Rating 7/10

Jon Corelis The Woman in Black, is the best known version of a story which began as a novel and was made into a 1989 TV movie and a play, and has been followed by a sequel film. Starring Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame, and featuring Ciarán Hinds (Mance Rayder in Game of Thrones) and Roger (DI Fred Thursday in Endeavour,) The Woman in Black is an old fashioned Gothic horror story, set in a creepy house in a remote weird village, where the disconsolate ghost of a woman who had lost her child takes vengeance by killing the children of the village. Radcliffe plays a young lawyer sent to sort out the affairs of the house's deceased owner. The film is a mixed bag: the early 20th century atmosphere is very vividly realized, and the film gets its effect from well done continual menace rather than gory special effects. It's been criticized for going through every horror film cliché in the books -- mysteriously hostile village yokels, a haunted mansion, furniture moving with no one in it, etc. -- though these standard characteristics are very well done. My main dissatisfaction personally is that the film sets us up for a basically happy ending which it then fails to deliver.You'll want to watch this if you are a real fan of ghost stories. The CBS Films Blu-Ray disc is of excellent quality. Advisory: rated PG 13, the main caution is that some people (not everyone) say they find it genuinely scary.

Tarx I don't often watch horror movies, but this was an exception. I don't dislike the genre, I just prefer others. However I had heard good things about this movie and was able to watch it for free so I sat down with some friends and gave it a try. For the first act, I enjoyed it quite a lot. The lead character, played by Daniel Radcliffe, is by far the strongest part of the movie and as the entire first act was focusing on his characterisation I enjoyed it a lot. Daniel Radcliffe was perfectly cast in a refreshingly different role for him; he was realistic enough to believe and a well written character for the purpose of the story. My only gripe is that there were a couple of false notes in Daniel Radcliffe's acting which stood out once or twice, but nothing big. The rest of the cast is agreeable as well; the only other main cast member, Ciarán Hinds' Sam Daily was believable and did his job well, even if his character lacked an interesting enough arc. A major issue with this movie is that it is traditional and clichéd to a fault. The characters are very traditional to such a horror movie (there is of course the frightened locals and the sceptical rich guy who won't believe a word of ghost stories), and there are also the traits and clichés that you might find in any 90's horror movie. The third act is especially weak. It becomes unbearably traditional, in that it lacks originality. However the worst part of the movie by far is the extremely poor ending that not only undermines the rest of the movie but makes everything up to that point look weak. It's over the top, very predictable and perhaps even silly. Still, at least the movie doesn't bore.There are a few other ups and downs about this movie. There are some genuinely effective jump scares, and some good set pieces that work well to create the mood. The writing and directing is good enough, but nothing special. The soundtrack is good and sticks out in multiple scenes, and thus lifting the movie somewhat. Finally there is some poor editing (in particular in the sound department) that needs to be fixed, but nothing too big. In the end you will probably enjoy the majority of this movie, which is helpfully lifted by Daniel Radcliffe, but even he can't save some of the movie's flaws, in particular the very weak ending.