The Woman in Black (2012)

McCarthy finds it an enjoyable, effective revival of old-fashioned British horror, with Daniel Radcliffe carrying the film capably. He praises the atmospheric locations and production design, and calls the ending perfect.

Richards finds the film a highly effective, unsettling ghost story, despite a weaker, overly neat ending. He especially praises James Watkins’ sustained tension and the sparing glimpses of the ghost.

Linden finds the film an effective, old-fashioned Gothic ghost story whose straightforwardness ultimately strengthens it. She especially praises the isolated manor’s production design and the film’s mounting, morbid unease.

The page identifies this as Mark Adams’s review, but its verdict is unavailable in the accessible text. No specific praise or criticism can be confirmed from the paywall shell.

Jones calls it a classy but cliché-ridden ghost story, giving it a positive overall verdict. He praises Daniel Radcliffe’s performance and the film’s efficient adaptation of the source novel.

Huddleston gives the film a three-star assessment. The standfirst singles out Daniel Radcliffe’s challenge in moving beyond his youthful image.

Glasby finds the film an enjoyably efficient, eerie fright flick, despite a cheesy ending. He praises its tangible atmosphere and Radcliffe’s terrific performance as a haunted man.

Felperin finds the film an effective, if familiar, haunted-house horror that loses energy in its second half. She praises its creepy production design and atmosphere, while criticizing Daniel Radcliffe’s lack of charisma and the sentimental ending.

Phipps finds the film scary but slight, with its story losing coherence as it goes. He praises the oppressive atmosphere and unsettling production design, while criticizing the cheap jump scares and weak final act.

The critic finds the film works reasonably well but lacks real punch. The familiar scares and serviceable screenplay are singled out as weaknesses.

Gonzalez finds the film’s atmospheric setting effective but says its story and character psychology are weak. He praises the chilly marshland imagery while criticizing the reliance on clichés and jolting scares.

French finds the adaptation efficient and handsomely designed, but more conventional than Susan Hill’s novella. He particularly misses the original’s dated narration and the way it draws readers into the protagonist’s memory of terror.

Edelstein dismisses the film as a plodding, emotionally hollow ghost story. He praises its expressionist interiors and Janet McTeer’s performance, but finds its scares largely ineffective.

Gray recommends the film as an effective, frightening adaptation, while noting that it has a few minor flaws. He praises its brooding atmosphere, striking production design, and Radcliffe’s intelligent performance.

Lambie finds the film an old-fashioned but highly effective ghost story. He especially praises James Watkins’s energetic direction and the lighting, cinematography, and editing that build scares through anticipation rather than gore.

The review finds the film a largely successful, suspenseful gothic horror, though its story lacks incident and its pace sags. It singles out Daniel Radcliffe’s convincing performance and the eerie atmosphere created by the direction, cinematography, and score.

The critic calls it an exceptionally effective and compelling horror film, despite a few awkward dialogue and story changes. Its sustained tension and understated scares are especially praised.

The critic finds the film an effective old-fashioned ghost story that gets more right than wrong. The atmospheric production design and Radcliffe’s performance stand out, though repeated scares and sudden loud noises are criticized.

The critic finds the film effective at building suspense but ultimately let down by a muddled, disastrous ending. They praise James Watkins’s foreboding atmosphere and the unsettling haunted-house production design.