jordanpeabody Herbert Wise's Woman in Black is a blueprint on how a film should be made in order to scare the intelligent audience. Adapted from a book by the same name this Television film has one of the creepiest ghosts ever put on film- and she is there standing in broad daylight! The atmosphere is haunting and the pristine 16mm film stock lends itself well to the tone of the film. A remake starring Daniel Radcliffe was made in 2012 but it does away with everything that this film stands for-a minimalist approach. You should definitely see this movie- it maybe hard to procure but the entire film exists on you-tube.

ryan-10075 Adrian Rawlins plays Arthur Kidd a solicitor who has been sent by his firm to settle the estate of Alice Drablow who has just passed away. Kidd looks at this as a chance to impress the firm with dreams of receiving a partnership. Soon thereafter he witnesses a dark and mysterious woman in black. He also hears horrible noises and voices when near the Nine Lives Causeway (aptly named) that leads to the isolated house. Kidd works on unwinding the mystery of the home.This is a TV movie, but I actually find it scarier than most over done Hollywood horror movies. They don't do it with buckets of blood, but rather with perhaps more subtlety, with sounds and a ghost story that takes time to develop, but is well worth the wait.I really do give screenwriter Nigel Kneale and director Herbert Wise credit for taking the Susan Hill novel which was a pretty darn good horror story and creating this great horror movie that does not stray that far from the novel (if my memory serves correct). I do apologize as I certainly do not remember everything from the novel as I read it a few years back, but I do remember that I really enjoyed it. Had me on the edge of my seat, which this movie does.Highly recommended to those who love a good ghost story.

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.

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!!!