While the original isn't exactly a classic, very due to the TV movie cinematography, all over the place pacing and some minor plot problems it does have a great sense of spookiness and drives into psychological horror very nicely, this remake turns the whole story (including the woman herself) into a generic haunted house fair, full of jump scares, awful CGI and an idiotic final 20 minutes.
After seeing the play - and loving it - I was very disappointed with this film. The theatre production, though pared down considerably in content and 'frights' was much better at creating an atmosphere of suspense and genuine fear with a real 'oh shit' moment at the end. This film gave way too much away (often repeatedly in case you did get it the first time), the story went nowhere and the acting was mostly awful.
I loved it. Hammer still has it and I was legitimately creeped out. The story was simple but the atmosphere and cinematography were enough to keep me off balance before blindsiding me with an ending that I really should've seen coming. I love seeing movies do so much with so little.
Old fashioned and more than a little dry British ghost story adapted from the story by scriptwriter Jane Goldman. Atmospheric but never frightening, eerie but not really suspenceful. One logic gap: why would anyone continue to live there??? Radcliffe unable to shake his Potter image here and should move away from genre pics. Handsome production and good to see the Hammer name but need something with a little teeth.
The story at times seems a bit contrived, but overall its an effective and enjoyable film. The mis en scene was stunning, especially the set design. Watkins does an excellent job creating a believably haunting atmosphere. I enjoyed the subtle horror more than the jumps, but the jumps did what they intended to do. I think we may be seeing the beginning of some life in the horror genre again. 4 stars.
Disappointing. Not scary (obviously aimed at a non-adult audience), didn't find DR particulalry convincing but the most disappointing thing for me is that the ending of the film has been changed to that of the book. In the book Arthur does not die. Seems Hollywood studio film audiences must always be catered to, & apparently can't cope with an unhappy ending - as in Spoorloos (The Vanishing), and countless others.
Quite effective in its scares and creepiness, but overall bit ridiculous. Ask the movie "why?" and it falls to pieces. For instance, while Radcliffe indeed gives a good performance, his character is essentially nothing more than a guinea pig for the audience. Why is he opening that door? Why is he going up those stairs? "Because the script told me to" would be the most likely answer.
It was surprisingly easy to look past the Harry Potter franchise associated with Daniel Radcliffe's face, which is key for enjoyment. Otherwise, the ghostly apparitions and jump scares were aplenty (and really a lot of fun). The soundtrack was eerie and the production design was drab and misty (just like you'd expect from a ghost story). Overall it was a surprisingly entertaining movie.