I was lucky to see Nigel Kneale interviewed at the BFI (as I remember it was after a showing of The Stone Tapes). He talked about this adaptation of TWIB (the opening of which coincidentally was filmed on the road in London I was living on at the time). NK said that he finished the screenplay in two weeks. But he was reluctant to send it to the BBC because he was worried, that as he had completed it so quickly, the Beeb might think he wasn’t really interested in the job and had rushed it out. So he stuck it in a drawer for a few weeks, then submitted the script to make it look like he had laboured over it more than he had.
This scared the hell out of me. When he feels his hair stands on end on the moor and he turns around to see her. His nightmare and she's above him is a big shock
dare i say, it’s a cerebral horror? the sounds play tricks on your mind, you don’t need to see the creepiness to know that it’s happening to the character and you don’t need to know everything to understand that it’s happening…the mind fills in the gaps
The Woman In Black is unique for me, in that the book, that TV adaptation, the play, the audiobook and even the Hammer film version have all scared the hell out of me. If I had to pick my favourite, aside from the book it would be the TV version.
I don't recall now how I happened to be watching this with my father in 1989, but I do remember being shocked by the only time I ever saw him visibly scared by a tv show / movie.
Matter of fact gothic. Well put, personally I love the gothic tropes in Poe adaptations and the modern gothic aesthetic but that is a superb phrase which captures a style in British film and tv from the 30s to the 80s.
After my mum, brother, sister and I saw the stage production as children, we were all so scared that we all ended up sleeping together in our mum's bed that night.
I remember seeing this adaptation on American TV around the late 80's early 90's: PBS, maybe? It was brilliant and effective. Well deserving of a restoration and a new release.
Your description of the modern broad strokes approach to gothic vs this movie's matter of fact gothic setting makes me think of the 80's. In the movies it's all neon fashion with posters on the wall and other garish visions, but in actuality there was a lot more of wood paneling, wood veneer, and amber ashtrays.
Actually, I read the Susan Hill book before the release of the 2012 film. While I enjoyed the book, I felt disappointed by the 2012 film. Though it got its gothic setting down pat, the film suffered from too many unnecessary jump scares. I understand (and your review seems to confirm) that the 1989 is much more of an atmospheric and unsettling experience, which sounds more like the book. I will definitely check this film version out.
This movie is pretty chilling. The book is also an excellent work & has one of the most tragic endings all from a good deed, but the spirit is an angry revenant who just wants to hurt for the wrong done to her. Also if you ever see it on-stage, it’s pretty scary as it’s really a 3 person show and the sound design makes it so freaky; I had nightmares cause I was a kid
This is my favourite horror film of all time. I would strongly urge everyone to check it out! There are certain moments that under the right viewing conditions will stick with you forever, they certainly have in my case, it really gets under my skin! Fantastic film, much better than the (still decent) Daniel Radcliffe Hammer version!
I'm glad you reviewed this, as it deserves to be better known. As an American, it wasn't available here, as far as I know, although it may have been shown on National Public Television here. If so, I missed it. However, I had read a lot of positive reviews on it, and as a horror movie fan, I had to have it. This goes back about 20 years now, and I actually found a DVD of it on an obscure Canadian label ('Carbon' was the name). I'm really not sure if it was a legitimate release or not, but I did buy it from an established seller, and it is a Region 1 (U.S. and Canada) version. The video and audio quality is really good. But to the actual title...to me, it is one of the best ghost stories I have ever seen, ranking up there with classics like the original 'The Haunting'. The atmosphere depicted was superb, the tension nearly unbearable and with a couple of really scary scenes that made me jump. Any fan of movies about ghosts really should hunt this down. I did see the later, 'new' Hammer Studios version. There was a lot I liked about that movie, especially the cinematography; the acting was solid and the special effects well done, but in spite of that, I definitely prefer this television version. To me, the film version just went too far astray from the core story from the British version, and too heavy on the CGI stuff. I probably would not watch the film again, but this is deserving of repeated, periodic viewing.
I own the now out of print Region 1 DVD by BFS Entertainment released in 2000. It is indeed one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. The Woman in Black herself, played by Pauline Moran, is pure nightmare fuel. The look of her deathly pale face and red-misted eyes gave me a lot of sleepless nights. The scenes where she evilly stares at Arthur Kidd in the marshes and when she hovers over and shrieks towards him are truly terrifying! Forget the 2012 version, this is the one to see!
I was not aware of the existence of a stage version. I've read the novel and seen both films, and I think the issue with adapting it is that the book really did have a weak ending, which (not to spoil anything) takes place years after the events of the main story and seems to be disconnected from them. The shock ending of Nigel Kneale's version came out of nowhere. I think the 2012 Hammer version had the best ending of the three. It followed logically and brought closure.
Supernatural horror is my favorite and this was one of the scariest ones I'd ever seen. It overridden my rational brain and made me afraid of the dark on the evening I watched it. The newer adaptation with Ratcliffe was pretty shitty. And you put it so well with 'matter-of-fact Gothic' that's the kind of aesthetic I imagine when reading ghost stories like from MR James and Algernon Blackwood. all those Ghost Stories for Christmas adaptions shared in that style.
I knew I'd heard of this, since I had seen the Radcliffe adverts when that film was coming out; kind of amused that he had a connection to the film before starring in a remake. I'll have to look this up, thanks for covering it.
Not having enough money to make a film with has long been a problem for my friends and I as we plan our first movie. They disagree with me on one point though. I'm the only one who thinks we could make the inside of our 1974 Ford van look like the interior of an Apollo space capsule if we rip up the carpet and take down the Led Zeppelin posters.
Apparently, the interior of the Apollo 11 Command Module (CM-107), "Columbia", contained a full-sized roller-disco; that's how far ahead of their times NASA was.
I very much like the Daniel Radcliffe version. I tried watching this years ago and just shut it off as I didn't think it was creepy at all. Will try to give it another go. Thanks!
Read the book, seen the play twice I think and listened to the audiobook. All great. Not a fan of the 2012 film, that ending. Probably the best ghost story I've gotten into. Thanks for letting me know this is available
I only saw parts of this when I was pretty young, and I have to say the scene where she comes in above the bed absolutely terrified the stuffing out of me. I almost don't want to go back to it because I'm sure it won't compare to a 7-year-old's imagination and the subsequent years of building it up.
@@franzferdinand2 Hell, it disturbed me and I'm over 50. If I'd been a kid, my heart would have jumped out of my throat and splatted against the ceiling.
I would've been 13 when this aired. Needless to say, I didn't watch it. Not because it was unsuitable. I was consumed by the Faith No More album The Real Thing. Anyhoo, our eldest sister always maintained that The Woman In Black was the scariest thing she'd ever seen! Cheers!
The 1989 version of the "Woman in Black" would be hard to equal let along surpass. When Hollywood tried it they failed miserably, proving as you said in your review, "less is more.
The 2012 version, really all of them are always creepy to me. I grew up with realtives who where of the 20s era and life was very much like the world of this story. They had remembrancesof children and adults who drowned or died in some horrific accidents in their perspective towns. Always oddly vivid and oddly vague; they became the standard by which a good story is told and the lady in black has always held up whatever the medium.
Oh Christ, the part where he turns around on the moor and she's there creeped me the hell out. And that's saying nothing about THAT scene. You know the one.
Oh Robin, Robin Robin! I am so glad that you have reviewed this film! When I first saw this film in the 90's, I wasn't expecting anything. It was so well made and had a great feeling of spooky and creepy. I read the book afterwards and enjoyed it as well. I did not like the film of it made in 2012 starring Harry Potter.
I've heard the title but the story is completely unknown to me. I think I'll attempt to see this version. EDIT: I have now seen this movie and I loved it.
Prepare to jump out of your skin while watching the 1989 version. I have the DVD and the impact still resonates. Atmospheric, creepy, silence which the movies didn't quite manage. A super review without giving away it's horror moments.
I always thought this movie would have made a great point and click adventure game, complete with playable audio logs (the wax recordings left behind.) The most disturbing part of the movie (other than the scene in the bedroom and the ending) was the realistic portrayal of PTSD on the part of the main character. The guy really looked like he was crumbling mentally.
I like to have my blood a little chilled from time to time...but this nearly froze it. When they come out of the church...and shes standing there. Yet the other parishioners won't look at her.. They do say ghosts know if you're able to see them. I don't wanna know.....
My favorite adaptation is the stage version. It's very cleverly done and is genuinely creepy. It blew the movie versions away ('89 and 2012). I'll have to give the TV film a re-watch. Haven't watched it since it came out and I found it dull at the time.
I've actually only seen the Radcliffe version, which I saw in the theater, and thought it was decent enough. I always enjoy a good ghost story. I think I have this tv version saved in a horror playlist.
The Daniel Radcliffe version isn't bad either! By the way, Dark Corners should definitely cover Badlands Hunters for your next streaming review. It's a post apocalyptic action film with gangs, mad science, action, mutants, and all kinds of pulpy goodness starring Ma Dong-Seok, one of the best action heroes to come around in recent years. It really does feel like a love letter to 80s pulp fiction.
Almost anything by Nigel kneale is great, Robin is quite right about the story "inhabiting" the Era instead of pushing it hard. The Radcliffe one is a worthy interpretation. ❤ become a patreon supporter!
The Woman in Black is my favourite ghost story. I started with the book and that's still my favourite version. Seen the play five times over the years and that's very well done too. This is the best film version for me. Simple but So well acted, visually great and creates a excellent atmosphere. The 2012 version looks great and creates a great atmosphere too but I think Radcliffe was the wrong choice for Arthur (but then I admit I'm biased and can't stand his acting). But worse than him was the ending. It was so annoying and twee. How can you make the ending of Woman in Black a happy one? Stupid choice.
The Woman In Black is one of the few times the movie (the Daniel Radcliff one is the only one I've seen) is better than the book. The novel is SO BORING!
Hi! Sorry, i'm not a native english speaker (i'm from Germany) so i think i didn't make my point clear enough (apparently i didn't!). What i meat was (and i hope i'm doing better this time - oof!): You mentioned the 2012 movie in ONE single sentence. But IMHO (!) it is FAR superior to the movie you were reviewing so maybe ... maybe! ... you could have done a more informative video mentioning BOTH of the movies side by side? Sorry again, didn't want to critizise your work per se (i love your takes on movies) but i think (!) that you could have done better in this one. I hope i didn't anger you too much. ;)
I didn't care for this adaptation. For me, it leant far too heavily into the "less is more" cliche and was about as involving and frightening as watching grass grow. The story, in any of it's forms, is painfully thin, but at least the 2012 theatrical film had atmosphere and visual panache to keep it somewhat interesting.
I was lucky to see Nigel Kneale interviewed at the BFI (as I remember it was after a showing of The Stone Tapes). He talked about this adaptation of TWIB (the opening of which coincidentally was filmed on the road in London I was living on at the time). NK said that he finished the screenplay in two weeks. But he was reluctant to send it to the BBC because he was worried, that as he had completed it so quickly, the Beeb might think he wasn’t really interested in the job and had rushed it out. So he stuck it in a drawer for a few weeks, then submitted the script to make it look like he had laboured over it more than he had.
This scared the hell out of me. When he feels his hair stands on end on the moor and he turns around to see her.
His nightmare and she's above him is a big shock
Both very unsettling.
dare i say, it’s a cerebral horror? the sounds play tricks on your mind, you don’t need to see the creepiness to know that it’s happening to the character and you don’t need to know everything to understand that it’s happening…the mind fills in the gaps
The Woman In Black is unique for me, in that the book, that TV adaptation, the play, the audiobook and even the Hammer film version have all scared the hell out of me. If I had to pick my favourite, aside from the book it would be the TV version.
“Casually inhabits it”… great description.
I have seen this, but I never knew Nigel Neal wrote the screenplay.
He wrote Halloween 3 Season Of the Witch. (Sort of… kind of… long story).
I don't recall now how I happened to be watching this with my father in 1989, but I do remember being shocked by the only time I ever saw him visibly scared by a tv show / movie.
I always prefer atmosphere and clever storytelling to jump scares and over the top special effects. I love this version of an excellent novel.
I recall having legit goosebumps during two particular scenes. Love this version. 👍
Awesome. Pauline Moran just as she was about to be Miss Lemon. She was the bassist in an all woman rock band- The She Trinity- too. 👍
Really? I didn't know that. That's fantastic
@@DarkCornersReviews i)[:etðem0:>esdianekiley
Absolutely terrifying in this.
oh that moment in the bedroom! the 89 version remains my favourite, totally bleak, perfect
Matter of fact gothic. Well put, personally I love the gothic tropes in Poe adaptations and the modern gothic aesthetic but that is a superb phrase which captures a style in British film and tv from the 30s to the 80s.
Saw the stage version in 2009. Highly recommend the experience. The twist at the end is classic.
I believe all the versions have slightly different endings.
Honestly never thought a stage play could be so scary till I saw The Woman In Black.
Yeah, my parents went to see it. They said it was terrifying!
After my mum, brother, sister and I saw the stage production as children, we were all so scared that we all ended up sleeping together in our mum's bed that night.
I remember seeing this adaptation on American TV around the late 80's early 90's: PBS, maybe? It was brilliant and effective. Well deserving of a restoration and a new release.
You're spot on, Dark Corners. This 1989 TV movie was a masterpiece, and outshines the far flashier feature film. Rawlins is magnificent.
Your description of the modern broad strokes approach to gothic vs this movie's matter of fact gothic setting makes me think of the 80's. In the movies it's all neon fashion with posters on the wall and other garish visions, but in actuality there was a lot more of wood paneling, wood veneer, and amber ashtrays.
saw this on its first xmas eve airing as a kid . scary indeed
Thank you for introducing me to this story.
Actually, I read the Susan Hill book before the release of the 2012 film. While I enjoyed the book, I felt disappointed by the 2012 film. Though it got its gothic setting down pat, the film suffered from too many unnecessary jump scares. I understand (and your review seems to confirm) that the 1989 is much more of an atmospheric and unsettling experience, which sounds more like the book. I will definitely check this film version out.
This movie is pretty chilling. The book is also an excellent work & has one of the most tragic endings all from a good deed, but the spirit is an angry revenant who just wants to hurt for the wrong done to her. Also if you ever see it on-stage, it’s pretty scary as it’s really a 3 person show and the sound design makes it so freaky; I had nightmares cause I was a kid
This is my favourite horror film of all time. I would strongly urge everyone to check it out! There are certain moments that under the right viewing conditions will stick with you forever, they certainly have in my case, it really gets under my skin! Fantastic film, much better than the (still decent) Daniel Radcliffe Hammer version!
Low budget TV horror has a real way of created lasting trauma for the views.
@@euansmith3699absolutely, Whistle and I'll Come My Lad gave me the heebeejeebies.
I'm glad you reviewed this, as it deserves to be better known. As an American, it wasn't available here, as far as I know, although it may have been shown on National Public Television here. If so, I missed it. However, I had read a lot of positive reviews on it, and as a horror movie fan, I had to have it. This goes back about 20 years now, and I actually found a DVD of it on an obscure Canadian label ('Carbon' was the name). I'm really not sure if it was a legitimate release or not, but I did buy it from an established seller, and it is a Region 1 (U.S. and Canada) version. The video and audio quality is really good. But to the actual title...to me, it is one of the best ghost stories I have ever seen, ranking up there with classics like the original 'The Haunting'. The atmosphere depicted was superb, the tension nearly unbearable and with a couple of really scary scenes that made me jump. Any fan of movies about ghosts really should hunt this down.
I did see the later, 'new' Hammer Studios version. There was a lot I liked about that movie, especially the cinematography; the acting was solid and the special effects well done, but in spite of that, I definitely prefer this television version. To me, the film version just went too far astray from the core story from the British version, and too heavy on the CGI stuff. I probably would not watch the film again, but this is deserving of repeated, periodic viewing.
I own the now out of print Region 1 DVD by BFS Entertainment released in 2000. It is indeed one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. The Woman in Black herself, played by Pauline Moran, is pure nightmare fuel. The look of her deathly pale face and red-misted eyes gave me a lot of sleepless nights. The scenes where she evilly stares at Arthur Kidd in the marshes and when she hovers over and shrieks towards him are truly terrifying! Forget the 2012 version, this is the one to see!
I really enjoyed the 2012 version with Radcliffe and had no idea another screen version existed. I'm really excited to track this one down!
I was not aware of the existence of a stage version. I've read the novel and seen both films, and I think the issue with adapting it is that the book really did have a weak ending, which (not to spoil anything) takes place years after the events of the main story and seems to be disconnected from them. The shock ending of Nigel Kneale's version came out of nowhere. I think the 2012 Hammer version had the best ending of the three. It followed logically and brought closure.
Supernatural horror is my favorite and this was one of the scariest ones I'd ever seen. It overridden my rational brain and made me afraid of the dark on the evening I watched it. The newer adaptation with Ratcliffe was pretty shitty. And you put it so well with 'matter-of-fact Gothic' that's the kind of aesthetic I imagine when reading ghost stories like from MR James and Algernon Blackwood. all those Ghost Stories for Christmas adaptions shared in that style.
Five nights at freddy's review ☠️📽🎃
I knew I'd heard of this, since I had seen the Radcliffe adverts when that film was coming out; kind of amused that he had a connection to the film before starring in a remake. I'll have to look this up, thanks for covering it.
Not having enough money to make a film with has long been a problem for my friends and I as we plan our first movie. They disagree with me on one point though. I'm the only one who thinks we could make the inside of our 1974 Ford van look like the interior of an Apollo space capsule if we rip up the carpet and take down the Led Zeppelin posters.
Apparently, the interior of the Apollo 11 Command Module (CM-107), "Columbia", contained a full-sized roller-disco; that's how far ahead of their times NASA was.
Dude! You are so right. We have been planning that same movie, too.
I have owned this movie since it first came out on cassette. It still spooks me out.
I very much like the Daniel Radcliffe version. I tried watching this years ago and just shut it off as I didn't think it was creepy at all. Will try to give it another go. Thanks!
Read the book, seen the play twice I think and listened to the audiobook. All great. Not a fan of the 2012 film, that ending. Probably the best ghost story I've gotten into. Thanks for letting me know this is available
I only saw parts of this when I was pretty young, and I have to say the scene where she comes in above the bed absolutely terrified the stuffing out of me. I almost don't want to go back to it because I'm sure it won't compare to a 7-year-old's imagination and the subsequent years of building it up.
We were careful to keep that shot out of the review - didn't want to spoil it for anyone.
@@DarkCornersReviews I have to imagine it's up there in terms of scarring children.
@@franzferdinand2 Hell, it disturbed me and I'm over 50. If I'd been a kid, my heart would have jumped out of my throat and splatted against the ceiling.
Absolutely agree. This film hit it out of the park as far as I am concerned. So glad it’s available again on dvd!
I would've been 13 when this aired. Needless to say, I didn't watch it. Not because it was unsuitable. I was consumed by the Faith No More album The Real Thing. Anyhoo, our eldest sister always maintained that The Woman In Black was the scariest thing she'd ever seen! Cheers!
One of my favourite horror films of all time
I love this version! ❤ It's one of my favorite ghost movies all time
The 1989 version of the "Woman in Black" would be hard to equal let along surpass. When Hollywood tried it they failed miserably, proving as you said in your review, "less is more.
The 2012 version, really all of them are always creepy to me. I grew up with realtives who where of the 20s era and life was very much like the world of this story. They had remembrancesof children and adults who drowned or died in some horrific accidents in their perspective towns. Always oddly vivid and oddly vague; they became the standard by which a good story is told and the lady in black has always held up whatever the medium.
Oh Christ, the part where he turns around on the moor and she's there creeped me the hell out. And that's saying nothing about THAT scene. You know the one.
Yes I do. If you're going to have a jump scare then just have one so the audience is caught completely off-guard!
Tracking it down! Thanks!
Thanks for the review.
Never knew the Daniel Radcliffe one was a remake till now
Oh Robin, Robin Robin! I am so glad that you have reviewed this film! When I first saw this film in the 90's, I wasn't expecting anything. It was so well made and had a great feeling of spooky and creepy. I read the book afterwards and enjoyed it as well. I did not like the film of it made in 2012 starring Harry Potter.
I've heard the title but the story is completely unknown to me. I think I'll attempt to see this version.
EDIT: I have now seen this movie and I loved it.
This effected me for months after I saw it on Australian TV.
Really great production.. and that ending !!
Prepare to jump out of your skin while watching the 1989 version. I have the DVD and the impact still resonates. Atmospheric, creepy, silence which the movies didn't quite manage.
A super review without giving away it's horror moments.
Incredible my friend I have got to watch this film.
I saw in on the West End some 30 years ago and I remember it as if it was yesterday.
I always thought this movie would have made a great point and click adventure game, complete with playable audio logs (the wax recordings left behind.) The most disturbing part of the movie (other than the scene in the bedroom and the ending) was the realistic portrayal of PTSD on the part of the main character. The guy really looked like he was crumbling mentally.
It's so much more believable than most portrayals of that situation
I LOVE this concept of Matter-of-Fact Gothic! I wonder what other notable examples we could come up with. I smell a subgenre!
I was only aware of the Harry Potter movie so thanks for educating me 😂
It's also available on Blu-ray
I like to have my blood a little chilled from time to time...but this nearly froze it. When they come out of the church...and shes standing there. Yet the other parishioners won't look at her.. They do say ghosts know if you're able to see them. I don't wanna know.....
One of the most terrifying endings of all time.
I watched this today absolutely a great film, thanks for the recommendation, this is top grade horror.
One of my all time favourites watched it 3 times in one day last Halloween, one if not seen definitely give it a watch! Great review as usual too 👏🏻
The 1989 Herbert Wise version is really cool but I never saw the Lionel Barrymore one. The one with Daniel R. just didn’t grab me
My favorite adaptation is the stage version. It's very cleverly done and is genuinely creepy. It blew the movie versions away ('89 and 2012). I'll have to give the TV film a re-watch. Haven't watched it since it came out and I found it dull at the time.
Adrian Rawlins was also a recurring character in the 2nd season of Soldier, Soldier.
This is a fantastic film. Rented it on video when it first came out and scared the shit out of me and my now wife. Still does when we watch it 😂
I've actually only seen the Radcliffe version, which I saw in the theater, and thought it was decent enough. I always enjoy a good ghost story. I think I have this tv version saved in a horror playlist.
Ooh, I know its not horror but I would love your review of I, Claudius. Start a drama review channel? lol
Great book & great 1989 adaptation! I didn't like 2012 version.
I've seen several cases like this. Ghost seeking revenge, and compelling people to kill themselves.
This is so much better than the remake
Thank you for not showing *that* bit. Anyone who's seen this knows which bit I'm talking about.
Didn't want to ruin it for anyone.
@@DarkCornersReviews Well that, yes, but also it saved me from having to change my underwear.
Endorsed. This is a good one.
I've seen this.... it's a really good movie (well at least i think so)... Peace
The Daniel Radcliffe version isn't bad either! By the way, Dark Corners should definitely cover Badlands Hunters for your next streaming review. It's a post apocalyptic action film with gangs, mad science, action, mutants, and all kinds of pulpy goodness starring Ma Dong-Seok, one of the best action heroes to come around in recent years. It really does feel like a love letter to 80s pulp fiction.
I checked out my local library's audio copy, which was creepy listening, thank you.
Almost anything by Nigel kneale is great, Robin is quite right about the story "inhabiting" the Era instead of pushing it hard. The Radcliffe one is a worthy interpretation. ❤ become a patreon supporter!
Didn't Daniel Radcliffe appear in the film version of this?
The Woman in Black is my favourite ghost story. I started with the book and that's still my favourite version. Seen the play five times over the years and that's very well done too. This is the best film version for me. Simple but So well acted, visually great and creates a excellent atmosphere. The 2012 version looks great and creates a great atmosphere too but I think Radcliffe was the wrong choice for Arthur (but then I admit I'm biased and can't stand his acting). But worse than him was the ending. It was so annoying and twee. How can you make the ending of Woman in Black a happy one? Stupid choice.
I need to see this one, the Danielle Radcliff movie was better than its sequel at least.
I had no idea the Daniel Radcliffe movie was a remake, that version was pretty good, but the sequel was fairly bad.
The Woman In Black is one of the few times the movie (the Daniel Radcliff one is the only one I've seen) is better than the book. The novel is SO BORING!
I've only seen the Daniel Radcliffe film; it was okay, but I wouldn't call it Hammer.
This might actually be a film that Luisa would make worse.
And of course David Radcliffe's 2012 film
I have as yet not seen ant! I shall have to fix that!
Eyy
I was expecting a different movie
So you don't recognize "The Woman in Black" from 2012? I don't get it. It's WAY better than the version you just reviewed ... IMHO of course.
In what way do we not recognise it?
Hi! Sorry, i'm not a native english speaker (i'm from Germany) so i think i didn't make my point clear enough (apparently i didn't!). What i meat was (and i hope i'm doing better this time - oof!): You mentioned the 2012 movie in ONE single sentence. But IMHO (!) it is FAR superior to the movie you were reviewing so maybe ... maybe! ... you could have done a more informative video mentioning BOTH of the movies side by side? Sorry again, didn't want to critizise your work per se (i love your takes on movies) but i think (!) that you could have done better in this one. I hope i didn't anger you too much. ;)
Never really cared for this version. Just didn’t work for me. The “unease” just never develops. Each to his own I guess.
I didn't care for this adaptation. For me, it leant far too heavily into the "less is more" cliche and was about as involving and frightening as watching grass grow. The story, in any of it's forms, is painfully thin, but at least the 2012 theatrical film had atmosphere and visual panache to keep it somewhat interesting.