It improves on the book but that was never to be hard.

Rating: 5/10 (16 March 2019)

I'd been told this was a generic horror movie and I believed them. I read the book first and thought it was trash so I was curious about how they'd go about doing this.
Now, despite indeed being somewhat generic, I thought it wasn't half bad in its first act. Yeah, it's old school horror; fog, old mansions, Edwardian clothing but I really dug that. It is a beautifully shot movie in a formidable, bleak yet oddly stirring landscape that doesn't get dull. I might have nitpicked some cinematographic choices but they weren't a big deal. The old, remote town with a secret that may or may not just be their old superstitions may be a cliche but it did build a sense of dread.
Unfortunately, it gets REALLY generic mid way through. Bland, cheap scares and a Halloween costume of an antagonist (despite the build up and lore surrounding her, she herself has very little stage presence when she actually appears). This coupled with a really uninspired score that dampens a lot of potentially good moments by telegraphing to you when things are going down makes this movie ultimately a failure.
It's still better than the book though. There's more of an actual plot rather than just chapter after chapter of one guy drawling over how scared he is. Arthur is so much more likeable and I can't imagine anyone other than Daniel Radcliff playing him with a stolid vulnerability that really helps shake away the spirit a certain boy who must not be named.
I wouldn't bother unless you're curious how they handled the adaptation. I hear the play is a lot better. Ending was kind of a cop out too.