User reviews

Although the plot is slightly intriguing (strange happenings in a creepy mansion), and not everything about it is bad, there's something about it that comes off cheesy. I can't decide if it's the poor film quality, or the over done scary-movie cliches that happen too soon in the story; i.e. old ladies "sneaking" up, antique dolls, haunted little girls, and crows.

And, of course, there's the parents that refuse to believe anything is amiss. Please, filmmakers/writers, can we have open-minded adults just for once!!! It really wouldn't make the story any less creepy.

There's also many non-scary movie cheesy plot terrors: a boy telling our protagonist "I've never met a girl like you before" after knowing her for a total of 1 day. Additionally, they mention a certain character is homeless, yet later we see her living comfortably in her not too shabby trailer. (Plot hole alert!)

In it's defense, Anjelica Huston is pretty talented in her role, some of the camera shots are genius, and the locations are beautiful. And it picks up a little towards the end, luckily.

So, if you're wanting a truly haunting mystery, you could take or leave 'The Watcher in the Woods'.

Saw 'The Watcher in the Woods', being fond of horror regardless of budget (even if not my favourite genre), being a fan of Anjelica Huston and being intrigued by the idea. Being behind on my film watching and reviewing, with a long to watch and review list that keeps getting longer, it took me a while to get round to watching and reviewing it.

Giving 'The Watcher in the Woods' a fair chance with being interest and apprehension, it turned out to be far better than expected. Won't say that 'The Watcher in the Woods' is a great film because it isn't and the potential, while not wasted, is not fully lived up to. Considering the large number of films seen recently being mediocre and less and wasting potential, was expecting worse and was relieved that while wanting in a few areas it was actually one of my better recent low-budget viewings by quite some way.

'The Watcher in the Woods's' first half in particularly has a promising, unsettling and atmospheric note that really does intrigue.

Production values did have some eeriness and nowhere near as cheap as expected, and the music, which not the most memorable in the world, didn't detract from the atmosphere.

The setting is effectively spooky and the acting was better than average, mysterious Anjelica Huston and fetching Tallulah Evans being good even. There are enough spooky, dark and suspenseful moments and it isn't dull. The direction doesn't feel phoned in and the storytelling in the first half especially does intrigue.

However, the final act is on the silly side, trying to take some of the events and tone at face value and with a straight face was somewhat hard. The ending is prematurely easily foreseeable and comes over in a contrived fashion.

Found too the script to lack natural flow and with a fair bit of cheese ad blandness going on and some of the approach to the material is on the tame side for such a haunting story that can be dark.

Overall, much better than expected but could have been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Maybe I'm biased since I grew up reading the original novel and watching the original film version of The Watcher in the Woods, but this film doesn't deliver any of the same thrills as the source material. Even the usually wonderful Anjelica Huston feels like she's phoning it in (with an accent that comes and goes at whim).

It starts out well enough, but it soon takes a few detours and adds in a ridiculous, silly backstory involving the Black Plague to explain who "the watcher" is and what their game is. It kills a lot of the mystery and manages to drag down the pacing (which really takes skill since the film isn't even 90 minutes long).

If you're a fan of the original movie or the novel, you're likely to be very disappointed.

This retelling of "The Watcher in the Woods" follows an American family who are spending the summer in Wales. They rent a manor from a mysterious elderly woman whose daughter disappeared in the woods decades before, and the daughters find themselves enveloped in the mystery.

I'll be direct here: I grew up on the 1980 version of this film and adore it, and also read the book as a child. It seems screenwriter Scott Abbott was attempting to stick closer to the source novel for this version, as the 1980 film did have substantial differences, but the result is not for the better. The pacing here is fine albeit routine, and the unraveling of the mystery offers few surprises and virtually no tensity. The film has all the cliché trappings of a made-for-television film, but doesn't even attempt a unique spin on them.

I won't pretend that the source novel or even the 1980 John Hough-directed film are masterpieces; they are, at the end of the day, youth-aimed works and are going to be lite fare. That said, this retelling is not only narratively bland, but visually bland(er). The original film was a remarkably dark, Gothic film, and part of what made it such a staple of so many's childhood nightmares was the off-kilter atmosphere, menacing score, and unsettling visuals. Here, key scenes are dumbed down, and the look of the film as a whole is utterly devoid of mood; the home used in this version and the surrounding forest lack any and all menace or mystery, and the photography is a large part of what makes the film so insipid. Exterior scenes in particular are bright and cheery, and not even in an ironic way that belies the horror.

The performances are concomitantly weak, with the lead cast mainly consisting of Brits doing bad impressions of American accents. Anjelica Huston is fine given what she has to work with, but even her performance here is bland, and the intrigue surrounding her character rendered meaningless. Benedict Taylor, who played the boyfriend in the original, makes an appearance in a way that brings things generationally full-circle; this is a nice nod, but it cannot come close to salvaging the rest.

In the end, "The Watcher in the Woods" pales in comparison to its source material as well as the 1980 film, mainly because, unlike the novel and the previous adaptation, it offers nothing in the way of mood, atmosphere, or tension. It's too bland, too bright, and far too non-threatening to offer anything worthwhile. The original novel and earlier film are both unique and ominous in their own respective ways; unfortunately, the same cannot be said here. Aside from a semi-well-directed flashback scene, the film is unrepentantly dull. 2/10.

When my family saw they remade this film we where so excited to see it. We figured now days they could do some very cool things graphic wise and make our already beloved oldie something better. Its got some underlying aspects of the old story line but sometimes it felt forced to try to make some scenes make sense. The family seemed to always have it out for there teenage daughter and you got none of the happy family closeness from them like the old film which helped ruin it for me. The family's lack of caring for each other made me not care for any of them. The mood in this film wasn't very spooky and the acting of the British characters was annoying to watch not mysterious the setting also wasn't that spooky. Maybe a retitle would be better for this film I am resentful it was remade like this the old version wasn't 10 stars but I would have given it a solid 8. Just a request for those of us who have our favored old time movies stay away from remaking Child of Glass rename this film something else Watcher in the woods it was not.

I loved the original version of this movie. But what Melissa Joan Hart has done to this updated take on it is criminal. She obviously has no skills as a director and should stick to acting in Lifetime Christmas movies where she belongs.

Potpourri of past bad horror hooks tossed into this fast food version. Proof: 1. Opening scenes of car on road & family in car. Always a sign of cheap to follow. 2. Usual disgruntled teen w/younger sibling to torment with put downs & tricks. 3. Usual family going to remote location for work or vacation. Work in this case, and location is semi-isolated. 4. Right off, the acting was so rote mechanical I thought I could see the director off to the side holding up cue cards - look this way, walk that way, say this short easily memorized line. 5. Usual townsfolk and mystery woman giving a heads-up warning about staying. 6. Then there is the camera angle view from foliage (as if a hidden someone or something) is whispering, and then, then - there's the wind & leaves. 7. Wind & leaves - wind suddenly gusting w/prolonged camera shots of blowing leaves, and music sound effects to tell us the obvious - something sinister is acomin'. Gawd! 8. You know this is a cheap prop/setting facade when the house they move into looks as organized & clean as a museum inside despite looking scary grungy outside. 9. Birds, what's a scary movie without birds flocking mysteriously every so often - too often in this case. 10. Usual image in a mirror; cracking eventually of course. And, mysterious opening windows. 11. Usual family disharmony over believing anything. Usual good lookin' guy w/tight t-shirt & suspenders for the teen girl to satisfy that viewership. 12. The final scenes CGI of the tree event was '70s level cheap. So cheap, I was actually laughing though the whole sequence. Once you get the beginning hang of this movie then ff to the end for the laughs - you'll miss nothing.

RELEASED TO TV IN 2017 and directed by Melissa Joan Hart (yes, Sabrina, the teenage witch), "The Watcher in the Woods" details events in Wales when a family from Cleveland, Ohio, move into a country manor for the summer while the mysterious owner, Mrs. Aylwood (Anjelica Huston), lives in the guest house. The teen daughter, Jan (Tallulah Evans), readily discerns something weird is going on, which is linked to Mrs. Aylwood's missing daughter, Karen (Rebecca Acock), from 36 years earlier. Jan investigates the mystery with the aid of a neighbor stud (Nicholas Galitzine) and her younger sister (Dixie Egerickx).

I haven't read the book, but I have seen the troubled 1980/1981 Disney film (with three different endings). Unlike the Disney production, this is a TV movie and therefore lacks that one's blockbuster polish; it's also way more subdued. The question is, does it work on that level as a young adult mystery with low-key horror elements? It did for me, but then I can handle TV budget productions. If you remember the TV movies "Bay Coven" (1987) with Pamela Sue Martin or "Satan's School for Girls" (2000) with Shannen Doherty, this version of "The Watcher in the Woods" is along those lines in tone and production quality, although it's superior to the second one. Unlike the 1981 flick, which included a dilapidated chapel and an alien element (rolling my eyes), this rendition follows the book more closely.

One of the best things about this version is Tallulah Evans as the fetching Nancy Drew-like protagonist; she looks like a young Amanda Bynes, but with a better figure, which the movie wisely accentuates (don't worry, no sleaze; this is a family-safe movie). The story contains quality human interest with Jan's relationship with the guy, her sister and, finally, Mrs. Aylwood.

The unraveling of the mystery is interesting, particularly the link to the Black Death in Britain circa 1348 and the corresponding folksong "Ring around the Rosie." The explanation is more intelligible and interesting than the Disney film but, to be expected, not as entertaining (the extraterrestrial element). The authentic quaint British village locations are another plus, as is the balance between normal daylight sequences and haunting dusk/nighttime sequences. Another reviewer said there's no mood or mysterious ambiance. Hogwash. Unlike other haunting mystery flicks, this version of "The Watcher in the Woods" refuses to be one-note with its atmospherics. The haunting parts are augmented by a fitting piano-oriented score.

As far as the final act goes, it's tough to pull off these kinds of supernatural sequences with a straight face. Filmmakers have to be careful with these types of scenes or they become more laughable than spooky. The ending of "Bay Coven," for instance, could go either way, depending on the person. For me, Melissa & crew pulled it off, which is different than saying the movie's flawless. It's not (for instance, the maw-of-the-tree effects are pretty lame), but it's a low-budget production made for Lifetime, after all, and you can nitpick any flick.

THE FILM RUNS 87 minutes and was obviously shot in Britain, but I can't find info on the precise locations. WRITERS: Scott Abbott based on Florence Engel Randall's novel.

GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

It is very very difficult to find a horror movie that is rated PG and creeps out the entire audience, but this is what U get with this film.

Its a low budget deal with C acting in some characters and B+ in others. The music is done very well. Camera work was quite good. Suspense was there. The story line and plot is done well enough that my wife and I were kept engrossed.

I can predict typical horror fans will down grade this gem for lack of blood, body counts, smoking/pot, macabre humor, and so on. Its a real tribute to all involved with this movie that it does not have many of the basic elements a modern horror movie of today generally has. I'm sure many viewers will decide that such a movie cannot even be classified as horror. And yet an honest viewer is forced to check the box marked 'spooky'.

Ending is both predictable and original.

Moving to a house in England, a family finds their daughters becoming involved in trying to solve a local urban legend of a young woman's disappearance from the area and set out with a friend to finally put an end to the ghost stories plaguing the town.

This proved to be a surprisingly enjoyable effort. One of the more enjoyable aspects here is the way this one manages to generate the feeling of superstition around the town. The small-town community which features the urban legend of the central disappearance that sets the plot in motion gives this a strong enough start, and the investigation that ensues offers plenty of thrilling material to coincide with those traditions and customs. That gives the scenes of the family arriving in the area and getting subjected to the hauntings in the house a rather fun atmosphere here with a much more thrilling concept than expected so that the tie-in with the backstory allows for a stronger horror aesthetic with the notion of the plague into the towns' history. Those few scenes, from the different breaking objects around the house which signal the start of the whole affair to the two daughters going after the woman in the woods and the flashback to what happened to her daughter, manages to give this a solid series of scenes that really move this one forward into some thriller categories. The big ceremony at the end, where it uses a much darker setup than expected to offer up a rather chilling set-piece which brings the town history and their own rituals into play rather nicely that generates some thrilling action in how they go about dealing with the ghost and ends this on a rather nice note. Alongside some creepy atmosphere out in the woods throughout here, these manage to give this one enough to like that it holds up nicely over the few flaws. One of the minor issues here is the rather troublesome storyline here as this one goes back- and-forth between the different needs of the ghost. At first, this one features the story about the witch haunting the woods before moving on to the setup about the lost girl and then brings in the historical connection within the woods which does make some sense but ends up feeling way too scattershot to really be of much use overall. The other small issue to be had with this one was the films' obvious tameness of the haunting material, where it's quite obvious how this was made for its TV audience. There's never any real danger posed by the ghost due to not really appearing all that often, the scares aren't all that intense and the whole thing feels incredibly tame in this aspect which does tend to lower this one slightly. Otherwise, it's certainly enjoyable enough despite these flaws.

Rated Unrated/PG: Mild Violence and Language.

I was hoping for a chance to see this story be told as an adult horror but I was disappointed.

One should watch a movie on its own terms, not by the standard you impose upon it and this movie's terms is not as a horror or even a dark thriller. It's a family fantasy with a sort of dark edge.

Not half bad but this side of the age of majority it just seems a bit too by the numbers to really have an effect and it's not exactly subtle.

Good production gives a sort of good atmosphere which they clearly didn't want to be too scary, but carries the movie a long away are its performances from two great actors of very different ages. Huston of course makes it look so easy and the other one: a very able thespian and a really beautiful girl with lips and butt that will haunt your dreams.

I bet the audition ad said:"we're searching for bad actora with bad posture", because this is what it is. Really the best actress was the little sister. Plus, I would have attributed this movie to the early 2000s, certainly not 2017, both for the plot and for the clothing style. Then what should I say more, it's simply cringey, the protagonist being a straight-up wattpad character, but the usual mysterious and tormented love interest is changed with a mysterious and tormented old lady. And the actual love interest... They wanted to give him the perfect boy image but he results almost creepy (I love you Nicholas Galitzine, I'm sorry).

This movie had been the first movie I ever just get bored of and used as a background for other things. Literally the first time. I think it saays enough.

I don't understand all of these film snobs, honestly. They just sound like they have nothing else to do except critique each and every small detail that doesn't seem to match their own personal tastes. Just sit back in your spare time and relax and try to enjoy yourself unless you are actually a film critic. ;-) I did just that with this movie. I thought it seemed young and innocent and not scary at all, but had elements of mystery to it. I really enjoyed the young actress who portrayed Jan. I also thought Nicholas Galitzine did a fine job as Mark. I was a bit disappointed in Angelica Huston's performance( because I am a huge fan of hers ) this just seemed to fall a bit flat.

Regardless, definitely worth viewing on a rainy Saturday or Sunday for sure.

Its a bit of mystery, a bit of horror, and a bit of romance. its aimed for the youngsters, but the story, acting, and writing are top notch. Of course if you were hoping for actual horror, then move along. No body parts here. If you're looking for family fun, enjoy. One nice thing is that it really just entertains the kids, without piling on the political correctness, or some preachy message that ruins the fun. I recommend this. I will say again, viewers like Mr Ectoplasma who watch mostly only horro films, and like the trappings of horror will not be happy. This is an adventure story at heart, not a horror tale. In horror you feel the hoplesness as the hero/heroine is completely unable to do anything to save herself or others. This has a very different tone. Jan is smart, capable, and the scenery is there to show you the beauty of the English countryside, not to make you frightened or unsettled. Its only scary sometimes. I LIKED this approach and so will many others. But horror film lovers will be disappointed. One more time, I do NOT like horror. I have always found it kind of stupid. People who think like I do will enjoy this story. People who like by the book horror will NOT.