The Woman in Black Plot holes (by Comptinator)

Minor Plot hole: Why do the citizens of Crythin Gifford never tell Arthur that Eel Marsh House is haunted? Granted, it scares the hell out of them, but why not save the hassle of CHILDREN BEING KILLED and tell Arthur the truth, hopefully scaring him the fuck off?

Minor Plot hole: Why did the Jeromes think locking Lucy up was a good idea? Okay, it may have been out of their paranoia, but it’s obvious in her death scene she used a lamp to torch herself to death. So why did the Jeromes leave her locked away unattended with necessary means to kill herself? We’ve established that the woman can find and kill children even if seen, so that was kind of stupid.

Minor Plot hole: In fact, why even have another child when all you intend to do is lock her in a cellar for her entire life? You might as well save yourself the paranoia and use protection.

Plot contrivance: Why does Sam not believe in the woman in black and help Arthur with his task? I mean, I can understand people who don’t believe in ghosts, but it’s pretty obvious a murderous woman cloaked in black is appearing sporadically and murdering children. Hell, even Sam’s child got killed by her! Why is he so nice to Arthur?!

Plot contrivance: It’s good that the massive pool of mud Arthur dived into had preservation qualities, allowing a corpse to be dug up in pristine condition and the wood of the pony trap perfectly intact.

Plot contrivance: It is simply absurd to assume that while swimming in mud and consequently unable to see AT ALL, Arthur can pinpoint the precise location to tie a knot using a thick rope and tie said knot in a manner of seconds and in such a way that it won’t come loose despite the weight of the trap.

Plot contrivance: During the ending at the train station, Arthur is holding hands with his son while bidding farewell to his friend. His son sees the woman on the opposite platform and walks onto the railway tracks. Arthur, having been established as very protective of his son especially after knowing of the woman, doesn’t respond to his hand suddenly slipping away and neither him, Sam, the nanny or the fucking station guard hear or see a young boy walking away, climbing off the platform (knowing how high it was he must’ve jumped, creating more stupidity) and walking toward a massive train. Some dad you are, Arthur.

Plot contrivance: This exchange should have happened somewhere:
‘Hey Sam, we need to dig up the corpse of that boy and bury him with his dead mother.’
‘Okay, sounds good. We should probably wait until daylight in order to get a good view of the tides.’
‘What? Don’t be stupid. Let’s do it in pitch black with our only light source being your car. That way we can see absolutely nothing and the tide can easily come in and swallow us up should we veer too far off course.’

Unaddressed Issue: So it’s established the Nathaniel boy drowned in the marshes, but how? Did the parents in the pony trap just abandon him to die to save their own asses? Could he not swim? It’s pretty clear the marshes don’t swallow you up as Arthur is easily swimming in it.

Unadressed Issue: Keckwick’s own son died due to the terrors of the woman in black, but after a six shilling bribe from Arthur he’s perfectly willing to assist him with his task that will surely disturb the woman and cause him seeing her to have more children die? And people are only mad at Arthur for all this?

Unadressed Issue: Possibly the dumbest idea ever in the film. Elizabeth says to Arthur that whenever the woman is seen, however briefly, whoever by and wherever at, a child will die without fail. So, why are only around four children declared dead by her at Crythin? If the woman being seen causes a child to die no matter what, where are all the other dead children? Arthur must’ve looked at the woman nearly ten times but a child doesn’t die one every one of those times. Maybe Elizabeth meant a child dying at the hands of the woman will be accompanied by the appearance of said woman? If so, she sure explained it badly.