god im glad im not the only one that feels that way. Great review

Your post is 100% spot-on. I agree with every word. I wish I could elaborate further with a proper and more fitting response, but I'm actually a bit burnt out from the many posts I've made on other Horror boards lately. Here is one you might find of mine that shares your views on the matter:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10464141/board/thread/262515508
I found that film even better than
The Woman in Black
and
The Changeling
. You should give it a watch if you have yet to see it. I'd love to know what you thought of it.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

Yes, the both of you. The realism-the atmosphere is what makes it so good. Simplistic and hitting your senses. And new cinema cannot replicate this anymore. Are we doomed?
And Pinky, This film is very hard to find but I have a copy on my hard-drive.

It is the realism that makes it chilling. There are not many horror/ghost films that scare me, but this one did . . . and in such a simple way!
Gobs of money don't necessary equate with good taste or execution.
Life can be arbitrary and comes without a warranty.

What makes it more chilling is it's realism. Sometimes big budgets don't equate to better production values. The remake has its merits. But it's too filtered and CG'ed. And the ending is too much what audiences expect. If it looked like a real guy going to a real house and real things happening, it would have been 10X more scary.
Realism is terrifying. Directors should try it sometime.

I've read the book, and I saw the Radcliff version, with which I wasn't impressed.
Then last night, I just happened upon this on Youtube . . . and you are spot on: Itw was CHILLING! And it was chilling because of the reasons you cite. I love ghost stories, but am not a fan of gratuitous jump scares, gore, blood and guts. I loved this version, which surprised me.
If I can get my hands on a copy, I'd love to add it to my horror collection. It's perfect!
Life can be arbitrary and comes without a warranty.

I seriously, seriously, seriously don't understand why anyone - especially proclaiming to prefer "atmosphere" and "chills" - would prefer the bombastic 2012 remake with its countless cheap jump scares, CREEPY KIDS
, and daft-looking CGI ghost. Not to mention the mawkish melodrama, and the fact that Arthur is a widow from the beginning, which is possibly the dumbest plot change conceivable and completely ruins the tension of the original story. The original story is about an optimistic family man on the verge of a big promotion whose life gets utterly ruined by something he cannot explain. The remake is about a mopey suicidal Daniel Radcliffe (who is neither convincing as a lawyer/accountant or a widower) getting picked on by an acrobatic ghost and an army of zombie kids. It's ridiculously bad.
You just summed everything I hated about the 2012 version.

And what aspects of the original did you like better than the remake?
-The music
-The lack of stupid CGI effects
-The atmosphere that was established
-The ghost was actually scary
-The sequence in the little boys bedroom (the bouncing ball and the toy soldier)
-The Woman in the background during the town scenes
Don't put the devil in the picture, cause' the religious groups won't wanna see it.

A good question.
I liked the low key nature of the original Arthur, and that he started out as a happy and content family man. Sort of a lull before the storm.
I loved the interior of the house the room with all of the woman's effects, how it showed how lonely and isolated her life must have been before she died, and how difficult it must have been for her near the end of her life. Also the fact that she'd had the house electrified, and showed the small building with the generator, and how it worked. Plus that recording contraption with the wax cylinders, that allowed us to hear her what was happening to her, in her own voice.
The scene when he goes into the child's room was more effective, to me, than the corresponding scene in the remake. I felt more from the scene in the original.
Much preferred the older couple in the original, and Spider their dog. The relationship between Arthur, the couple, and especially the dog, was far more developed and heartfelt in the original.
That's all I can think of at the moment.

This message has been deleted.

I'm another who vastly prefers atmosphere and chills to gore, and, on balance, I too preferred the remake, although there are a few aspects I like about the original better.
I'm not a fan of jump scares, and off hand can only think of one in the remake (kitchen scene). Not exactly countless. The only jump scare I recall in the original was the bed scene, and I didn't like it either. In fact, I thought the scene was so hokey, I actually laughed aloud, which I doubt was the intended reaction
The remake had lots of great atmosphere, as did the original.
I liked the remake's Woman in Black better, because the makeup on her in the original was too over the top. She looked like a Halloween witch, not something scary. I disliked her in the end of the remake and the whole way the ending was handled, visually. But I didn't like her in the ending of the original, either, standing on a tiny platform (we knew was there) in the lake. Eh. I didn't find it scary.
I thought having Arthur being a highly distraught widower was an interesting idea, because it allowed the viewer to wonder if he was experiencing what he was because of his overwhelming sense of loss of his wife. It adds a different tension than the original plot line.
The reason I'm responding is because you expressed genuine bafflement over why anyone who prefers atmosphere and chills would like the remake better, and this is why I do. I don't expect to change your mind in any way, as you dislike the remake so much.

This message has been deleted.

Which is why I said "I don't understand it". At least with most things I can see where they're coming from and agree to disagree. This is one of the few things where I actually can't understand what they're talking about because I just don't see it.

This message has been deleted.

I seriously, seriously, seriously don't understand why anyone - especially proclaiming to prefer "atmosphere" and "chills" - would prefer the bombastic 2012 remake with its countless cheap jump scares, CREEPY KIDS
, and daft-looking CGI ghost. Not to mention the mawkish melodrama, and the fact that Arthur is a widow from the beginning, which is possibly the dumbest plot change conceivable and completely ruins the tension of the original story. The original story is about an optimistic family man on the verge of a big promotion whose life gets utterly ruined by something he cannot explain. The remake is about a mopey suicidal Daniel Radcliffe (who is neither convincing as a lawyer/accountant or a widower) getting picked on by an acrobatic ghost and an army of zombie kids. It's ridiculously bad.

This message has been deleted.