La dame en noir 2: L'ange de la mort

I wanted to like this movie. I loved the 2012 movie with Daniel Radcliffe. I like the premise, using Eel Marsh House as a refuge during the WWII Blitz. However, it was not to be.

Everything in this movie felt cheap and artificial, from the way too loud sound track, the too dark scenery and the multiple "boo" scares that were used instead of actual creepiness and tension building.

The actors were flat and stale, delivering lines that felt like they came from the tablet of an eighth grader. I never once felt anything or cared for any of them.

TWiB herself was much less menacing than in the first movie, when she was even seen at all.

Changing the venue from Eel Marsh to an airstrip midway didn't help things either. The atmosphere of the house is what makes TWiB so creepy. An airstrip with lots of explosions isn't creepy at all.

The ending scene of the movie was so cheap and anticlimactic compared to the end of the 2012 movie, where we're treated to TWiB breaking the fourth wall and glaring directly at the viewers.

This movie could have been good, should have been good. They rushed through it and did it in the cheapest way possible and it shows.

I wasn't overly impressed with the first WOMAN IN BLACK film, starring Daniel Radcliffe, which I thought was okay but a bit lacklustre in comparison to the excellent but little-known 1980s adaptation. However, the first film looks like a masterwork in comparison to this cheap sequel.

The first thing that becomes apparent about THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2: ANGEL OF DEATH is that it's so blooming dark. Every scene seemingly takes place in near pitch blackness, which makes 90% of what's going on really difficult to make out. I suspect that the poor lighting was due to hide deficiencies of budget and the like - poor sets for example - but it makes for a frustrating viewing experience.

Otherwise, the plot is a rehash of the first film's, except with different characters and a larger cast. The backdrop is WW2 but doesn't really play an important role in the proceedings, and the lead, Phoebe Fox, is saddled with a very dull character. Helen McCrory is a little better, but the 'horror' content is limited to repetitive jump scares and there's little to nothing in the way of genuine atmosphere or real plotting. Instead, this WOMAN IN BLACK feels like stumbling down a flight of stairs in the dark; there's the odd jolt or two, but you'll regret it afterwards.

I'll be honest, I really don't understand the people who liked the first movie and hate this one for being just like the first movie.

The only noticeable difference between both of them is that, in the first movie, there was a sense of isolation because of one person in the house, over a bunch of children and their two teachers.

The awful jump "scares" are still here and the non-scary character of "Woman in Black (WiB)" returns. In-fact, they repeat the same mistakes from the first movie and try to explain way too much and show too much of the WiB character. Keeping WiB's character in shadows and not showing her terrible CGI/makeup caked face would've provided more terror than using her face for jump "scare" here and there.

My complaint with both movies is the same. Despite having good acting (both of them) and good atmosphere, they fail to create proper horror the moment WiB shows up and her shtick of moving items and opening/closing doors begins all over again. They NEED to keep her in the dark and only show her dress, which some scenes actually DO.

Unlike the first movie (6/10), I am giving this one 5/10 despite enjoying the acting of the lead actress and even the children, more than the last one (Radcliffe, nope.. did not like him much in that movie). One point taken off for shooting some key scenes in horrible lighting. The scenes in cellar are the ones I am talking about. The characters keep looking at items for so long and all you're doing is trying to squint and make out what in the hell they are actually looking at. All cellar scenes are intentionally shot under one candle-light or a lamp, and it's a bad idea.

In one of the horror scenes with all characters in cellar, they keep trying to light a candle but WiB keeps blowing it out (or wind being passed by her?). But then, when the scene ends, the male character turns on his flashlight. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? He didn't turn on the flashlight when everyone was scared of darkness but did it instantly at the end? Really? They didn't think people would question that? He didn't even try to turn on the flashlight before, AT ALL.

That said, this movie is NOT bad. It just does what the first one did. Ignore the people giving it 1/10 and whining about it being worse than the first one. They obviously had a hard-on for Radcliffe and gave that movie flying colors, despite him being average in that movie and rest of the movie being same as this one. Read the reviews of the first movie, many are first time horror viewers who are praising Radcliffe and obviously saw the horror movie cause they were Harry Potter fans. They then saw this movie thinking there would be some connection to Radcliffe but since he isn't here, they ended up focusing on the movie's flaws which were present in the first movie.

While we're at it, REALLY? Are you seriously setting up the ending for another sequel? We all know that they want to milk the WiB cow till they won't make any profit from her at all. Both movies had $15 million budget and first one made them $125 million while this one made them about $49 million dollars. This is a nice profit even if the movie is just average. The third movie will make them even less profit it seems.

Maybe end the movie as a trilogy then, cause we know they're gonna make a sequel. Just let it be the last one.

I have not scanned all the reviews, but in the case that that none have praised the splendid set designs, I wish to do so here. It is evident that much thought went into the sets and the props for this movie, just like in the first; and I was completely convinced that I was seeing Eel Marsh house and Crythin Gifford forty years after Arthur Kipps. The dismal and melancholy atmosphere was much less in the sequel, but perhaps this was because of the size of the cast. If Hammer would undertake to produce remakes of the excellent BBC M.R. James stories, I would welcome such enthusiastically. And if Susan Hill were to pick up her pen again and weave another story involving remote and lonely British locales, ruined or dilapidated houses, and nineteenth century tragedies haunting the present day, I would be transported!

First off; I enjoyed the first movie even though most people found it to be pretty terrible. And to be fair a lot of the criticisms were valid for it, but there was still something there.

But this sequel is sadly just an utter mess. There's just nothing there, the acting is beyond subpar, there is nothing scary in this because every jump scare is so obvious it's not even funny. To the actors defense, the plot is not only corny to the max it's told in such a way it's just laughable! This director had no idea what he was doing, I would not be surprised if he literally phoned it in.

This is not a film you should watch.