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

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!

The film has decent horror, although severely lacking in originality. It consists of almost entirely borrowed aspects, not only from the prequel, but many other horror movies from last few years. It's a parade of creepy unsettling woman, a troubled child from Omen who dutifully stares blankly and draws eerie picture, and an equally troubled woman who desperately needs redemption. Aside from a couple moments, it gets too predictable which reduces the tension from its great atmosphere.

Story follows a group of children in refuge from war led by two women, the circumstance forces them to spend their time in a decrypted mansion. In time of war and set in particularly unsettling village, the movie has good desolate ambiance. Cinematography brings a crisp grayish look, often dark and grim. In a few scenes such as the overlook of the bog or lingering fog on cemetery, the shot alone sets a good tone for scare.

However, the pace offers little in term of thrill. Sequences are heavily constructed in stiff motion, from flashback, founding of old trinkets and silent traumatic boy Edward, who inexplicably sees some unexplained thing. Characters have little range or depth, in exception of Harry Burnstow (Jeremy Irvine). The protagonist Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox) is strictly one dimensional. She's too fixated on Edward, despite there are other children who also need her. Their relationship isn't relatable and quite honestly the kid isn't that interesting either.

Her hobbies include splitting from the group and investigating random area by herself. Practically half of the movie is her wandering off, this is not a recommended act when in war, worse if it's something related to unworldly presence. One character stands out amongst the rest, Harry the pilot. Jeremy Irvine does a fine job to portray the role, which isn't that surprising considering his work in War Horse.

The movie still has a few of genuine scary moments, the rest are instigated by poorly made jump scare and shock value from the blaring sound. This feels cheap as it could've utilized the visual more rather than using comfortable honking. The Woman in Black: Angel of Death is a movie cobbled with old elements in different dressing.

The clumsily titled "The Woman in Black 2: The Angel of Death" is a Hammer horror sequel to the very effective 2012 horror vehicle for Daniel Radcliffe, which itself was based on the jump-fest of a London stage show.

Set 40 years after the original, the spooky Eel Marsh House is the destination for a headmistress (Helen McCrory – Malfoy from Harry Potter), her spoonful-of-sugar-style teacher Eve (Phoebe Fox) and a class of WW2 evacuees from the London blitz.

One child in particular (Tom, played well by young Jude Wright) has been struck mute by being recently orphaned and becomes the focal point for the supernatural activity. Eve strikes up a relationship with a handsome and square-jawed young airman (Jeremy Irvine from "War Horse") on the train, who proves to be a useful asset when the going starts to get tough.

Let's start with the good. One of the most important people on a movie like this is not the lead actor or the director or the make-up artist, but the editor – and Mark Eckersley deserves a call out for effectively delivering some very good jump scares. And Phoebe Fox and Helen McCrory are both very good in their roles: Phoebe Fox, in a feature lead debut, is a personable and very attractive actress that should be given something better to work on.

There are also some high production values in terms of the atmospheric sets, locations and the cinematography, no less then you would expect from the UK film industry.

Unfortunately, these positives are poorly served by a whole heap of negatives. The story is a jumbled mess, linking back to elements of the first story that I (at least) can't remember the details of and only referencing in passing the spooky core of the Woman in Black premise (that when someone sees her a child dies). The effective jump scares are added rather at random, which perhaps is what makes them even jumpier. However, apart from one scene where Eve returns to the house alone, there is little in terms of a build-up of tension that made the Radcliffe version so effective.

All in all, rather a damp squib, and the trailer is actually a lot better than the film. It's not that bad that if you see the Woman in Black a part of your soul dies… but there are better films to occupy you at the moment.

(If you enjoyed this review please see my other reviews at bob-the-movie-man.com and register your email to receive them automatically. Thanks.)

If I could have one wish for all horror movies. Please oh please stop with the unresponsive person (usually a woman or a child) with her back turned only to have her turn around to reveal a grotesque face for the cheap jump scare. I don't know who started that but it's become so cliché. It is this generation's cat-jumping-from-hidden-location. I don't think there is a scary movie today that can do without the back turned person. One of these days I want the approaching person to just turn around and leave.

As for the movie: it was alright. What could I expect? The premise was already known and established as well as the woman in black, so what much could they do with that besides give her more kids to kill. Insert new adults and new kids and there's your sequel.

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.