User reviews

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 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.

'THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2: ANGEL OF DEATH': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

The first movie of 2015 might actually be one of the worst. This sequel, to the 2012 supernatural horror flick 'THE WOMAN IN BLACK' (which stars Daniel Radcliffe), was directed by Tom Harper and written by Jon Croker and Susan Hill (Hill also wrote the novel that the first film was based on). It stars Phoebe Fox, Jeremy Irvine and Helen McCrory and takes place 40 years after the events of the first movie, during World War II. A group of schoolchildren are taken to the haunted 'Eel Marsch House' and terrorized by the angry ghost there. I like the atmosphere and decent production values, of the film, but it's also a complete bore.

The story begins in London, during the Blitz of WWII. A group of schoolchildren are evacuated to the countryside by their headmistress, Jean Hogg (McCrory), and her aid, Eve Parkins (Fox). They meet up with an air raid warden, named Dr. Rhodes (Adrian Rawlins), who takes them to the 'Eel Marsch House' to hide out in. They soon realize they're not safe there either, as the ghost of Jennette Humfrye (Leanne Best), also known as 'The Woman in Black', begins to haunt them.

I enjoyed the first film, to a certain extent, but I wasn't overly impressed by it either. This movie is even slower-paced and less frightening. Like I said it looks good and has the right mood and atmosphere for a decent supernatural thriller, but it never feels scary and it isn't the least bit involving. It's not an amateurish or poorly made film, really, but it is painfully dull (which is the worst crime a movie can commit, in my opinion).

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/GZMz2QipSqQ

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.)

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!

This loose sequel is set 40 years after the original film. Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox) a schoolteacher, her young students and the headmistress Jean Hogg (Helen McCrory) are evacuated from London during the Blitz.

They are sent to isolated Eel Marsh House, where the events of the first film took place. One lad Edward who has been mute since his parents were killed in the bombing is cruelly bullied by several children. One of them ends up being dead, the boy being drawn out of the house by the vengeful woman in black.

Eve is protective of Edward and there is a dashing airman station nearby the mansion.

It is a spooky gothic film with a funeral theme. The trouble is I could not see a thing. The budget must have been so low, the cinematographer could not even buy a wind up torch to light the film. A large portion of the film seems to consist of a dark screen.

I'm not quite sure why this is getting all the bad reviews that it is. I went along tonight, expecting a creepy ghost story...and got a creepy ghost story. Of course it repeats some elements of the first films, but most sequels do. And no, it doesn't come over as such a "worthy" film as the first one - but that's not such a bad thing. By having far more characters within the film, it is in many ways more entertaining. There are far less scenes of someone walking around the house with a candle in this effort.

There are moments where the script does let the side down and it sinks into cliché, which is a shame. But, on the whole, the direction is more than serviceable and the acting is generally good. Jeremy Irvine is rather wasted in a rather one-dimensional role, but he performs well enough.

I'm not quite sure what people are expecting from a sequel such as this. It does what it says on the tin, and there's nothing wrong with that - and it's a damned sight better than many horror sequels that are simply remakes of the first movie. Yes, it could have been better, but it zips along quite briskly and yet still manages to pack a punch when it needs to. Not bad at all.

Oh dear oh dear HAMMER..where do I start with this appalling bit of unimaginative garbage. Lets says a few words for the actors because they are the only good thing in the whole film. They struggle and probably held back their laughter at some of the appalling lines that had to be delivered, and Helen McCrory, why Helen why?? You're an excellent actress especially on stage and you've severely wasted your talent here, your reputation can only be damaged by agreeing to be in this poor excuse for a film.

Did they dig up a BBC TV cinematographer who lit an episode of Dr Who in the 1980's??? It was like a watching some lousy cheap xmas special that was knocked out within few days and ZERO thought was given to "atmospheric lighting", this is a meant to be a horror film, you have to create atmosphere to keep the mood of the film, to keep an audience scared, enthralled, intrigued, and most importantly make it look COMMERCIAL, not light it in the style of below par art house knock off for a personal showreel, having lens flares and portions of the frame out of focus do not make you artistic DUMMY, they make you look incompetent which this DOP is, did this person just sleep their way through the project, did this silly DOP think for more than 5 minutes, are they capable of one creative thought in their brain?? What on earth is Hammer thinking when they are making a sequel to the biggest hit they've had in years and they employ talentless unimaginative incompetents like this??

Just look across the pond at the US horror films, some may be bad but pretty much all of them at this budget level all look slick, moody, atmospheric and COMMERCIAL not sub par art house.

Now lets get on to the director, never heard of him before but again this person shows such a deep lack of understanding of the horror genre that you'd think he just stumbled on the set by accident from a heavy night out and started directing this silly piece of nonsense. He keeps using a scare technique that when you see it the first time you think OK, not bad but then he goes on to repeat it about 11 times more, and by the 11th time you think. PLEASE STOP, GET A CLUE! Along with the useless DOP who probably dominated the director with their appalling shots, this director was just walking through the production for the pay check, hang your head in shame, this was a chance of taking the franchise in new directions but its wasted by a lack of imagination of the horror genre.

In summation, this film could have been so good but Hammer in their haste to cash in have misfired and shot themselves in the foot, backside and face.

A ROYAL STINKER, AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

I personally enjoyed the movie very much. It wasn't too scary but it was interesting. If you like a ghost with a back story this is your movie.. Also if you are a young lady a certain fellow is quite darling. It also has a sort of interesting development of the main character as you learn more about her.

This movie is not full of action or gore, in fact it's quite simple. Though you are kept thoughtful and wondering. The movie is like a puzzle and you are trying to figure out who lives and who will die.

I loved it. I loved the year it was placed in and I loved the child actors. But if you want a very enthralling horror movie, this is not it. It's more of a mystery type with a little romance thrown in.

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.

"The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death" is terrible. Absolutely terrible. I cannot believe that I spent 98 minutes of my life and that the majority of people in that screen had paid money, money that they had most likely WORKED AN HOUR FOR considering how most were round about my age on such ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. Something that has the b****** to call itself a film. The guys who made that film must have been laughing since its release on New Year's Day as much as Michael Bay did when Transformers: Age of Extinction was the highest-grossing film of 2014. Anyway… What really lets the film down is. NO F****** ANYWAY THIS FILM IS SO BAD. The cast is terrible and so is the plot. Man. *sigh*.

I quite enjoyed "The Woman in Black". It had a decent and proved plot, as seen in the original success of the book with the same name written by Susan Hill, and with the stage play, as well as a decent lead in the form of Daniel Radcliffe in his first role since the "Harry Potter" series. BUT, as I'm sure you've already noticed, I THOUGHT THIS FILM WAS TERRIBLE. Such a let-down. The plot of this film is set in 1941 and follows Eve Parkins (played by Phoebe Fox) and her stereotypically stern boss Jean Hogg (played by Helen McCroy) as they are evacuated along with a group of children up north to Eel Marsh House, where the first film was set. Its promising at first but by the end of the film nothings really happened…? Where the plot is somehow possibly a little bit better than terrible is where it introduces the concept that Eve could turn into the Woman in Black or where we see Harry Burnstow (played by Harry Irvine) stopping and having some sort of seizure hallway down the road to Eel Marsh House which is a key plot aspect for about half of the film. I was waiting to know what was wrong with Harry. Was the Woman in Black having his way with him, morphing him into some sort of sidekick? No. Of course not. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE GOOD. Instead, guess what? HE IS JUST SCARED OF WATER. THAT WAS A KEY PLOT FOR HALF THE FILM! And this is just the first half of the film. THE SECOND HALF IS TERRIBLE TOO. From Eel Marsh House to a fake RAF airfield and then back to Eel Marsh House with a load of RUBBISH in between.

And guess what, that's all that seems to be between the cast members ears. RUBBISH. It's what came out of their mouths too. The performances AS YOU WOULD PROBABLY GUESS are also terrible. Everyone is TERRIBLE. The only person I possibly liked was Harry. And that was only because I had a bit of a man crush on him. I mean he was quite a cool pilot. OH NO I MEAN RUNNER OF A FAKE AIRFIELD WHO IS SCARED OF WATER. There are no characters. I didn't care about anyone. Man I mean I wanted Eve to f****** die at the end. Man f*** that film.

The film ultimately relies on jump scares throughout and although I am extremely vulnerable to those there were only about 3 good ones in the entire film and one of them was one of those false ones where this kid with a F****** SAUCEPAN ON HIS HEAD OR SOMETHING DECIDED TO F****** SCREAM AT THE CAMERA. There was 1 that made me jump. And guess what? It was one that was entirely unrelated to the plot with a little girl and an old man just holding a finger to their mouths to the camera. You know what the best bit of the film was? The END. Oh, and the bit where one woman screamed out at a bit of wood falling in the background which prompted the whole audience to burst out laughing. I feel sorry for those who were involved with this film. It was just too bad. And man I liked the first film. The reason I've given it two stars is because of how the film does well to take make it look like it is 1941. But don't worry because the cinematography is TERRIBLE. FOR F**** SAKE I COULDN'T READ WHAT ONE OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS (who was mute) WAS WRITING DOWN FOR THE ENTIRE FILM!

D***** I HAVE JUST REALISED I HAVE BEEN TRICKED INTO WASTING MORE OF MY TIME ON THIS S***** FILM.

It's 1941. Eve Parkins is escorting some children to the Eel Marsh House escaping from the blitz in London. She meets RAF pilot Harry Burnstow on the train who is stationed nearby. Jean Hogg is the mistress at the home for kids. Strange things occur and a child is found dead outside.

This is a horror without much scares or tension. It has the moodiness but there is too much dark in the scenes. The adults aren't that compelling. The reveal of Burnstow's job is interesting. This movie may be better off if the kids are the protagonists. This could be scary from the children's point of view.

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.

Slightly predictable ending and predicable plot features yet gripping storyline and some good jumps. The storyline itself isn't scary, but the occasional jumps and screams are what provide the horror effect. Not an overall "scary" movie but good enough. The cinema had a scary atmosphere but the first 15-20 minutes of the film are really dark and hard to see, it might have just been our cinema but I had to squint and really strain my eyes to see what was going on. This improved during brighter scenes but the issue later returned during basement scenes. I think having the "angel of death" concept emphasised more by killing off more characters would have been effective. I also think that there is not enough links to the first film. Good film in all, and unlike other sequels, this is actual better than the first, but you know whats coming in some scenes.

I was excited for this movie because I loved the first one. Then I saw it and actually thought about leaving early. The first 90% of the movie is very slow and very boring. The last 5 minutes of the movie was more entertaining than the entire beginning. If they ever make a 3rd one, it would take A LOT of convincing to get me to watch it. I will never watch this movie again because it was actually painful to sit through. I only stayed the whole time because I like to see how things end. I was highly disappointed because they could have done so much more with it. If I could go back in time I would decide not to see this so that I didn't have to waste my time.

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.

To start of with I have to say I absolutely loved Susan Hills book The Woman in Black. From the theatre play to the made for British TV drama made in the 80s. Then I heard that it was remade with Daniel Radcliffe but didn't hold high hopes considering he is Harry Potter. I watched and was suitably impressed despite the little variation with the ending.

So now we come the sequel of the movie and I find myself cursing Hollywood yet again. The woman in Black is supposed to be a one off story, it works better that way. But instead the money grubbing parasites felt they should milk this for all its worth. What has been produced is nothing different from any other crap horror movie that relies on bump in the night moments to deflect it from what a poorly written story it is. There is nothing that's sets this film from other crappy made horror films. Take Blair witch project and remembers how good it was, then remember how Blair Witch 2 came and it was the worst piece of tripe over. Sadly like Bollywood, Hollywood now concentrates on quantity than quality

It's 1941 and London is in the grip of the blitz. Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox) and Jean Hogg (Helen McCrory) are taking a group of Children to Eel Marsh house. On arrival, they are greeted at the Station by Dr Rhodes (Adrian Rawlins). After voicing there concerns over the house's suitability, Rawlings finally convinces them that there's no alternative.

That night, Eve's sleep is disturbed by a vivid nightmare about being forced to give up her child years earlier. She also hears the sound of a rocking chair coming from the basement and goes to investigate. There on the wall is a message thats clearly disapproving of her giving up her child. Then Eve momentarily sees a woman in the shadows....a woman dressed in black. Jean thinks it's nonsense and accuses Eve of frightening the children and tells her to keep her ghost stories to her self. However, Eve does find someone who believes her, in the shape of Harry Burnstow (Jeremy Irvine) the air force officer that she met on the train. One of the children Edward (Oaklee Pendergast), hasn't spoke a word since the death of his parents in a bombing raid. However, it becomes apparent that Edward is being contacted, but by who and why isn't clear.

The Woman in Black: Angel of Death is a dark, atmospheric movie, that keeps faith with a lot of the qualities made famous during Hammer Films hay day. The music and sound effects make the hair on the the back of your hands stand on end. Oaklee Pendergast, is my stand out performance and reminded me, in some aspects, of the young Damian Thorn in The Omen. The movie is genuinely spooky, with a few genuine shocks. So if you don't like your movies with a good sprinkling of jolts......give this one a wide birth.

BRIEF BLU-RAY REVIEW: Good, but murky video quality. Very dark, but brings out the subtle, lighting in the house and the creepy objects therein. Not especially sharp or detailed, but I think that may have been the intention of the film makers. Audio is very good.

Well... Basically this is a good effort at making a Classic Hammer Ghost Story. As I mention in my Summary, the film is VERY slow paced; so, if that definitely is not your thing or you are not into Gothic Ghost Stories, then the movie will likely not do very much for you.

Rating it is kind of hard because I personally did enjoy the real Retro feel of the film. It really reminded me of what a Hammer film was like, as opposed to the first film, which I DID like very much, but that one was a LOT more glossy and overtly stylish, although set at about the turn of the century. This one made much more of an effort to present a genuinely older looking film set in and around World War II, and it REALLY looked like it. I liked the subtle way the production design was used in the creepy lighting and the ultra textured look of the interior of the house. Like I mentioned about the Blu-ray, the film is mostly pretty dark and murky; one of the other reviewers even stated that they could barely make out anything. There IS some truth to that, but they mostly make up for it by some excellent low-key lighting which sets off the walls, fixtures, and especially a lot of the seedy, creepy things lying around. To me, the colour and tonality, especially inside the house, looked kind of different. Where I personally would probably have preferred the more usual blue tones, sort of like in the first film, this one though was bathed in an almost golden glow with a predominance of earth-tones and greens. It was effective, just a different kind of look from what a person may be used to seeing in a Ghost Story.

Like the first film, there are a LOT of jump-scares; so, if that is NOT your thing, then you probably won't like this movie very much. Personally, I thought the scares that the director used were mostly very effective and didn't come across to me as artificial or baseless, or thrown in just for low-brow shock value. When you DID see the creepy elements, they were pretty brief, but there were a few times where they built up to some nice Gothic scares.

The look and feel of this film is quite different from the first one. As I said, that one came across as WAY more glossy and polished, despite the period in which it was taking place. I didn't mind that myself, despite the fact that it was supposed to be a Hammer Ghost Story, because I just figured that the look of the first film was designed to come across as a more modern looking film, but depicting a time period around the turn of the century. Kind of like the more recent Sherlock Holmes films, but not as highly stylized. This film though, was a LOT more authentic and realistic in it's tone and look. And, also, as I had mentioned, this one is MUCH more slowly paced. It's hard to use the fist film as a comparison to say, 'Well, if you liked that one, you will like this one', because the visual and tonal style are so different, although both are Ghost Stories. I don't think you can really go by that. About the only way that I can think of how the comparison might help you is if you liked the first one MAINLY because you like Ghost Stories, then you might have a better chance of liking this one because it does have that similarity being a continuation of the story some 40 years later.

I think the best way to help you determine whether you would like this movie or not, would be to keep in mind these primary elements that make up this film: 1) It is a Gothic Ghost Story 2) It is VERY slow paced and subtle 3) There are a fair amount of what I feel are effective jump-scares 4) This film does NOT focus on gore or sadism 5) If you are a fan of some of the older, more low-key Hammer Ghost Stories, or if you generally like British Gothic Horror, then there is a good chance that you may like this one too.

I personally found Hammer's first couple of efforts in it's new incarnation to be a bit stronger. I very much liked 'WAKEWOOD' and thought that it really captured the spirit and tone of the earlier, stronger Hammer films. It had a LOT more of a visceral tone than this one. But, I also really enjoy low-key Ghost Stories if they are done well, and I feel that this one although not Earth-Shaking or Pants-Changing, is a decent, genuine effort.

If I were rating this movie STRICTLY based on my personal opinion of whether I feel that it is a well made and effective Ghost Story, I would probably give it a '7' But, trying to take into consideration how people in GENERAL may like it and the fact that the story is rather slow and simple, I thought giving it a '6' would perhaps be a more realistic guideline for others.

I hope this helps...

2012's The Woman in Black wasn't a great movie either, but it was one interesting horror that provides a cold atmosphere by its old setting, in spite of still being reliant to jump scares. The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death is most likely the same, but extends the worst parts of it all. The story doesn't have any connection with the predecessor, other than having the same villain. The subtitle doesn't even make any sense, thus immediately indicates that this sequel is just some bored cash grab that doesn't have any more horror ideas than shocking the audience with loud sound effects and other stuff that calls itself "scary". Since jump scare is a dead horse that still gets beaten in years, the movie gave us an even more annoying trick that instantly kills the terror.

The only interesting part of the movie is the setting, it takes place in a time during war, as it traps the characters into this sudden supernatural situation. The story hints some arc from the main characters, but the interest just keeps getting smaller and smaller when it's starting to become a cliché. It takes really slow to deliver the real horror. Slow burn is usually a good thing to this genre, but somehow it never felt like there is any tension growing at every turn of the story. It just keeps teasing us with jump scares, that are often not the ones that we should be frightened at. Example is some object or kid popping out from nowhere, while the sound effects rise the volume to fool the audience. That trick already stops being clever in a long time, and in this movie, it just keeps doing it, which is rather annoying, and even worse, destroys the momentum. When the loud jump scares finally involve the real monster, it's no longer effective and rather felt like a repetitive noise.

The vagueness of the ghost's attacks also brings an underwhelming effect to the horror. At least the first one manages to be somewhat disturbing at harming its child victims, giving a serious tension to what this entity could actually do. Here, while it applies the same rules, it never had that same feeling when it loses a character, even when the kids have become one of the main characters. And some parts of the horror also involves taking us into dark places that makes it difficult to figure out whether the jump scares in those scenes are meant to be scary, since the filmmakers keep tricking us with loud false scares. And what concludes this journey is the most generic climax you'd ever think of in a horror movie. The production at least looks good, basically just like the first one, except it seemingly has a higher budget. The acting is okay, but their job is even less memorable than what Daniel Radcliffe has done in the last one.

The Woman in Black 2 is rather lazy than creepy. It never goes beyond its historical background and production. And those merits don't even showcase what this movie is suppose to be. There is hardly any terror and yet pulls off the laziest horror tricks of our time. It still attempt a slow burn, but the fake scares just ruins it, making those tricks even more predictable. Apart from that, it's boring. Maybe a visit from Winterrowd or Tekzoned is a lot satisfying. Horror movies that can't provide real terror can still work if it at least tells a decent story, which was almost the result of the first one. But then, this sequel has proved that the studio is just basically not sure what to do with their money. Or franchise.

I literally almost fell asleep in this movie.

Someone asked me as we walked out if I liked it... 3 words only I could say .... FAIL, FAIL, FAIL.

The first one with Daniel Radcliffe was good, this one...far from it! I felt sorry for Jeremy Irvine being in it, he was wonderful in War Horse. In this he plays some "coward" whose only "job" is to babysit or "base sit" some "fake military base" with fake planes, etc... I mean..wt? Do you like trains? Go see this, for 5+ min you hear this LOUD banging with basically the same rhythm of a train engine going chug chug chug down the track... I thought Thomas The Train was going to make a cameo as a gag... then the "cause of the noise" is even more laughable. You just gave up 5+ minutes of your life...for nothing. All in all ... 1 hour & 38 min of quality sleep time; bring a pillow.