The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.