The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death (2014) Reviews

• Another triumph for Dark-O-Vision . . .

  oscaralbert2015-01-10

  . . . or the reinvention of Radio? That is the key question posed by THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2: ANGEL OF DEATH. My eyesight is above average, and I could barely make out 10% of the screen for the two-thirds of this flick set at night. I know Hollywood's job is to cut every corner it can, as movie props and scenery tend to cost more than those of Broadway or Radio productions. However, my Multiplex screen was a 37 1/2-footer. So unless you have a 450-inch home entertainment or mobile device, do NOT rent or stream ANGEL OF DEATH (except if you enjoy eye strain). It seems as if most of this movie was shot with a black filter (save for the daylight or dusk scenes, which alternated gray and brown lens coverings). Novel as it is to experience 1890s film quality, those flicks lasted two minutes at most. This is pretty hard to stand for 99 minutes straight. (For those who are Harry Potter Completists, Mr. Radcliff is only present for this prequel in spirit, as one of the film's final lines reads, "Harry's watching over us - - SHE can't come back," the SHE referencing the witch Hermoldevort.)

  More

• Yawn & spoiler

  amazon-171-4365582015-01-12

  I enjoyed the previous film with Daniel Radcliff. I expected this to be, perhaps not as good, but hopefully entertaining. I was disappointed, it is just nonsense. Where to start: There is no real plot, certainly nothing that ties the characters together in any believable way. The film relies on the horror genre stereotypical making the audience 'jump' moment. Over and over again. It gets so over done it becomes tedious. The actors do their best but the lack of any real plot and a poor script and so many illogical aspects make it hard work with so many absurdities e.g. One man, a former pilot demoted for cowardice, is apparently in charge of an entire local dummy airfield. It has fake aeroplanes and he can electrically ignite fire bombs to simulate 'hits' and make the enemy think they have hit something. He has a motorbike and a jeep for transport. He manages this 'dummy' airfield entirely on his own. No guards, no maintenance people, nobody, just him. A school class of evacuees and 2 teachers are 'evacuated' to the ghostly derelict house. More classes are arriving in a week. There is 'no where else'. It's absurd to believe they would put kids (even in time of war) in a derelict house with holes in the roof and great holes in the floors etc. But somebody has installed beds for a dormitory. Installed desks/tables for classrooms but they can't sweep up and clean out the other rooms ? Let alone do any basic repairs. A doctor drives a bus for them but won't put on the headlights in the marshes because of the 'blackout'. However, He is quite happy to walk around with a very big torch shining and he is quite happy to stand at the house door open at night with the lights on. There is some raving blind man wandering about for no apparent reason. I felt sorry for the actors, they did a good job with so little to work with.

  More

• As with the first film (Hammer, not BBC) the star was the set designs.

  djgrnfrs2015-02-01

  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!

  More

• Better than you've Heard

  slbbooksmusicfilm2015-01-03

  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.

  More

• Painfully dull, which is the worst crime a movie can commit (in my opinion)!

  Hellmant2015-01-29

  '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

  More