hongkong666
A majority of sequels are way worse than the first movie. This one is no exception. During most of the movie you barely see anything. The lighting is so bad, that it soon becomes even boring to watch. A director switch to Tom Harper did not improve this movie at all. Even worse, here we have even more stupid jump scares lurking behind almost every corner and almost the only "horrifying" thing about this movie are these terrible loud sound effects, included for no reason but to hide the fact, that this movie lacks a lot of substance. I don't recommend seeing this one!
Stephen Abell
Hammer used to stand for Horror, so what the hell went wrong here?Firstly, where was The Woman In Black? The only time you see her is when you look at the advertising poster. As for Angel Of Death!... well there wasn't much to speak of at all. After watching this I was amazed it didn't get a PG certification, especially because there was nothing overtly frightening or horrifying about the story or the picture. The closest we came to an eerie atmosphere was when young Edward was trapped in the constantly locked, however always open, room where the spirit of The Woman resided, all we got then was a few moving toys and a dark shadow.I think the director, Tom Harper, was trying to build atmosphere and get the minds of the audience to "fill in the blanks", therefore immersing themselves into the story and film more. It didn't work.In fact, I'd probably recommend this film to all insomniacs as the banality within should put them to sleep quite fast.Did the studio pay its light bill? Because everything that was shot in darkness was so poor in visibility that if I even turned on an incidental light source the picture on the screen was near unwatchable!This is a travesty in Horror filmmaking, from the story (which is basic, lacking in substance, and holds no surprises) to the direction (which lacks style, atmosphere, and power).The only good thing about the whole movie is the acting though it's impossible to save this film.
Leofwine_draca
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.
lfc-89182
Where can I begin, on the positive side the acting is good considering the script. This movie is only slightly better than the awful first one. Another movie that tries to go to the limits but gets absolutely nowhere. It's one of those terrible movies when you think "Why did i bother" The story was muddled and weak and I'm sure those actors must have wondered if they were rehearsing for two different movies. Watch this garbage at your peril, it is really dire and not befitting of a Hammer movie.Some of the scenes did not even belong in the storyline, I suppose the old cliché is true that no matter how good the acting is, if its badly produced and directed it just doesn't work.
AD
