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

. . . 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.)

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.

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!

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.

'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 WOMAN IN BLACK 2: ANGEL OF DEATH (2015) ** Phoebe Fox, Helen McCrory, Jeremy Irvine, Leanne Best, Oaklee Pendergast, Adrian Rawlins. Better-than-expected but unnecessary sequel to the quasi-hit horror film this time set in WWII with Fox (a cross between a young Debra Winger and young Sean Young) and McCrory (dead ringer for a young Maggie Smith) as a pair of caretakers to a small group of orphans who wind up sheltered in the haunted house of the first film with the titular spectre dead set on a terrified struck mute charge of theirs (Pendergast). Well produced Hammer Films would-be franchise resorts to the old tricks of the trade (slamming doors, objects suddenly thrust into frame, sound design in overdrive etc.) make up for some truly eye rolling missteps in the storytelling by Jon Croker (um, seriously there's eight kids and two grown women can't keep their eyes on them from wandering away from the house?! ) Director Tom Harper at least keeps the story moving in spite of some hard-to-see/tell WTF is happening on screen (too dark/murky in many instances).

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.

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 usually never write movie reviews but after watching this pathetic excuse for a horror movie, I felt obliged to warn people. I mistakenly went to see this movie even after reading all the bad reviews on here, as I thought it couldn't possibly be all that bad and would at the very least be a somewhat scary horror film. Boy was I wrong! There is absolutely NOTHING scary at all about this movie. It relies completely on out of context jump scares to get any kind of reaction from its audience, which is nothing short of pathetic. The storyline is ridiculous and nonsensical, the characters are stupid, as are their actions, there is absolutely no creepy atmosphere or build up and at the end, you don't give a crap what happens to anyone in the movie. Even the hour and a half run- time is painful to sit through, you just can't wait for it to end it is so uneventful and boring. The worst part is that the jump scares come completely out of nowhere at times, there isn't even a buildup so you don't even get scared. It's just a mild shock and then nothing again. The woman in black herself isn't even scary in this one. They really shouldn't have bothered and I feel totally ripped off going to see this. There was no effort put into this movie whatsoever, which is a shame as the first movie was decent and a very effective horror. There is so much one (with talent) could do with the premise, the woman in black character is scary and a child dying every time someone sees her is a very creepy idea. An idea which they forgot about until halfway through this movie. Please, please stay away from this cliché ridden mess!!! This movie solely relies on constant jump scares and creepy child ghosts (which didn't at all feature in the first movie) in order to be scary and fails miserably on every level. As a horror fan, it's a very sad time when horror (sequels) are now being made without the horror with no effort whatsoever just to cash in the original.

I'm a massive fan of the woman in black, i first saw it on the bbc in 1987 when I was 10 years old and it gave me sleepless nights for 15 years! I then read the book and saw the play in London The 1st and 2nd of the hammar versions are good, very good, it could have been done so much worse, the way they portrayed the characters was brilliant, the actors were amazing, the set and feel of 1900s , the direction, cinematography and casting were fantastic! All very much in keeping with the original Susan hill classic. However, this was only half of what made it a classic tale. The other half was the actual woman in black,mrs drablow. The original bbc film contained one of the best ghost horror scenes In history and was done with nothing more than makeup a wire and great storytelling. I feel the woman in black in the hammar films are an afterthought, playing it safe with cgi and shock tactics, there was no feeling or relationship to her actually ever being a real woman, she seemed more of a demon. There was no audience connection to the woman in black, the original film got us connected from the start and that connection was a spooky one! I truly feel that ghost stories are wanted and popular but in a day and age of cgi and shock tactics we will never get another classic until we go back to good old talented storytelling.

On a side note was Susan hill ever called in to consult on these films? If not why not?

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!

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.

While the first installment dealt with a young solicitor- Daniel Radcliffe- travels to a remote village where he discovers the vengeful ghost of a scorned woman is terrorizing the locals . Here happens 40 years after the first haunting at Eel Marsh House, as a group of children under the care of two women (a rigid and strict Helen McGlory, as well as a warm and loving Phoebe Fox) are evacuated from WWII London . They arrive in the haunted house, awakening the house's darkest inhabitant at the isolated manor and soon learn a dark secret , as they find that Eel Marsh House is haunted by the vengeful ghost , referred to here as an angel of death. As they become the next target for the ghost of Jennette Humfrye, otherwise known woman dressed in black. With the help of a fellow soldier (Jeremy Irvine) , two women and some unfortunate children must fend off the damned spirit who takes the scared kiddies .She never forgives. She never forgets. She never left.

The pace is slow but I never found it dull, the plot is similar to first outing , as new visitors escaping from war-torn London discover that the house is haunted by the revengeful ghost of a woman dressed in black whose son was drowned in a bog and whenever she appears, a child from the group dies. As the scary story narrates the legends of the manor and reveals more untold secrets and another chapter of evil tricks & truths of the menacing Jeanette. Cast is acceptable such as : Phoebe Fox plays a young girl with a dark past that haunts her , as she learns that the woman lost her son drowned in the marsh and she seeks revenge, taking the children . Helen McGlory plays a stiff-upper-lip caretaker with disagreeable manners . And Jeremy Irvine as a handsome pilot to help investigate what is happening. In addition , Adrian Rawlins, who plays Dr. Rhodes, played Arthur Kidd , the main character, in the TV movie version of Woman in black (1989). The location used for the fictional story leading to Eel Marsh Island is Osea Island's tidal causeway situated at the estuary of Blackwater River in Essex, England, United Kingdom. Due to tidal conditions, the cast and crew were restricted to only 4 hours of working time per day at that location.

It contains a frightening and suspenseful musical score by Marco Beltrani , a good composer expert on terror films . Evocative but dark cinemtography by George Steele . The motion picture was professionally directed by Tom Harper who was Bafta nominated , but being clearly inferior to first outing . He is a fine writer/producer and filmmaker . Tom is a craftsman who began his career making short films. He wrote and directed his break out short film, Cubs, in 2006 about urban fox hunting. He then moved on to direct a range of film and television work which includes The Scouting Book for Boys (2009), Misfits (2010), This Is England '86 (2011), Peaky Blinders (2013), The Borrowers , The Woman in Black: Angel of Death (2015) and the BBC TV mini-series War & Peace (2016), and The Misfits , among others



Other movies about this story are the followings : The film The Woman in Black (2012) by James Watkins with Daniel Radcliffe , Ciarán Hinds , Shaun Dooley and the British television film Woman in black (1989) by Herbert Wise with Adrian Rawlins, Bernard Hepton , Sam Toovey , David Daker , Pauline are separate adaptations of the novel 'The Woman in Black' by Susan Hill.A third film, which would be set in 1983 (the year the original story was published), was planned

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 Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death is set forty years after the events of the first film. During World War II, a couple of children who have nowhere to go & since their parents can't leave London, are sent to a house in the country. This happens to be Eel Marsh house. The children go there with caretakers, Eve Parkins(Phoebe Fox) & Jean Hogg(Helen McCrory). Once they're in the house, Eve & a child named Edward(Oaklee Pendergast) experience strange events happening in the house presumably caused by an ominous presence that's lurking about.

The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death is a moderately scary movie. However, it is a let down when you compare it to The Woman in Black(2012), which is one of my all time favorite horror movies. This movie solely relies on jump scares to scare the viewers. Though it works sometimes, it gets a bit repetitive & predictable. However, the original has many genuinely scary scenes that are terrifying even without the sudden sound effect. This movie didn't have me on the edge of my seat, though it is a horror/thriller film. The first movie had me on the edge of my seat throughout & kept me guessing as to what's going to happen, right till the end. Phoebe Fox is great as Eve Parkins. Helen McCrory is good as Jean Hogg. Jeremy Irvine is impressive as Harry Burnstow. Oaklee Pendergast is spectacular as Edward. Adrian Rawlins is effective as Dr. Rhodes. Amelia Pidgeon, Jude Wright & Pip Pearce are brilliant as Joyce, Tom & James respectively. All in all, The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death is not a must watch. However, watch it if you have some time to kill. In conclusion I would like to say that, if you've watched The Woman in Black(2012), go to this film with low expectations & prepare to watch an entertaining but mediocre sequel.

"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.

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.

A prequel to the first somewhat slow paced, yet terrifying film with a whole new set of talented cast. What really make this film stands out from others is its visually and top-notch production that makes it feel like a high-class ghost story as well as the performance, while unfortunately the pacing here is still just as slow as the first film. This film also suffers from its countless cheap scares making as it what seems to be a SCARY atmosphere here fails to fully deliver its premise and succeeds only in its last act. And despite its lack of any GORY scenes here, this film is still disturbing and dramatic enough to watch throughout. Overall, this is a horror/drama film worth watching for its visual and cast but don't expecting much of a smart or effective scare here.

>>B-<<

After such a great reception in 2012, it was on the cards that we could expect a sequel to Susan Hill's chilling tale of heartbreak and death. This sequel is set 40 years after the events of the original film in which a group of children are evacuated to the country.

This movie recycles many of the same elements that made the first production so frightening and uses many of the same jump scares but does so in a way that even though you expect them, they still have you throwing the popcorn across the people sat next to you. Jon Crokers' style of writing in this movie is able to keep the audience in constant suspense for the full 98 minutes just as the first movie did and this is achieved through such wonderful acting and spooky locations.

Helen McCrorys' portrayal of self-obsessed headmistress Jean Hogg is a wonderful highlight that will create a sense of realism within the audience's hearts and allow them to form a bond however nothing compares to my personal highlight from this film. Phoebe Foxs' portrayal of kind hearted schoolteacher Eve Parkins is the highlight of this film. Unlike Daniel Radcliffe who was well known before his role as Arthur Kipps, Phoebe Fox is an actress fairly new to many people but this film could very well put her on the map.

All in all this is a very enjoyable horror film that will keep you in constant agony as your heart pounds against your chest for such a lengthy period of time until you see the credits rolling on the screen.

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 the WWII blitz. Two women are sent to the countryside with a small group of children to remove them from the dangers of German bombs. I can't imagine the British government allowing children to inhabit a rundown house that has been deserted for 40 years. Besides being filthy, the house looks as if it's about to collapse.

When you have a sequel that takes place 40 years after the original, there is some repetition . We have the setup, mysterious and frightening scenes (that turn out to be dreams), denial, discovery of what came before and acceptance. Of course there are the obligatory "shock" shots when one character flashes into view to cause a jump from the audience.

Once trouble starts, there is a young, handsome Royal Air Force officer whose only purpose is to show up Just In Time. This happens throughout the movie. The Woman in Black is defeated of course and it seems our heroes are safe. But there is a final shot that suggests we can expect Woman in Black 3 in a few years.

this review may contain spoilers. after watching the first film which was a creepy and jumpy film i went into the second one with low expectations. regards to other reviewers it did rely on cheap jump scares. But i have to say i enjoyed the story line as a whole i found it very interesting and i got stuck into it. being a horror film lover it does take a lot to make me jump, this one did get me quite a few times it had very little tension. It was like the director was just throwing random jump scares very so often and those scares relied on kids jumping out and also crows flight against the window. However during the last 20 minutes you see a few scary faces which are quite creepy, on a whole i gave the money an 8 out 10, it was a really interesting and jumpy sequel it was a lot of fun to watch i would recommend it to see your friends and family jump a lot :)

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.

I've never reviewed a film before but felt that this was getting more bad reviews than it deserved. There were some big plot holes and some very predictable scares. I think few more scares and more deaths would have made it scarier. I would like to have seen the characters explored a bit further. There were parts were it felt rushed, it felt like the characters were very excepting of the ghost and felt that they knew her after a very short time. I liked the atmosphere they created much like the first one with dull lighting and the feeling of loneliness and isolation. The actors did their best with the script they had they and Phoebe Fox was very good in what I believe is her first leading role. Maybe not a classic but worth watch, my wife was terrified.

Firstly, i am thrilled that The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death is rated a 15. The first feeling that comes to mind when someone mentions Woman in Black is that of dread. Nightmarish dread that was caused not by the film, but the screaming and shouting of Harry Potter fans that were in the same screening as i when the first Woman in Black was released in 2012 due to the BBFC granting the film a 12 certificate and thus, allowing avid Daniel Radcliffe/Potter fans to see their beloved up on the screen once again. Unfortunately for me, this resulted in hysterical screaming, constant talking, and the occasional REALLY LOUD fits of laughter, distracting me from what i thought, in the end, was a rather solid and spooky adaptation of Susan Hill's 1983 horror novella. What a joy then to see not only a sequel that featured no one of "fangirl" capabilities starring in it, but a 15 classification, wiping the fundamental existence of screaming youths from my cinema. Great start.

Now i have seen the film, my early prediction of screaming youths being all but eradicated from the showing was misjudged and unfortunately, i was sat amongst what i feared most from a cinematic audience. Screaming. Shouting. Idle talking about where the film was going. The 15 certificate clearly had not completely solved the problem of the first film, and with this, i left the film deeply upset and rather annoyed. Anyway, how was the film i hear you ask? In a word or two; rather mediocre. In terms of plot, teacher Eve Parkins, played pretty well by Phoebe Fox, is evacuated, along with a group of children, including Edward, played by a Damian-esque Oaklee Pendergast, to Eel Marsh house during World War II, where they are greeted with strange noises, disappearing children, and a non-convincing performance by Jeremy Irvine as a supposedly discharged war pilot suffering from PTSD. What follows is a 90 minute mash-up of jump scares, complete darkness, and a feeling that i had seen this movie once before.

Don't get me wrong, i love a good jump scare, but when they are so obviously going to happen it detracts from the overall power of fear they are attempting to bring, and such a problem was evident throughout the course of the film. In fact, the only time i felt partially threatened by the titular character was during the last ten minutes of the movie when there is a certain ambiguity to what was going to occur, yet for a supposed horror movie, 10 minutes out of 90 doesn't cut the mustard in my book. On the positive side, the child performers are good, particularly the character of Edward, the dark, Gothic tone of the film is present throughout and never lets off, and the film successfully tells a story, albeit a plot pretty similar to the first film, within a sensible amount of time.

In conclusion, The Woman in Black: Angel of Death, doesn't quite match the heights of the first film, and if anything, resembles too much of the plot and tone from it, resulting in a film that can only be classed as 'more of the same'. The endless jump scares may excite some horror fans, but in my mind such parlor tricks are cheap and un-imaginative resulting in an overall feeling of content, but not in anyway excitement or horror.

Overall Score: 6/10