The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death (2015)

A different way of telling a story

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death somewhat improves the story of the previous entry but not by much. Taking place during the second world war in Britain, we have another protagonist ensconced in a remote locale haunted by some ghostly figure. Atmosphere is quickly displaced by the usual 'loud noise/what was that?' paradigm which are the stock and trade of most banal shockfests, which is a shame considering the time period of the film lends itself to the genre handsomely. Oh dear!

Director Tom Harper did mainly TV series and shorts before this, and sadly it shows. With so many false scares the film is hardly convincing or scary, and I still don't fully understand the plot... Hopefully there will not be another sequel.

Yet another horror film that feels like it was made with a by-the-numbers horror-film kit for the intellectually challenged. Are we never to have another that isn't just the same collection of clichés served up like a cheap oily burger and chips in a gaudy cardboard box? The heard-it-a thousand-times-before music, the tired old camera angles, the groan-inducing characters, as two-dimensional as the computer graphics that lend to every scene that flat, video game quality we've come to hate so much: yes, they're all here yet again, folks. Electronically distorted whispers that swell on the soundtrack whenever a character is being haunted, glass-eyed dolls and mechanical toys, cobwebbed corridors and peeling wallpaper, and, of course, jump-scares galore. But are these hackneyed sounds and images really what a paying audience is meant to accept as horror cinema in the 21st century? When will the cinema industry outgrow this ghost-train garbage and actually put in the effort and artistry and creativity to come up with something original, atmospheric, thought-provoking and genuinely frightening to put on our screens? For real horror these days one must turn to the news.

The original TV version was outstanding. This version was a sequel to the Hammer version starring Daniel Radcliffe.Too many scenes were so dark as to obscure what was happening. The general gloom reduced the atmosphere rather than adding to it.Scriptwriting lacked a clear dynamic. The original story by Susan Hill was a classic ghost story and provided a credible premise for the haunting. It should be possible to build on this, but unfortunately this sequel failed to do this. Ostensibly, all the ingredients were present, but... well, it takes more than an old neglected house and a bunch of wartime child evacuees to make a spooky film.Too episodic in plot to be effective. Overall short on tension and thrills.