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

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

First time I watched this, I fell asleep. Thought to purchase it to give it another go and guess what? I fell asleep. There is something about this dull monotonous horror sequel that just puts me in a state of fatigue. I have no idea why. England is in the midst of a war, and a group of children take shelter at Eel Marsh House where the ghostly titular "Woman In Black" resides. This sequel means well. It's clear that the production values, eerie atmosphere and decent direction from Harper amount to what should've been a mildly scary horror film. But alas here we are, the first weekend of 2015 and the curse for atrocious horror films continues. The acting was wasted. You obtain the star quality of Irvine and McCrory and do nothing with them, all the attention is on Fox who unfortunately suffers from "Scared but Stupid Syndrome". Y'know what I mean. Going down to a creepy dark basement shouting "hello, is there anyone there?" whilst looking unfazed by the whole situation or actively pursuing a malicious spectral entity instead of actually putting her foot down and persuading her colleague to leave. It's predictably clichéd. Littered with jump scares that aren't inventively used, just the typical pop up of a speeding crow or mysterious hand accompanied with a loud piercing noise. The "Woman In Black" herself seemed more youthful since her last outing, she was hardly frightening at all. The environment and the items within it aren't put to use at all, unlike its predecessor which utilised horrifically ancient toys to enhance the horror. There's just no memorability to it and unfortunately the same story is recycled. The lack of tension within the narrative has transformed what should've been a horror into a dramatic war flick (whilst still lacking any real drama). Something happens at the end but I couldn't tell you because I can never get to it without snoozing. I did rewind it back the next morning though, so don't worry...it's still boring. "Angel of Death"? More like "Angel of Narcolepsy".

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!

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.

Where's the time that Hammer was a standard for creepy flicks or Gothic stories. That's a long time ago. Hammer came back years ago and all geeks were cheering about the fact that they were here to stay, unless, they gave us crap. This isn't crap but it's just on the edge of becoming one. Picking in on the success of Woman In Black (2012) and the comeback of ghost flicks like the Insidious franchise Hammer found it time to make a follow up to the 2012 entry. Can't say that it was badly shot but there wasn't any scary moment to pick up. Oh yeah, when teens would watch it those would scream it aloud. It takes almost over 1 hour and 15 minutes before things really are shown, before that it's the sound that should do it, you know, hearing voices, children singing, the old trick done years ago but here, sadly for me it didn't work at all. Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5