Written By: Dan Geer
Hammer Films’ The Woman in Black was a very surprising throwback to classic gothic horror. Director James Watkins really understood the genre, filling up the big screen with just the right amount of creepy atmosphere and “jump out of your seat” moments. Nothing was overdone. The film hit just the right balance when it came to executing the fright factor, never letting us see too much. The camera work and lighting (or lack thereof) were so well done, that the eye plays tricks on the viewer when watching, often making us see eerie spectres that aren’t even there. The film simply had a great look to it, as well as a compelling story.
So how does one make a sequel worthy of the original? For starters, while it would still have to be a period piece of some sort to give it that gothic look, it would also have to be different enough with the story and characters that it doesn’t feel like a repeat of the first film. Therefore, a wise decision was made by the writers to set the film forty years later, during the London Blitz. While Eel Marsh house (where the woman in black still dwells) and its surrounding property look pretty much the same, we are in a completely different time period, with characters dealing with a whole set of different problems in their lives – mainly the Nazi bombings, although the lead character, a school teacher by the name of Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox), has her own inner demons to deal with as well. We’re removed just far enough from the first film that the plot and lead characters feel fresh enough at the start.
The story of The Woman in Black 2 has British parents fearing for the lives of their children during the Blitz, and Eve is entrusted to evacuate their children to a safer location. By all outward appearances, the abandoned Eel Marsh house seems to be a perfect place for the Board of Education to send them, but apparently none of its members believe in ghosts, or have ever heard of the hauntings and tragic deaths that surrounded the place forty years prior. Of course, fans of the first film are very well aware, and know from the get-go that this is a bad idea. The woman in black never left, is still mad with vengeance, and is conveniently being offered a group of children on a serving platter for her to unleash forty years of pent-up rage upon. They’d probably be better off staying in war-torn London.
Phoebe Fox is given much more to do here than Daniel Radcliffe had in the first film, making the character of Eve seem far less wooden than Radcliffe’s Arthur Kipps. Not to undermine Radcliffe’s acting abilities, as we have seen in the Harry Potter series that he has matured greatly as an actor. It is just that his performance in The Woman in Black was very understated compared to that of Fox’s character in the sequel. While Arthur did have an interesting back story, Radcliffe wasn’t really given much else to do with the character other than wander a haunted house looking scared for half the film. What makes Fox’s Eve so interesting is that she is given an actual character arc to follow.
She is very much accustomed to dealing with tragedy, having dealt with it in her own life with her only child having been taken from her prior to the start of the film. And yet, she is able to continuously put on a smile for the children, and comfort them during the Blitz and the hauntings at Eel Marsh house. But when the children start getting tormented, especially that of Edward (tenderly portrayed by Oaklee Pendergast) her smile and sense of comfort start to diminish and her strength wanes, leaving her struggling to find a way to keep herself together as she seeks to protect those around her. Fox simply has more to play off of here, and it helps carry the film quite well.
But while all of the leads do a great job making us care, especially Phoebe Fox, the story doesn’t really have anything new to offer other than its new period setting. Sure, the scare tactics are well-placed, and the atmosphere is spot-on, but those who have seen The Woman in Black might be disappointed that after a while, it feels mostly like a retread of the first film. Perhaps if more horrific details were revealed about the woman in black’s past that were not told to us in the first film, maybe an interesting connection of some sort between her and one of the lead characters for example, this sequel might have felt fresh from start to finish. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and we’re left with nothing more than something that tastes fresh at first, but becomes less appealing the more we chew on it.
If this were the first film, director Tom Harper’s The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death would be a breath of fresh air when it comes to gothic horror. Instead, the air feels a tiny bit stale by the end since we’ve seen it all before. Nevertheless, this reviewer still enjoyed the film quite a bit, and the audience I experienced it with seemed to be having a good time. I lost count of the gasps and screams that were immediately followed by delightful giggles. It’s hard to complain too much about a film where the people in the audience still seem to be having fun with it. But it is still undeniable that there is simply just not enough here in terms of story to make this film as enjoyable as the first. The performances and scares are enough to keep it afloat, and the leads definitely rival those of the first film. But a successful sequel should really expand upon what we have already experienced, and that’s just not done here.
Rating: 
(out of four)
Related Reviews:
