Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 19/01/2015
I loved the first 'The Woman in Black' film. It was scary as ever, but it had a brilliant story and a lot of heart. The film worked on its own, despite being an adaptation. But, eventually a sequel was made. The sequel is based on the book by the original author, but one look at the trailer indicated that this was unlikely to live up to the brilliance of the original.
'The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death' takes place during the Second World War. Teacher Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox) and the school headmistress Jean Hogg (Helen McCrory) are shepherding a bunch of children to safety. Their destination, Eel Marsh House, now decrepit after 40 years of disuse. On the way to the house Eve meets pilot Harry (Jeremy Irvine), a charming but unassuming man with a secret.
Of course, one does not simply enter Eel Marsh House without courting trouble. But trouble takes its time in coming. We get some glimpses of our friendly neighbourhood angel of death. She, or rather her hands, often appear. She concentrates on youngster Edward (Oaklee Pendergast), who Eve takes under her wing.
Eve's own past haunts her, and gives her a direct connection with our ghost. More is revealed of our ghost's story through the very tired use of audio recordings. This was only the start of the film's cliched and lazy plot devices.
Trouble is this film doesn't quite form a cohesive whole. The scares are few and far between, and they're not much for that. Where the ghost in the first film had a clear agenda and acted on it, here she just appears for the sake of the audience, but contributes nothing to the film.
There was a point when I couldn't help but yell out 'Get on with it, already', when the ghost just continued to tease an attack but didn't actually go through with it.
The malignant soul that she was in the first film is missing in this one. We would have had a much stronger story had the ghost related to Eve's own desperate sorrow and co-opted her as a kindred spirit. Instead, she homes in on the child that Eve is unfathomably attached to, but does nothing to him. In fact, she appears to protect the child from the bullies. That too would have made for a far more convincing storyline than the one we got - which was confused and had no direction.
There's the romantic plotline as well, which you know is coming (because Hollywood!), but it has no preamble. The leads have no chemistry either.
The end of the film is the only saving grace - a tragic demise is the most heart-wrenching moment in the entire film, and it does come as a surprise.
I wasn't expecting much from this film, but if you're making a horror, at least get that part right! This film is devoid of any scares, any connection with the first film (barring the setting), any chemistry and any plausible story arc. The performances are par for the course.
Hammer's work seems to have dipped since its comeback. They really need to up the ante if they want to stay relevant.
I loved the first 'The Woman in Black' film. It was scary as ever, but it had a brilliant story and a lot of heart. The film worked on its own, despite being an adaptation. But, eventually a sequel was made. The sequel is based on the book by the original author, but one look at the trailer indicated that this was unlikely to live up to the brilliance of the original.
Of course, one does not simply enter Eel Marsh House without courting trouble. But trouble takes its time in coming. We get some glimpses of our friendly neighbourhood angel of death. She, or rather her hands, often appear. She concentrates on youngster Edward (Oaklee Pendergast), who Eve takes under her wing.
 |
| Not ominous at all. |
Trouble is this film doesn't quite form a cohesive whole. The scares are few and far between, and they're not much for that. Where the ghost in the first film had a clear agenda and acted on it, here she just appears for the sake of the audience, but contributes nothing to the film.
There was a point when I couldn't help but yell out 'Get on with it, already', when the ghost just continued to tease an attack but didn't actually go through with it.
 |
| Don't turn around. |
There's the romantic plotline as well, which you know is coming (because Hollywood!), but it has no preamble. The leads have no chemistry either.
 |
| Lacking chemistry. |
I wasn't expecting much from this film, but if you're making a horror, at least get that part right! This film is devoid of any scares, any connection with the first film (barring the setting), any chemistry and any plausible story arc. The performances are par for the course.
Hammer's work seems to have dipped since its comeback. They really need to up the ante if they want to stay relevant.
 |
| She never forgives. |
Comments