The Woman In Black 2 (Angel Of Death). My second viewing of this 2014 sequel (the first time was a French dubbed copy) pretty much confirms what I originally thought of it.
The main feeling it evokes is not fear, tension, suspense, mystery or excitement but rather – annoyance.
This stems mainly from the script, which manages to be both irritatitingly implausible and lazily underdeveloped, as well as laden with clichés (taken from the previous film and other haunted house stories) - traits inherent to most catchpenny sequels.
Suspension of disbelief is a given when watching genre films, but it should be applicable only to the supernatural aspects of the screenplay. When the story’s ‘real world’ background is full of inconsistencies and incoherence (especially when set in a well documented recent past), then there’s a major problem (over and above the now customary anachronistic speech and attitudes routinely featured in 'period' films . Examples abound: Two teachers accompany eight evacuee children out of London to escape the Blitz. Why only eight, what happened to the other twenty plus of their classmates? They take them to Eel Marsh House, a totally isolated, decrepit and insalubrious edifice unfit for habitation, rotten and riddled with damp, with holes in the roof and floors – a potential death trap for kids - because ‘there’s nowhere else’. Not even the much more suitable hotel seen in the previous film, located in the now apparently abandoned nearby market town Crythin Gifford? Conveniently enough the ‘other school groups’ won’t arrive for another week, which is just as well, because the beds installed are only enough for this group. A generator and electric lights have been provided and a classroom prepared. Why couldn’t they have cleaned up a bit or done a few basic repairs while they were at it? And can it really be so hard for two experienced teachers to keep an eye on just eight kids without them wandering off and killing themselves? And once the ghost is out of the bag and the danger is realised, where better to take the children for safety than to a ‘decoy’ airfield (apparently operated and maintained by just one man) constructed expressly as a target for enemy bombs?
Apart from the above plot shortcomings, the script is an example of woefully inept writing, including the standard contrived device of a protagonist with a traumatic past and a guilt complex – twice over! The demoted pilot Harry’s ridiculous ‘fear of water’ conveniently manifests itself only after he’s already traversed the whole causeway to get to the house. Eve’s nightmares relating to the birth and removal of her baby feel rather extraneous, overfamiliar and lacking in visual flair or emotional impact.
The headmistress Jean is supposed to be an unfeeling disciplinarian but the writing /portrayal of the character is so insipid (in fact she just seems to be a sensible woman coping with a trying situation) that Harry’s remark about ‘the Sergeant Major’ is just laughable. Likewise, the ‘bullying’ of Edward by two other kids is so tame that there’s absolutely zero sense of ‘deserved comeuppance’ when one of them dies.
Later on, having blubbered on about losing men after their plane was shot down and crashed into the sea (‘they were MY crew’…yes, it’s all about you again) and confessing his subsequent trauma-induced paranoia about getting wet (all of which is lazily conveyed in a couple of lines when a tense flashback would have been more cinematic and far more dramatically effective) Harry glibly tells Eve “We can’t let the past pull us under. There’s just too much to do. Too much to live for, right?” In light of Harry’s eventual fate, it would seem that the writer at least merits a point for irony for penning the first sentence in the above quote - it would be uncharitable to assume it was a coincidence.
The mad, old, blind man ‘character’ is totally redundant except for unnecessary exposition reasons – and the reason he’s blind is so the the ghost can’t appear to him and he can live to lead a typical mad, blind, old man’s life skulking among old ruined houses.
The pointless jump scares and inappropriately placed portentous music are another source of irritation, as is the often too-dark-to-see-what’s-going-on photography.
And one question; was the revelation that Alice Drablow’s husband was the father of Jennet’s child (“Your father, Charles Drablow, got me pregnant”) mentioned in the previous version(s)?
I thought it was okay but easily the weakest of the Hammer revival films. It does seem to have killed the franchise which is a pity as I rather liked the concept of examining the same haunted house at different points in its history as an original way of handling sequels.