The Woman in Black: Angel of Death

Nothing at all happens in this and I'm not being saucy, literally nothing happens. They ship a group of orphans and not orphans to a spooky old house for no reason, and then they hang out in a room there's a hole in a ceiling a woman ... in black ... walks in the backgrounds sometimes and when you're least expBOOOOOO

Very good looking, gothic setting. Very dull sadly. The first Woman in Black was an excellent gothic horror, this is not.

The Woman in Black: Angel of Death is a bad sequel to a bad movie that didn't have any reason to be made, except that the first movie made an inexplicable amount of money. This one was created to cash in on that success. It's really bad, really boring, and really not worth watching. It should have been a direct-to-DVD movie just so that it wouldn't eat up a screen at your local cinema.

The premise seems excellent with the fear of bombs descending upon London during WW2, but after they get to the spooky house, the plot just deteroriates from there. While the imagery and mood is certainly creepy at times, the thrills are just not there and the plot proves to be incredibly boring and generic.

This was a toughie. With generally no good acting and a pretty shoddy story line to follow up the pretty good predecessor, Angel of Death, really only floats on its visuals alone, which are pretty good. Everything's a bit dark, but it works for the most part. Really not good, even if you're like me, and liked the first.

The elements of old-school horror and the great performance by Fox came dangerously close to overcoming the rest of the film's lazy schlock, but the positives are ultimately bogged down by the negatives.

It's actually a strong horror movie for most of the run time, but it's pretty heavily dependent on jump scares, and the ending's a complete mess that drags the whole thing down.

A film that never should have been made. Utterly devoid of plot, with contrived, cardboard characters making the same baffling decisions that we've all come to expect from films like this. At least the cinematography does justice to it; the sweeping shots of the lake surrounding the house are as bland and colorless as the rest of the film. The kind of thing you'd expect to see on SyFy at 2am. If you're into "so bad, it's good"...stay away anyway.

For a sequel to a movie that I somewhat enjoyed despite probably giving it too much credit, this one sets up a rather nice atmosphere amidst WWII England. It's still trope-heavy -- the abandoned-for-years haunted house with the ghost that only the mute child usually sees, with mostly-one-note characters outside of the protagonist heroine. You've seen all this before. But I do LOVE the way this looks. Is it scary? Sort of. It's more atmospheric than scary; in that, it succeeds. It's worth a look!

drags, drags, drags and then falls in the depths of the movies-forgotten-in-5-minutes hell...

A disappointing sequel that retains the first film's strong visuals but none of the creepy mood and compelling plot. Full of predictable cheap scares. Also downgraded with the cast, as Jeremy Irvine is the biggest name and he and star Phoebe Fox just don't have the same acting chops that Daniel Radcliffe had in the first film. It's not terrible. Overall it is nicely shot and has great sets and costumes. It just isn't effective in its sense of mood, which is essential for this type of movie.

The Woman in Black cannot be stopped with a cheery greeting or a double dose of grit and gumption. Not, at least, as long as there's money to be made in the business of sequels. (pluggedin.com)

This is a sequel that does what most horror sequels don't actually bother to do - it draws creatively on the material from the first film, building in a way that draws the curiosity of the informed viewer without somehow confusing someone who hasn't seen the first. Unfortunately, in most other aspects it's merely passable - the jumpscares are overdone, and rather than relying on the mysterious and the just out of sight as WIB did, it instead tries too much, and fails hard. A solid meh.

i think the Hammer revival is really capturing the original spirit of the studio. we have here a period piece that's heavy on atmosphere...and really light on story (to the point of being occasionally boring) and while it's not particularly scary i'm still satisfied by the horror aspect. they certainly showed the ghost way way too much. fox did a good job on getting the right level of fear and frightened reactions down.

Slick but lifeless. Though I have to admit twice the jump scares got me.

Pisses away a great setup - a creepy country house in the middle of a smoggy WW2, packed with scared children and nervous adults - on nonsensical plot twists and weak jump scares. Probably worth watching once if you liked the first, but it's pretty disappointing stuff.