When a group of orphaned children are forced to move from their home in London, caretakers Eve (Phoebe Fox) and Jean (Helen McCrory) bring everyone to the desolate and eerie British countryside. 40 years after Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) left, this supernatural horror film introduces this new group to the now abandoned Ee...more
When a group of orphaned children are forced to move from their home in London, caretakers Eve (Phoebe Fox) and Jean (Helen McCrory) bring everyone to the desolate and eerie British countryside. 40 years after Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) left, this supernatural horror film introduces this new group to the now abandoned Eel Marsh House; an odd but seemingly safe location. It isn't long before Eve starts to sense that this house is not what it appears to be as the children in her care begin to disappear. As their house of safety becomes a house of horrors, Eve enlists the help of a handsome pilot (Jeremy Irvine) to help investigate what is happening. Eve soon discovers that it may not be a coincidence that she has come to reside in the house inhabited by the Woman in Black. less
“The Woman in Black is spooky on the surface but unimaginative and silly underneath! ”
The Woman In Black 2: Angel Of Death Credit & Casting
Review The Woman In Black 2: Angel Of Death & earn 20 DM Points. Exchange DM points for cashbacks*
Tom Harper’s “The Woman In Black 2: Angel Of Death” is, at least for me, something of a first. It’s a hopelessly generic and vapid horror movie which doesn’t even seem to try and develop an engaging narrative. The plot functions almost as if on auto-pilot where nothing really makes much sense and the movie doesn’t care to develop its characters fully for us to be invested in them. And yet, it’s so exquisitely shot and mounted (cinematography by George Steel) that despite all the otherwise inane stuff happening in the film, I simply couldn’t take my eyes off it. It’s not the kind of movie that aims to show us something we haven’t seen before (unlike “Gravity” or “Avatar”, just to list a couple of examples.) The setting is all-too familiar – a haunted mansion on a desolate island, where the ghosts want to possess/kill the adolescent Edward, the key character in the movie. The kid is dealing with the recent loss of his mother and has given up speaking altogether despite best efforts to get hum to talk by his teacher and mother-figure Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox, whose earnest performance makes you care for her character even though the script doesn’t give you any reason to.) The ghost, via a worn-out doll (yes, a doll – that’s how uninventive and clichéd the film is,) communicates with Edward hypnotizing him to do generic horror movie stuff and since Edward has given up speaking, Eve never knows what’s behind the strange things happening on the island and even ends up doubting her own sanity. It’s a ridiculous muddled mess, so much so that I doubt if the movie really had a script during its production. Strange coincidences happen that are way too far-fetched to be acceptable, there’s zero sense of character development or the motivation of the specters, and the only way one can describe the turn-of-events is to describe it as exceptionally random. And yet, the filmmakers do wonders with the visuals, lending this would-have-been worthless garbage of a movie some saving grace. The images in the film, be it the deep grayish palette used during nighttime scenes or the gloomy bluish tones for the outdoor shots or the yellowish ochre frames for the candlelit indoors and especially the subtle incorporation of fog and smoke in the visuals rendering them hazy yet soft in a strange way, are so superbly effective in creating the precise kind of atmosphere, drawing mileage merely out of lighting and colour; I find it difficult to recall a recent horror film with such brilliant generation of mood. Even the filler shots of a certain character riding on a bike are evocative, because of the precise colour palette of the frame and the precise movement of the camera resulting in a certain feeling. I’d be lying if I say I wasn’t impressed. I’m scratching my head wondering how they must have achieved those effects, because it’s not exactly the kind of movie I haven’t seen before. Although the setting is generic, the precision in the creation of atmosphere in the film is unlike anything I’ve seen in a long time. One only wishes, then, that there were more to the film than only the atmosphere. The story/telling is harebrained and vacuous to the point of being an utter waste of resources. The scares in the initial portions are punctuated not by those hammering thumps which usually form the background score, but by bass-y violins. The film moves at a measured pace, gradually progressing through long passages filled with silences. I couldn’t help but think of the film as essentially trashy rubbish treated with the craft and style of a sophisticated “art-house” film. It’s visually very impressive alright, but atmosphere alone cannot make up for the sheer indigence of other filmmaking aspects on “The Woman In Black 2”.