3/10

Hammer Films return to the silver screen with the sequel to the 2012 original starring Daniel Radcliffe. During World War I, a group of orphaned children are moved to the Marsh House 40 years after the events of the first film. It isn’t long before supervisors Eve (Phoebe Fox) and Jean (Helen McCrory) start to sense that this house is not what it appears to be as the children in their 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. When i heard a sequel to the pleasant 2012 surprise was coming, i wasn’t happy to hear this news. After seeing the movie, i am not only displeased that a sequel exists, but i feel that the whole thing is entirely pointless. “The Woman in Black 2” has it’s charms though. If there is one thing that Hammer Films always does well, it’s an eerie setting that the minimal budgets go into. The Marsh House seems to have little to no light in the house, and that is reflective of the house’s tragic events. If Director Tom Harper could put a little bit of anticipation in the scares he attempts, then this could’ve been a sequel to live up to it’s name. As it stands, the story (what little there is) is very thin. The film feels very monotonous, and the audience will suffer through a first act that leaves the eyes very heavy. I did appreciate the attempt at something different with the World War I setting, but it’s clear that this era is only used to make some of the paranormal events feel not so paranormal. The house shakes at random periods with lights flickering on an off, and this can all be conveniently explained because of the fighter pilots flying over the house. One thing that worked about the original was the emotionally frail acting of Radcliffe. There were bruises beneath the exterior of his protagonist, and it’s something that just doesn’t feel believable with this sequel. Fox is a decent actress, but there is so much she does wrong as the front and center of this film. Because of her lack of emotional depth, it never feels like she fully understands the events at play. There are scenes where she is terrified, but it never feels like these unbelievable events will ever permanently scar her. Another hilarious on going game i had with myself was to see how often her English accent changed throughout the film. Fox is a British born actress, so i don’t understand why some scenes sound American, and some sound like the former. It might not seem like a big deal to the casual viewer, but it’s something that distracted me any time the film had a plot it was trying to convey. I mentioned earlier that the jump scares were without anticipation, and a lot of that has to do with this sequel settling for twice the amount of jump scares than it’s predecessor. I counted seventeen jump scares throughout the film, and anyone who reads my reviews knows i think it’s the cheapest form of horror that you can display. The movie feels like a James Wan film, in that he cranks up the shrieking noises any time someone appears out of nowhere. Films like this are becoming a parody of themself, and i for one would like to see this trend halted. A couple of jump scares a film are OK, but seventeen jump scares average out to one every 5-6 minutes of the film, and that is quite excessive. One thing that i enjoyed about this film more than the original was the ending. Everything feels well tied up in this film compared to the original that left us feeling like there was so much more story to tell about “The Woman in Black”. I was hoping this movie would sew up all of these loose ends, and to some degree it did. My compliments towards the ending however, involves an ending worthy enough of the fight that our characters went through. I can’t explain much more without spoiling the film, but i was glad to see the picket fence ending for a change. Overall, i can’t recommend this film to anyone. The first film is far superior, and i would recommend that to my readers for Radcliffe’s haunting performance alone. The strange thing is that this is considered horror, but the blood and language are non existent. If you feel your child could deal with jump scares accordingly, then “The Woman in Black 2” is a safe bet if they really have to see this. It’s a sequel to a film that definitely feels like something you would discover at a video store before you ever knew it was made.