The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death

There’s no denying that Tom Harper’s The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death is a good looking, decently made ghost story. What I also can’t deny is that it mostly just doesn’t work, isn’t scary and drags. Even peppered with shock effects — only one of which really works — it’s pretty tepid stuff. I’m not even sure why this is — despite a surfeit of (admittedly stuffed) simian value, which did please me. I think it’s because the story isn’t all that compelling, and the whole thing feels like it’s just marking time. It also feels strangely distanced by being overproduced. Early on there’s a scene at a period railway station filled with all manner of CGI-enhanced details. It looked nice, but it felt totally superfluous, and it took me right out of the movie’s story. The film also has the downside of being hard to even follow — as concerns the story’s mythology and the modus operandi of the house’s resident specter — for anyone who hasn’t seen the original. I had to explain it to several people. The film is definitely not a stand-alone work.  

The basic premise is sound enough — evacuating children from London during the Blitz. That they have the tough luck of being taken to ultra-creepy Eel Marsh House (an event that the children take strangely in stride) is also not unreasonable, though one wonders how the village seems to have largely forgotten the events of 40 years ago. The ghostly doings and the rash of children committing suicide for no apparent reason are not things the locals would seem likely to forget. At the same time — apart from the doctor who brings them to the house and one anti-social hermit — there don’t seem to be any locals, which raises another set of questions the film doesn’t address.  

The idea that the resident ghost tends to prey on those with psychological problems is interesting, if not exactly original. The problem with it is that while the old gal might spend an inordinate amount of time giving the psychologically-impaired characters the heebie-jeebies, her first two victims are more randomly chosen. If the film means to convey that she’s carrying out the desires of the child (Oaklee Pendergast) she’s after, it doesn’t convey that effectively — though I could see that reason being used to defend it. What we mostly have here is just a series of creepy scenes — some of which make sense, some of which are pretty muddled — in an old dark house or on the almost perpetually foggy island. The trouble is that’s about all the movie has to offer. The performances are fine — though not outstanding — and, as I noted, the film looks good, but neither are enough to make this worth your while. The best I can say is it’s inoffensive. That’s perhaps not the best claim for a horror picture. Rated PG-13 for some disturbing and frightening images and for thematic elements.