I’m actually relatively on time with this review because I watched this film the day it came out! Even though I was absolutely exhausted from staying up until 3AM with my friend on New Year’s Eve… Ah well. Something strange happened when I went to see this movie – I got ID’d. I haven’t been ID’d for a fifteen in a while and I didn’t get ID’d buying cigarettes the other night so I was kind of shocked. The woman explained it was because the rating from the original film, which was a twelve, had been put up to a fifteen.
Now I really enjoyed the original film. I watched it at the cinema twice and the second time was probably my favourite experience ever (my friend kept whacking me when she jumped, one kid said ‘use your wand Harry’ really loudly and one girl kept laughing after jump scare so eventually this guy mimicked her laugh to get her to shut up) so I had high expectations for this film. Everyone who’s seen the original Woman in Black knows that the film mainly relies on jump scares which are something I’ve criticised in past reviews. I think the Woman in Black is an exception because at least there’s a decent storyline behind the jump scares.
The film sets place in World War Two, forty years after the original film is set and a group of evacuees are sent to live in Eel Marsh House with their teacher and her teaching assistant. Obviously, it doesn’t take long before the teaching assistant, Eve Parkins, starts to notice that there’s something not quite right about the house.
I saw the trailer for this film at the cinema a few times and I thought it looked absolutely amazing. I was certain it was going to be better than the first one. However, although the second one was a little scary it didn’t have the same feel that the first one had to it. It could be now we know the Woman in Black’s motivations it’s not as scary or it could be due to the fact that they used nearly the exact same jump scares from the original film except they included less. A lot less. The second film seemed to be going for a different feeling. Can I describe what I mean by that? Absolutely not. It could be that they had a lot more characters to work with – three adults and around eight children doesn’t really give off the same effect as when Daniel Radcliffe is going round by himself. It could also be due to them changing directors for the sequel.
The film itself wasn’t bad. If it was a standalone film I think I would’ve liked it a lot more but because I know the original was better it makes it seem that little bit worse. I mean, the plot was okay from what I saw in the trailer but they tried to go into more depth with two of the characters (I’m trying so hard not to give away spoilers) and it didn’t really work? There was only one character I particularly cared about by the end of the film and I think they were shown brilliantly with a decent backstory.
I’d recommend this to you if you’re in the mood for a ‘slightly jumpy’ film but nothing terribly scary. It’s one of those films you’ll watch and then forget about the moment you leave the cinema. Definitely not as a good as the first one.