Review: The Woman In Black - Angel of Death

The Woman In Black: Angel of Death
Cert: 15 / 98 mins / Dir. Tom Harper / Trailer



Oh, it's a cruel and capricious screenwriter who sub-titles a film with a Slayer song and then, as his only apparent nod to thrash metal, inserts the "now I lay me down to sleep" prayer used in Metallica'a most well-known track. Shame on you, Jon Croker, and shame on director Tom Harper for encouraging you…

'Angel Of Death' opens some 30 years or so after the events of 'The Woman In Black' with the Second World War already in full swing and children being evacuated to "The Countryside". So a derelict house on a swamp-enclosed island will be close enough, definitely. When young school teacher Eve Parkins is despatched to look after a group of youngsters with their austere headmistress, the troubled past of the island latches on to the already-traumatised children, and foul things rise once more…

So, yeah, this is a completely unnecessary sequel to a film which worked perfectly well in its own arena, and while it's at least not a total rehash of its predecessor, the screenplay tries at every turn to expand on the events and backstory of The Woman In Black. Tries and fails. As a horror film, it's efficient enough (Friday night's audience*¹ jumped at All The Loud Noises™), but the suffocating creepiness which made the first film work just isn't present here. The supernatural mystery story has been replaced by a generic face-at-the-window horror which also has the temerity to borrow the set as well as the name of its forebear.

Phoebe Fox puts in a good turn as the protagonist (restrained by a clunky backstory), Helen McCrory is completely wasted as the headmistress who doesn't suffer fools gladly, and Jeremy Irvine seems to have been drafted in to put the Ham™ into Hammer Horror, taking a badly written role and performing it badly (he is better than this). Most amazingly, the titular Woman™ has not only been re-cast with a different actress, but also seems to have been reduced to a cameo-role in her own film. 'Jennet' shows up occasionally with nowhere near the menace or intensity which Liz White brought to the role. Truth be told, the whole threat-element is just a mess in this film. The mechanism (and reason) by which Jennet works her evil isn't explained for audience members who haven't seen the first one, the mass-hypnotism of the children is reduced massively, and there's a blind fella living with a bunch of ghost-children back on the mainland which seems to have nothing to do with the story at all.

Maybe I shouldn't expect better from Hammer (they gave us The Quiet Ones, after all), but I'm afraid I do. And that's the only time I've been afraid all night...

Oh, and how come the grumpy bus driver tells Eve he can't put the headlights on because there's a blackout and there could be enemy bombers overhead, yet twenty minutes later he's strolling out of the mansion and over the gardens with a torch in his hand?



Not unless your standards with horror are incredibly pedestrian/forgiving.



Oh, it's a telly or Netflix job.



I haven't seen Phoebe Fox in anything else, but she seems on good form here.
Irvine and McCrory? Nowhere near.



Make a few quid for Hammer by riding on the coat-tails of an acceptable previous film?
It probably does, yes.



Well, I just might.



There isn't.



Helen McCrory starred in the Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows films alongside Mr Domnhall Gleeson, who will be appearing on our screens this December in Star Wars: The Force Awakens..







*¹ And my word, a Friday-night horror-audience is a terrible thing to behold. Fidgeting and chatting (NO, REALLY) throughout the entire film when the loud noises didn't call for them to outwardly shriek. Bastards.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: The Woman in Black

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.



The Woman in Black
95 mins / Dir. James Watkins

As a ghost story, The Woman in Black is a bloody solid hour and a half of entertainment. As a horror film, it's held back by the fact that it's a Cert 12A, and that it falls into a very familiar trap in no time at all...

Sub GhostStoryIn2012MustHaveHorrorElements()

Dim Mins as Time
For Mins = 0 to 95
Mins = Mins + 5

Activate full colour palette
Init Plot Exposition
Activate desaturated colour palette
Init Quiet
Init Quiet
Init Quiet
Init "LOUD NOISE" and "FACE CLOSE-UP"
Next Mins

Init Credits
End Sub

The Plot: Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is a young London-based solictor sent to Yorkshire to deal with the estate of a deceased client who has left no relatives. When he arrives in the small coastal village of Crythin Gifford, the superstitious locals are on full alert, and a series of untimely deaths do nothing to lighten their mood. Kipps skepticism and nerve are both put to the test as he determines to unravel the mystery of The Woman In Black...

The The Good: What I said back at the start; It's a good ghost story. Formulaic? Sure. But it's a Hammer production of a 1983 novel which is an Edwardian (ish) ghost story, so there's not exactly a lot of new ground to cover. The plot unfolds at a leisurely pace (for the most part), with the major exposition points teased out nicely. The sets and costumes all appear to be in good order (to my untrained eye), although there's a surprising range of accents to be found in such an isolated village.

The Bad: I can't deny that there is suspense in this film, and that there are jumps. But that's largely because the audience is beaten so solidly over the head with them. If no-one's speaking and the music stops, it's like a red flag goes up telegraphing the imminent jump. The best shots are the ones where the ghost(s) are standing innocuously in the background as the camera sweeps past, unseen by the characters on-screen. There are a few of those shots, but not enough to build the suspense that way. This film would be so much better if it had stuck to creepy until the finalé, because that's when it's interesting. That said, the toys in the nursery are a bit overkill. We know they're sinister, Daniel, you don't have to set them all off at once...

The Ugly: On a personal note, I could have done without the final scene (not what happens at the end, just literally the final scene). It seemed a little saccharine for my taste and robbed the film of an end in keeping with the story. It didn't ruin the film for me, I just don't get why it's there.

Worth a punt? For me? Yes. I like the traditional structure and feel of it, which is sorely lacking from most contemporary horror. I'd have preferred more of a focus on 'the victims', but the movie would be outside of its 12A bracket then. Not that that should matter when you're trying to market this type of thing.

It's good, but there are seeds of greatness in there...



It's a 12A. Take your kid, it'll freak them the fuck out and set the bar at a decent level for ghost stories! ;)

Quick question for those who've seen it: The train at the end... there's only one line running through the village, so why does the next train arrive so quickly after the first? Just a thought.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.