[From IMDb:] 40 years after the first haunting at Eel Marsh House, a group of children evacuated from WWII London arrive, awakening the house’s darkest inhabitant.
Honestly, I think the main thing they could have done to improve The Woman in Black 2 is to simply not have released it as a sequel, but as a standalone film. Neither of the movies really added anything to each other (read: I don’t think the original was all that great), and there’s nothing that connected the sequel to the original movie that couldn’t have been rejigged ever so slightly in order to make it “original”.
Released from its ties to the first movie – and its Daniel Radcliffe Factor – I reckon that The Woman in Black 2 would have been better received.
This is not to say that I think The Woman in Black 2 is a particularly good movie on its own, exactly. It never quite builds up enough gravitas to justify its slow pace, which means that it’s often a little boring. There’s also too much of a reliance on jump scares – a problem that’s well and truly becoming endemic in the genre.
The writing is also terribly lazy at times. This is no more obvious than in the last 20 minutes or so, where events occur because they do, rather than because it makes sense for them to.
The Woman in Black 2 is a beautiful movie, filmed in some stunning locations and populated with some fantastic sets/props. The cast are all good, despite (literally and figuratively) not being Daniel Radcliffe.
In short, it has all of the elements of a good movie, except for the most important one: a consistently compelling story.
With that having been said, I suppose I have to backpedal a bit on my initial point: it’s not just the name that needed changing in order to make The Woman in Black 2 a better movie. A better writer could’ve been useful, too.
Or maybe they should’ve just brought Daniel Radcliffe back. He’s pretty cool.