Log in / Sign up
 
    Share this page

    The Woman in Black: Angel of Death

    Reviewed by
    pietroantoni@

    I was unlucky enough to see The WOMAN IN BLACK: ANGEL OF DEATH at a pre-sceening prior to its early January release date.

    I must start off by stating that by no means was I a fan or fond of the original THE WOMAN IN BLACK ( it had a predecessor as far back as 1989) a film that had almost no redeeming merit, a horror film that provided next to no horror whatever, even lacking qualities that run of the mill horror flicks provide. The DANIEL RADCLIFFE Woman in Black was somewhat of a success being the long awaited return of Radcliffe to the Screen, his first film role since the HARRY POTTER movies. What success it had was because of Radcliffe himself, now all grown up, so to speak, at 17. Woman in Black was a pretty torturous affair, very stiff and turgid, with a fantastically slight plot line offering very few if any real thrills. I will admit THE WOMAN IN Black was fairly well constructed but totally unremarkable as a thriller leaving behind no impact whatever. Bad as the sequel is, the original was a yawn fest as well! How could it not be with a screenplay that was the pits, direction of a ho-hum nature and only Radcliffe to carry the entire weight of the film. For those who have forgotten or simply don't know RADCLIFFE played a Mister ARTHUR KRIPPS who owned the house some 40 years prior to the present setting of the sequel, a house he left once and for all due to matters NOT explainable. It's too bad, in a weird sort of way we never ever come to know what happened to this Mr. Arthur Kripps Esquire. But then, that is not the point of the original novel. Let me add something of the business end of things. The original WOMAN IN BLACK was the most successful British horror flick making around 40 million dollars... 20 million undoubtedly due to the appealing presence of Daniel, Boy Wonder!

    Moving forward: NOTHING OF WHAT I SAY DIVULGES ANYTHING OF THE PLOT AS IT IS ALL A PREAMBLE or INCONSEQUENTIAL before getting to the notorious house in question. It is presently 1941 and London is being blitzed by the German Axis powers. The PREMISE for the sequel is that orphan children be moved out of London to the safety of the countryside. How IRONIC! The house has remained like a tomb, in total and complete silence, free from any mortal intrusion for 41 years, if one wants to be dead on since the escape of said Mr. Kripps. TO THIS POINT NOTHING REVEALS THE NATURE OF THE FILM. I suppose the film makers might have made a play to have Radcliffe play the male lead who is a pilot, but understandably, Radcliffe would never have accepted such a shoddy script. Once in the house we move on familiar ground like any horror flick with some type of lunacy tightening its grip on intruders. How many times must we witness such buffoonery in this genre? I guess 1,000 times is just not too many at all! It really is too comical how ANGEL OF DEATH provides more snores than shudders as I actually heard snoring in the theatre. Would I have been so lucky!

    So with an all new cast and complete new crew, REDUNDANCY seems to be the operative word. ANGEL OF DEATH is a dour, drab and dark movie with perhaps ONE CHILL. Otherwise a project so totally aimless, so lost that the initial grave situation gives way to total nonsense. JEREMY IRVINE ( last seen in WAR HORSE, the movie ) as the pilot gives the best performance, the one bright light who will go on to better things with any luck. Phoebe Fox as Eva is acceptable, somewhat effective in her role even with her "crazy" dialogue. But on a more positive note one must give Miss Fox some credit as a somewhat contemporary lady taking charge of a very unwholesome situation... The 1989 adaption as the original novel work more effectively because the Women in Black is a much more frightening figure always seen at a distance. As to other characters in the film including several children the situation is a hopeless, lost cause. Even the child who does not speak makes little effect as too many other characters and story elements are thrown into the mix as mere dramatic diversion, all working at a confusing with this energy induced plot that makes less and less sense as the film plods on.

    However, some credit is due to two individuals in particular. Unfortunately, their efforts are not enough to save this disaster of a sinking ship. First time Cinematographer George Steel makes quite the impression with a number of his shots and lighting effects which surprisingly more than hit the mark. First off he works to make the swamp about the house terrifying yet oddly inviting at the same time. That's a bit of a neat trick! So in turn is the effective IN the house with several scenes. Teens would probably be bored by some sane, inspirational attributes of shooting and set decoration, but they would be more than welcome to take a long walk on a short peer. The one disappointment was the foggy atmosphere of the film which is repetitive to the point of nausea. If Mr. Steel had been left to his own devices without intervening director Tom Harper things would have gone a bit smoother. Likewise, Composer Mario Beltrami's neat additions only help this dismal affair. In a clever move, he uses the The Woman in Black theme to segue into the sequel thus uniting the 2 films at least in a basically simple manner, actually the only notion that connects the 1900 home to the present 1941 house. Beltrami's use of cellos is pretty brilliant with the low octaves working directly in his favour and that of the film. Even his music box scenes, almost a staple in every horror film, become strangely irresistible with the music he chooses. That's what comes of proper choices.

    As stated earlier sequels suffer from intolerably bad writing. So my question is why hire a dude, Joe Coker, who has never once tried his hand at any type of horror genre. He is a lost cause! His execution of the action plays out much like its predecessor. Deadly dull! No real mystery exists in this puerile screenplay. Some supporting elements that worked in the original, he avoids. But we can see and hear how much he has recycled or stolen from the original Woman in Black. The script fails miserably by its overuse of jump tactics ( the director's fault as well ), a lot of disconnected writing that will probably never get him another job; Mr. Coker hasn't the foggiest idea of character development other than Tom and Eva, to some extent. How can the supporting characters have any life when presented with shockingly bad things from the writing department. These poor actors would have done much better with no words, merely sucking on sour lemons. And the man is a joke, unable to tie together so many unexplained events. It's plain awful. Director Tom Harper who was supposed to be the Captain of this ship isn't able to direct himself out of a paper bag. His decisions are ALL bad especially in the last third of the film which I will get to. Harper has no clue as to what actors need foremost, but then he lacks any skill at pacing that might have redeemed the feature somewhat.

    Even with a film I bitterly hate, something better could have emerged despite the maelstrom of junk from writer and director. Instead of making us jump to extremes, why not add a more deliciously slow pace and unsettling feeling to build tension as Alfred Hitchcock did in Psycho where this trait is positively brilliant. If the director had taken more care which means more time with the first two thirds of the movie, the film could somewhat have gotten by, to some degree, a slim chance, Because Tom Harper. However, botches everything he touches, he comes to realize he has nothing good on his hands. So instead of cleaning up and re-editing what he has on hand, something possible, he overloads the last third of the film with such abject SILLINESS as to turn the entire feature into a joke IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE!

    THE WOMAN IN BLACK: ANGEL OF DEATH is now a feature that would be quite appropriate on HOW NOT TO MAKE A FULL LENGTH HORROR FILM UNLESS YOU ARE AIMING TO MAKE A DISASTER. The film might be creepy but it is never scary, especially with the last third so horrendously out of joint, running at break neck speed. I might have stated ad infinitum that there is no coherence in the plot, but that deserves repeating. If I had to pick the most horrific, the scariest part of the film it would be an impossible task as there are no such scenes. The second scariest thing about this atrocity called a film WAS LOSING ALMOST TWO HOURS OF MY LIFE. ANGEL OF DEATH should be a direct to DVD film thus doing everyone a huge favour. Let me leave this with you. Most films roll merrily on their way, even horror flicks, but Angel of Death is so bad, so ineffective that you will actually start asking yourself or wondering out loud what this damn movie is all about! Easily the worst horror film at year's end/early January.

    1
    HelpfulNot helpful  Reply
    pietroantoni@  5.1.2015 age: 36-49 14,540 reviews

    Show all reviews for this movie
    Note: The movie review posted on this page reflects a personal opinion of one user. We are not responsible for its content.

    Did you see ''The Woman in Black: Angel of Death''?

    There is a problem with your e-mail address and we are unable to communicate with you. Please go to My Account to update your email.

    How do you rate this movie?

    Select stars from 1 to 10.
    10 - A masterpiece, go, see it now
    9 - Excellent movie, a must see
    8 - Great movie, don't miss it
    7 - Good movie, worth seeing
    6 - Not bad, could be much better
    5 - So so, okay if you don't pay
    4 - Not good, even if you don't pay
    3 - Poor movie, not recommended
    2 - Very bad, forget about it
    1 - Worst ever, avoid at all costs

    Please explain. Write your comment here:

    Please choose a username to sign your comments. Only letters, digits, dash - or period. Minimum 4 characters.

    Your age and sex:

    We publish all comments, except abusive, at our discretion.