The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death (2014) - Drama, Horror, Thriller

Hohum Score



40 years after the first haunting at Eel Marsh House, a group of children evacuated from WWII London arrives, awakening the house's darkest inhabitant.

IMDB: 4.8
Director: Tom Harper
Stars: Helen McCrory, Jeremy Irvine
Length: 98 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 52 out of 133 found boring (39.09%)

One-line Reviews (122)

the little dog was quite sweet but even he got bored and disappeared halfway through,yep gone and then nothing , maybe had a better offer from his agent or just ran off to join a circus.

This film is terrible because it's just so boring; it seems to never end, it's very predictable and worst of all it's NOT SCARY IN ANY WAY...

The Woman In Black: Angel of Death is the perfect tame remedy for insomnia.

The feeble attempts at building atmosphere are outweighed by the predictable jump scenes that rely on silence followed by the sudden high pitched screechy music.

If this movie really scared me I would have laid in bed long after I got home from the movie, thinking about it's great build for suspense and disturbing imagery, but no, I got under my covers and fell asleep.

Yawn & spoiler .

It still attempt a slow burn, but the fake scares just ruins it, making those tricks even more predictable.

I assessed it as 3rd string, formulaic, and worthy only of a 4.

The most uninspiring horror in years.

There are moments where the script does let the side down and it sinks into cliché, which is a shame.

The film lacks intensity and intriguing elements in it story because there is not much story.

Here there is too much going on, and the characters are boring to boot.

Where to start:There is no real plot, certainly nothing that ties the characters together in any believable way.

Just As Slow As Its Below Average Prequel .

The lighting is so bad, that it soon becomes even boring to watch.

The original Woman in Black was a suspenseful eerie old-school haunting that relied upon mood and production and low expectations.

Slow and steady (scares) .

The movie does get slow between the 25 - 45 minute, and was pretty much pointless.

In fact, I'd probably recommend this film to all insomniacs as the banality within should put them to sleep quite fast.

The photography and direction fail, as they follow a recipe that consists of intense flashes of scary close ups of the Woman in Black, a lot of loud noises, and Bass.

A lot of them were very predictable and as a result made almost the entire film fairly predictable.

Several scenes were very creepy, and I had to mute it at some intense scenes.

The first thirty-five minutes of the film are tediously slow, unnecessarily so, since the audience knows the trajectory of the plot.

Too cliché, we have an aviator traumatized and frustrated with himself, a loving young woman who is pursued by a complicated past and a skeptical elderly, who only believes in supernatural phenomena when they literally jump in front of her face.

Please don't waste your time people, the only thing scary here is the fake reviews.

An uninspiring, clichéd horror, littered with unnecessary jump scares.

I liked the atmosphere they created much like the first one with dull lighting and the feeling of loneliness and isolation.

The ending was predictable.

These people are either crazy or they watched another movie because I found the movie unpredictable and scary.

There is no script, no acting and generally the effects are so poor that in the whole movie i was trying not to get asleep.

Cinematography is overly dark and this makes the film very boring.

I honestly gave up watching this crap after 47 minutes with nothing happening, except one death and only a glimpse of the lady in black.

Don't waste your time...

Though it works sometimes, it gets a bit repetitive & predictable.

Because everything that was shot in darkness was so poor in visibility that if I even turned on an incidental light source the picture on the screen was near unwatchable!

The first 90% of the movie is very slow and very boring.

the first film did that part very well this is a dull effort it could have been a decent flick if above mentioned things were noted plus the overuse of mist and fog it became just another children child's play film.

The opening was kinda promising, but after 1 hour into a movie, i started to yawn - and that's not a good sign when watching a horror flick.

As the first one was very atmospheric and a really good story, this one was disjointed and quite mundane.

Main lead characters are dull and boring.

Slightly predictable ending and predicable plot features yet gripping storyline and some good jumps.

The last 5 minutes of the movie was more entertaining than the entire beginning.

There were some big plot holes and some very predictable scares.

I like the atmosphere and decent production values, of the film, but it's also a complete bore.

I was truly disappointed with this, got bored after 20mins, it was really just a ride on a fairground ghost train , made you jump but that gets tiresome for 95mins, The storyline was just feeble ,at no point did I care what happened, just waited for the next jump.

Painfully dull, which is the worst crime a movie can commit (in my opinion).

Its slow, its boring and not scary.

Yes, sometimes the lines are a bit cliché, and it's somewhat predictable.

It's not an amateurish or poorly made film, really, but it is painfully dull (which is the worst crime a movie can commit, in my opinion).

That might seem or feel boring to some.

If I were rating this movie STRICTLY based on my personal opinion of whether I feel that it is a well made and effective Ghost Story, I would probably give it a '7' But, trying to take into consideration how people in GENERAL may like it and the fact that the story is rather slow and simple, I thought giving it a '6' would perhaps be a more realistic guideline for others.

Very Boring .

This movie is so slow and boring and hardly any scares in it.

Cliché-fest .

The first movie had me on the edge of my seat throughout & kept me guessing as to what's going to happen, right till the end.

Many so- called scares are simply variations of the old cliché of a cat suddenly jumping into the frame.

What really make this film stands out from others is its visually and top-notch production that makes it feel like a high-class ghost story as well as the performance, while unfortunately the pacing here is still just as slow as the first film.

It was filled with all the clichés you have seen countless times before and makes this film so dull and boring.

But apart from the title and the same house, this is so boring that it doesn't even deserve to be labeled horror.

movie is not scary at all it looks rather funny watching these guys scared for no reason and who can forget the zero chemistry among actors involved,this sequel is a waste of money and time the 2012 version is a masterpiece in front of this.

As I mention in my Summary, the film is VERY slow paced; so, if that definitely is not your thing or you are not into Gothic Ghost Stories, then the movie will likely not do very much for you.

What else makes this movie great, well I normally feel like horror movies are worth watching, especially if you feel like you can handle the horror, as there are a number of jump scenes in this movie and it has an interesting plot with a lot of action, not just horror.

Aside from a couple moments, it gets too predictable which reduces the tension from its great atmosphere.

As a result the movie is not scary, and really dull.

it's still boring.

By having far more characters within the film, it is in many ways more entertaining.

Boring .

Please don't waste your time or money on this!!!.

It is also very thrilling, as it delves deeper into the mysterious past of 'The Woman In Black'.

Don't waste your time watching this, go and hang a black coat somewhere in the room, turn all the lights off, pretend it's a ghost and you've just re-created this entire movie for free.

5 of the worst movies ever made.

The subtitle doesn't even make any sense, thus immediately indicates that this sequel is just some bored cash grab that doesn't have any more horror ideas than shocking the audience with loud sound effects and other stuff that calls itself "scary".

It lacks the first films intense atmospherics.

To be frank, I was bored.

Helen McCrory is a little better, but the 'horror' content is limited to repetitive jump scares and there's little to nothing in the way of genuine atmosphere or real plotting.

The first part of the film is a little cliché filled, we have creaky doors, creepy children and creepy toys, the usual stuff.

It's not a great horror film, but it has a good ensemble cast, with Phoebe Fox making an engaging lead.

Then at the very end, lulled into a sense of safety, I had to come out from behind my cushion to look at his photo on the mantelpiece .

The story feels empty and undeveloped.

The main problem I had with it is that it's VERY slow - more than forty percent of the movie goes by before the protagonists get their first serious clue that there is something malevolent out there.

But this film had other ideas, it just wanted to be another cliché piece of crap to add to the rapidly growing pile of crappy horror films.

All in all this is a very enjoyable horror film that will keep you in constant agony as your heart pounds against your chest for such a lengthy period of time until you see the credits rolling on the screen.

With regards to the jump scares the first one had, I think this one had less, which on one hand is good because it's not overly reliant on that old horror cliché, but on the other hand it's bad because it adds to the boredom.

It contains a frightening and suspenseful musical score by Marco Beltrani , a good composer expert on terror films .

/waste of my time .

Way to boring.

Apart from that, it's boring.

bad bad boring film .

The backdrop is WW2 but doesn't really play an important role in the proceedings, and the lead, Phoebe Fox, is saddled with a very dull character.

Too cliche.

Everything in this film is predictable fare that has been done before.

It takes really slow to deliver the real horror.

Slow, dark, and not really scary .

Like the first film, it ends up just dragging on a bit at a snail's pace with the odd mildly creepy moment popping up here and there.

I fell asleep.

The story hints some arc from the main characters, but the interest just keeps getting smaller and smaller when it's starting to become a cliché.

There is no plot either so even if you can't see anything, there isn't anything.

I expected this to be, perhaps not as good, but hopefully entertaining.

The production values are absolutely first rate, it is a stunning looking film, beautifully produced.

And, also, as I had mentioned, this one is MUCH more slowly paced.

Boring in some parts and not that scary at all.

First time I watched this, I fell asleep.

It gets so over done it becomes tedious.

Every spook was predictable and we found ourselves playing Pokemon go 30 minutes in, decent Bulbasaur though.

The film is slow to start and never really gets going.

There are a few frights but the fright formula is repeated so frequently throughout the film that it becomes tedious and predictable.

A neat idea but just too slow moving for me to get fully invested in or scared by.

Someone asked me as we walked out if I liked it...

Please, please stay away from this cliché ridden mess!!!

Too cliche, not as scary and creepy as the first one.

in all a dull tedious film with jumpy bits thrown in,

Boring, Underdeveloped, Not Scary .

' paradigm which are the stock and trade of most banal shockfests, which is a shame considering the time period of the film lends itself to the genre handsomely.

Soon, however, the action becomes boring and repetitive and our interest declines.

Oh and it was very very very slow moving.

There is something about this dull monotonous horror sequel that just puts me in a state of fatigue.

This movie is even slower-paced and less frightening.

So when he got dragged down into the mud at the end, sacrificing himself for the others despite his fear of the sea – Well, it was heart wrenching, for me at least.

Some of the scenes did not even belong in the storyline, I suppose the old cliché is true that no matter how good the acting is, if its badly produced and directed it just doesn't work.

I have to begin by saying I thought the first one was OK but a little slow for me.

It is a mediocre sequel with high production values, it could have fitted into a hour episode of Tales of the Unexpected as the character's from a pilot to the headmistress' back stories feel stereotype and shoe horned.

long drawn out boring .