#123movies #fmovies #putlocker #gomovies #solarmovie #soap2day Watch Full Movie Online Free – 40 years after Arthur Kipps’ experience at Eel Marsh house, a group of children under the care of two women, escaping from war-torn London, arrive to the house and become the next target for the ghost of Jennette Humfrye, otherwise known as The Woman in Black. With the help of a fellow soldier, the women and children must fend off the spirit of Jennette Humfrye, and end her presence once and for all.
Plot: 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.
Smart Tags: #ghost #london_air_raid #little_girl #sequel_to_remake #ghost_story #haunted_house #death_by_drowning #world_war_two #gothic_horror #gothic #sequel #death_of_child #african_american #blowing_out_a_tire #disturbed_individual #fog #teacher #night_driving #hole_in_the_floor #loss_of_father #silence
|4.8/10 Votes: 26,737|
|5.2 Votes: 804 Popularity: 19.236|
Just like the first movie..
I’ll be honest, I really don’t understand the people who liked the first movie and hate this one for being just like the first movie.
The only noticeable difference between both of them is that, in the first movie, there was a sense of isolation because of one person in the house, over a bunch of children and their two teachers.
The awful jump “scares” are still here and the non-scary character of “Woman in Black (WiB)” returns. In-fact, they repeat the same mistakes from the first movie and try to explain way too much and show too much of the WiB character. Keeping WiB’s character in shadows and not showing her terrible CGI/makeup caked face would’ve provided more terror than using her face for jump “scare” here and there.
My complaint with both movies is the same. Despite having good acting (both of them) and good atmosphere, they fail to create proper horror the moment WiB shows up and her shtick of moving items and opening/closing doors begins all over again. They NEED to keep her in the dark and only show her dress, which some scenes actually DO.
Unlike the first movie (6/10), I am giving this one 5/10 despite enjoying the acting of the lead actress and even the children, more than the last one (Radcliffe, nope.. did not like him much in that movie). One point taken off for shooting some key scenes in horrible lighting. The scenes in cellar are the ones I am talking about. The characters keep looking at items for so long and all you’re doing is trying to squint and make out what in the hell they are actually looking at. All cellar scenes are intentionally shot under one candle-light or a lamp, and it’s a bad idea.
In one of the horror scenes with all characters in cellar, they keep trying to light a candle but WiB keeps blowing it out (or wind being passed by her?). But then, when the scene ends, the male character turns on his flashlight. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? He didn’t turn on the flashlight when everyone was scared of darkness but did it instantly at the end? Really? They didn’t think people would question that? He didn’t even try to turn on the flashlight before, AT ALL.
That said, this movie is NOT bad. It just does what the first one did. Ignore the people giving it 1/10 and whining about it being worse than the first one. They obviously had a hard-on for Radcliffe and gave that movie flying colors, despite him being average in that movie and rest of the movie being same as this one. Read the reviews of the first movie, many are first time horror viewers who are praising Radcliffe and obviously saw the horror movie cause they were Harry Potter fans. They then saw this movie thinking there would be some connection to Radcliffe but since he isn’t here, they ended up focusing on the movie’s flaws which were present in the first movie.
While we’re at it, REALLY? Are you seriously setting up the ending for another sequel? We all know that they want to milk the WiB cow till they won’t make any profit from her at all. Both movies had $15 million budget and first one made them $125 million while this one made them about $49 million dollars. This is a nice profit even if the movie is just average. The third movie will make them even less profit it seems.
Maybe end the movie as a trilogy then, cause we know they’re gonna make a sequel. Just let it be the last one.
Crap scares, crap lighting, crap film.
Oh dear oh dear HAMMER..where do I start with this appalling bit of unimaginative garbage. Lets says a few words for the actors because they are the only good thing in the whole film. They struggle and probably held back their laughter at some of the appalling lines that had to be delivered, and Helen McCrory, why Helen why?? You’re an excellent actress especially on stage and you’ve severely wasted your talent here, your reputation can only be damaged by agreeing to be in this poor excuse for a film.
Did they dig up a BBC TV cinematographer who lit an episode of Dr Who in the 1980’s??? It was like a watching some lousy cheap xmas special that was knocked out within few days and ZERO thought was given to “atmospheric lighting”, this is a meant to be a horror film, you have to create atmosphere to keep the mood of the film, to keep an audience scared, enthralled, intrigued, and most importantly make it look COMMERCIAL, not light it in the style of below par art house knock off for a personal showreel, having lens flares and portions of the frame out of focus do not make you artistic DUMMY, they make you look incompetent which this DOP is, did this person just sleep their way through the project, did this silly DOP think for more than 5 minutes, are they capable of one creative thought in their brain?? What on earth is Hammer thinking when they are making a sequel to the biggest hit they’ve had in years and they employ talentless unimaginative incompetents like this??
Just look across the pond at the US horror films, some may be bad but pretty much all of them at this budget level all look slick, moody, atmospheric and COMMERCIAL not sub par art house.
Now lets get on to the director, never heard of him before but again this person shows such a deep lack of understanding of the horror genre that you’d think he just stumbled on the set by accident from a heavy night out and started directing this silly piece of nonsense. He keeps using a scare technique that when you see it the first time you think OK, not bad but then he goes on to repeat it about 11 times more, and by the 11th time you think. PLEASE STOP, GET A CLUE! Along with the useless DOP who probably dominated the director with their appalling shots, this director was just walking through the production for the pay check, hang your head in shame, this was a chance of taking the franchise in new directions but its wasted by a lack of imagination of the horror genre.
In summation, this film could have been so good but Hammer in their haste to cash in have misfired and shot themselves in the foot, backside and face.
A ROYAL STINKER, AVOID AT ALL COSTS!
Original Language en
Runtime 1 hr 38 min (98 min)
Genre Drama, Horror, Thriller
Director Tom Harper
Writer Jon Croker (screenplay), Jon Croker, Susan Hill
Actors Phoebe Fox, Merryn Pearse, Mary Roscoe, Helen McCrory
Country UK, Canada
Awards 2 wins & 2 nominations.
Production Company Talisman Films, Hammer Films
Sound Mix Dolby Digital
Aspect Ratio 2.35 : 1
Camera Arri Alexa, Hawk Anamorphic Lenses
Film Length N/A
Negative Format Digital
Cinematographic Process Hawk Scope
Printed Film Format N/A