While IMDb has been a useful platform for looking up quick trivia facts and a fast method to research the actor's name who is on the tip of your tongue, never have I been interested in making account. Upon discovering that only members were permitted to rate movies and leave comments, well, I wouldn't let laziness prevent me from giving this movie the abysmal rating it deserved.
The movie hardly lived up to the ghost of the first movie and I hardly believed it was truly a sequel. Despite mixed critical reviews for the first movie I found Woman in Black held an eerie atmosphere about it that endeared the movie to me. The mixture of atmosphere, suspense and unpredictability produced by the movie created genuine scares and an intriguing plot. The second movie decided to not be held back by this invention and creativity.
Woman In Black 2 distanced itself from the first movie by doing away with suspense, atmosphere and any need for creativity in plot or design. I'm interested to see the budget for this movie, as I am curious as to how much money is saved when any writing skill is removed from the movie in order for cheap jump scares to be the only scream fuel.
To the director's credit I cannot fathom any story that could possibly continue the train wreck of a conclusion given to the first movie, and it seems they couldn't figure it out either. I feel calling this movie a sequel was a misnomer, and it was more of a movie set in the same universe with no ties to the first save the monster being an imitation. Even the same house from the first film was made an anemic shell that was fully exposed and explored removing the need to use it again.
The only tie I can think of between movies was an ending that nullified an entire movie's worth of work and left the entire plot unresolved and open ended for another shoe horned sequel. The writer's brilliance in spilling all of the milk they spent the movie making into the gutter in order to continually milk the same cow for more and more movies is an inspiration to directors hoping to make the same movie 3 or 4 times all over the world.
Edward's only words in the movie being "I'm Sorry" isn't fair to the poor actor. You're not sorry for this movie Edward; I am.
The movie hardly lived up to the ghost of the first movie and I hardly believed it was truly a sequel. Despite mixed critical reviews for the first movie I found Woman in Black held an eerie atmosphere about it that endeared the movie to me. The mixture of atmosphere, suspense and unpredictability produced by the movie created genuine scares and an intriguing plot. The second movie decided to not be held back by this invention and creativity.
Woman In Black 2 distanced itself from the first movie by doing away with suspense, atmosphere and any need for creativity in plot or design. I'm interested to see the budget for this movie, as I am curious as to how much money is saved when any writing skill is removed from the movie in order for cheap jump scares to be the only scream fuel.
To the director's credit I cannot fathom any story that could possibly continue the train wreck of a conclusion given to the first movie, and it seems they couldn't figure it out either. I feel calling this movie a sequel was a misnomer, and it was more of a movie set in the same universe with no ties to the first save the monster being an imitation. Even the same house from the first film was made an anemic shell that was fully exposed and explored removing the need to use it again.
The only tie I can think of between movies was an ending that nullified an entire movie's worth of work and left the entire plot unresolved and open ended for another shoe horned sequel. The writer's brilliance in spilling all of the milk they spent the movie making into the gutter in order to continually milk the same cow for more and more movies is an inspiration to directors hoping to make the same movie 3 or 4 times all over the world.
Edward's only words in the movie being "I'm Sorry" isn't fair to the poor actor. You're not sorry for this movie Edward; I am.