So now that it’s Halloween, even though horror is not really my thing, I’ve stumbled upon the trailer for Angel of Death, which is the sequel to The Woman in Black. I might not be the biggest horror fan out there, but this movie looks so bad, it’ll probably be good. Lord knows that I laughed my ass off during the first movie.
I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked that The Woman in Black is actually getting a sequel, since a lot of horror movies get one, but at the same time, I wasn’t really expecting it. The original movie didn’t do that well—only a 66% on Rotten Tomatoes. And one of the few things I did like about it—a lack of gore—is actually one of its more heavy criticisms. As such, I wouldn’t be surprised if Angel of Death ended up being bloodier altogether.
The Woman in Black is about a woman whose son was taken from her. After her son died, she passed away as well, and her ghost forever haunts the house we see in the trailer. Whenever someone sees her, in retribution for her own lost son, she finds children in the nearby town and forces them to commit suicide. The first movie even opens with three Edwardian era girls jumping out a window. Also, as it ended with both the main character, played by Daniel Radcliffe, and his son being run over by a train, other than the aforementioned ghost, Angel of Death looks to follow an entirely new cast.
And it also looks to have the exact same problems as the first movie. A bunch of stupid plot contrivances had to keep happening to keep Radcliffe in the house, where the woman in black could haunt and torment him before running off to murder children. And that looks to be the same thing here. Now, a few years after the first movie, during WWII, a school teacher named Eve takes her students to the countryside after a bombing blitz, and I guess there is no other place to stay than at the haunted, decrepit mansion on the edge of town that would be hazardous to live in even without a ghost. Even though the first movie establishes that all the townspeople know the house is haunted with a ghost that kills children and every single one of them would probably offer Eve and her students room and board to assure that they would be anywhere else but there, our main characters are still going to end up at that house.
And as I said earlier, I didn’t even find the first movie that scary. I laughed my way through it, and that’s probably what I’ll do if I even decide to watch Angel of Death as well. I mean, to start off, it’s actually called Angel of Death, even though it’s about a ghost, not an angel.
It is entirely possible that my dislike for the first movie and my negative opinion on the second one thus far is also due in part to dislike for the horror genre in general. Though there is the occasional horror movie or show I do enjoy, overall, it’s just not my thing. But even if it were, I doubt that I’d want to watch this movie regardless. It just looks like a pointless sequel to the first film, and barring that, there’s nothing that really set that film apart from other horror movies. It was just a typical ghost story, and I have no doubt that that will be the case here as well. Angel of Death doesn’t seem new or interesting, and I’ll probably skip it.