The Woman in Black: Angel of Death

One never imagined in 2012 that the Woman in Black would actually have a sequel. It was a small movie that used old school tricks to give us a few thrills. But, it did hit it off well with audiences, which is why she returns as Angel of Death. The movie is set in 1941 where children from London are being evacuated to the countryside to keep them safe from the bombings. One such group is sent to Eelmarsh house, the house of the Woman in Black. But of course, the unsuspecting children and the two teachers accompanying them know nothing of this.

The makers of the movie have gone ahead with the script with the assumption that anyone watching this already knows everything about Eelmarsh house. Now, that is a pretty far reaching assumption considering that the original Woman in Black was not such a huge hit after all. There will be many who have not watched the first movie and will consequently have no idea about the reason behind the haunting at Eelmarsh house. Those audiences are bound to find everything a bit meaningless.

Coming to the movie itself, and assuming that you have seen the first part, Angel of Death comes as a

heavy disappointment. It tried to play its cards the same way that the first movie did, by slowly spooking you, by using darkness, half open doors and ravens flashing against the windows. But, it doesn’t work this time because almost always you know that it is coming. The director also tries to use ghastly faces coming out of nowhere as a scaring tactic. But save the rare momentary jump in your pulse, it does not have any effect whatsoever. The lesser said of the story, the better. It is just another one where one kid after the other keeps finding ways to die, with the veiled lady making fleeting appearances now and then. The characters really do not have any meat in them. The only one who seems to have a character arc is the flying officer. He is the only one whose fears seem real, and he doesn’t fear the ghost but something else.

The Angel of Death tries to do what the prequel did. It tries to give you a tense two hours with you guessing what will pop out of which corner. But the script and the director have failed in putting together anything meaningful and even remotely scary. It ends up as a collection of ‘horror gimmicks’ which fall flat. In 2012, when the Woman in Black first released, we hadn’t seen old school horror for a while, which was one of the reasons it found interested audiences. But, in 2013 and 14 we have had far too many including The Conjuring, its sequel Annabelle (which was also a big let down), the forgettable Jessabelle etc. It is not new anymore, which is one more reason the Angel of Death falls flat. And by the way the movie ends, they are definitely leaving room for a sequel. Hope they work hard on the script this time.

The greatest horror is that you actually spent time and money on this!

1.5/5

The Woman in Black: Old tricks for some chills!

'An abandoned mansion, a young man, vengeance that lies unabated for years and many dead children........'

There is something that new-age cinema lacks: old-school horror. It has been quite a while since we have seen something that banks on the good old ways of sending some chills up your spine. Weird forms, apparitions, wails, dark rooms, sinister corridors, haunted castles etc.. The new and intelligent cinema cares a whole lot about reasoning and plausibility to unleash such middle-age tricks on screen. But, guess what? It still works; as it is proved by The Woman in Black.

Set in what presumably must be the late 19^th or early 20^th century England, The Woman in Black takes us into the journey of a lawyer who is sent on an assignment to a county that is not yet urban. He is there to finish off the legalities of a mansion left behind by woman; a simple job, it must seem. But, he doesn’t seem too welcome there. Someone is uneasy knowing what he has come for; obviously, they do not want him to get on with his work. What is it that makes them apprehensive about a lawyer settling matters of a mansion? We do not know, nor does Arthur Kipps, the lawyer. He finds out, but not before it has caused the deaths of two young children in the county. What lurks in the mansion and why does it have to bring about the pretty gruesome deaths of children? Well, you have to find that for yourself.

The thing about The Woman in Black is that it hinges not so much on its story than on its imagery and placement of thrills. There is not a bright or sunny moment in the entire film. Arthur Kipps is despondent right from the start, for personal reasons, and this sets the mood for the movie too, which is almost morbid with an almost upsetting silence about it all the time. It does take the film quite a while to get firmly set on its course. Almost the entire first hour is a series of scenes where Arthur Kipps keeps sighting strange figures here and there in a mansion that was reportedly abandoned. For most part, these figures fail to give you any chills because you are half expecting them to jump out any time. Deep into the first hour you might also begin to wonder whether the movie has any intention of getting on with it or whether it is going to be just a series of strange figures popping up here and there followed by a gruesome climax. Thankfully, the first real thrill arrives right then and the plot begins to unravel itself. From then on to the climax, which is short of an hour, you will find yourself engaged in the story behind the mansion, why the people fear it so and why children in the county keep dying. And, one must say, its good while it lasts, especially the attempt by Arthur Kipps to find an appeasement for the wandering soul.

As said earlier, as a movie, The Woman in Black is more about the images than about the plot. What surprises us most is that even in this era of 3D and rich colors, a film that seems to be just black and white for almost its entire duration can still hold our attention. The director deserves a round of applause for pulling this off, for reminding us that cinema still hinges firmly on its ability to engage with the audience at the content level ahead of any technical wizardry. The marshland, the mansion, the dark corridors, eerie windows all are just right for the kind of movie that this is. The minimal use of sounds is also one good aspect, those loud wails and screams have an effect of us mainly because of the otherwise eerily silent proceedings. The director has strode the thin line of using cheesy thrills just in the adequate proportion; a little more and the audience could have taken it more as a spoof rather than a serious horror movie. Finally, after all the arduous efforts at appeasements, the closing minute is the one that will wrench at your heart. Of course, horror movies are supposed to have such endings!

Daniel Radcliffe proves that he doesn’t need a magic wand for company on screen all the time. He is present in almost every frame of the movie, and for most parts, he is alone. His screen presence is one of the most important factors of the movie and he carries it off well. And, one must say that the constantly morose look does suit him. All other characters are etched well and build towards the unravelling of the history behind the mansion.

The Woman in Black is horror in the good-old way: darkness, shadows, ajar doors and a mystery around a grave. The style of imagery suits the mood of the movie and never once does it deviate from the set course. Of course, it does take a lengthy prelude full off shadowy occurrences before the movie embarks on its actual course. You can watch it once; it may not be a spine chilling horror flick, but it definitely is a good deviation from the loud and bright kind of cinema we get these days. The Woman in Black is an occasionally chilling movie which can be watched mainly for its imagery and minimal use of sounds; it’s a rare occurrence these days!