“During the London bombings of World War II, school teachers Eve Parkins and Jean Hogg lead a group of children in evacuation to Crythin Gifford, a remote village outside of the city. When the group takes up residence at the Eel Marsh House, 40 years after Arthur Kipps investigated the first haunting, Eve soon realizes they are not alone. The longer they stay in the house, the more the awful past of the residence unravels itself and the evil spirit that lurks around them threatens the well-being of the children. With the help of a pilot, Eve does all that she can to protect the children and discover the truth behind the Woman in Black.”
Unlike the majority of the horror population, I actually enjoyed the 2012 remake/reboot of The Woman In Black; even if it was a remake of this TV Movie, but with Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe. However reminiscent of Potter it felt from time to time, [I mean, the train scene at the end? ugh] it was still an special experience and I actually enjoyed it with it’s eerie feeling, the Victorian time it was set in, and all the horror that came with it. It felt like an old school Hammer film. [which I may be alone on saying…] But with The Woman In Black‘s ending, people were fairly curious – myself included – how they’d continue the story of the dreaded Woman In Black. [especially since that ending!] Which brings us to the film’s sequel: Angel Of Death.
Set to be released on January 2nd, 2015, the film is claimed [according to IMDb] to have already completed it’s filming. Angel Of Death takes place 40 years after the first haunting at Eel Marsh House, [meaning 40 years after the first movie] where a group of children evacuated from WWII London arrive at the house, awakening the house’s darkest inhabitant: The Woman In Black.
Now wait: stop, stop, stop, stop! What do you mean a group of children are going to be living in the house? Doesn’t The Woman [In Black] attack children as a revenge tactic? That’s..kind of predicable, even for today’s horror! I can understand the idea of the film taking place 40 years later, and even the idea of WWII London, but children? if it does take place only 40 years later, wouldn’t the people of Crythin Gifford still know[or at least have heard of] the infamous stories revolving around the house? Yet, they are perfectly fine with letting [a large group of] kids live there during the war? I don’t get adults sometimes.
When the film was first announced the plot was actually quite different, where it followed Eel Marsh House after it was transformed into a recovery home for injured war soldiers [probably from the newer WWII London plot], run by a small group of staff members; specifically, a young nurse who begins to notice that something isn’t right with the house. As the war veterans begin to turn up dead [or even disappear] it was up to the young nurse to discover Eel Marsh‘s tragic past, kind of like Arthur Kipps had to in the first film. However, with the revised actually makes a bit more sense, as The Woman In Black doesn’t attack veterans, but children.
Ultimately, I don’t know how I feel about the sequel just yet. It doesn’t look terrible, but it also feels slightly predictable. How do you feel about the idea of the synopsis changing? was it for the better or the worst? Let me know in a comment below! Also, if you haven’t seen the trailer for The Woman In Black: Angel Of Death, I’ve included it below:
THANKS FOR READING.