Sequels are hard, I don't think there can be any doubt about that, and horror sequels tend to get a worse rap than most because they are also harder to make than most. Besides basic plot (which needs to be accessible while building on the first), the creators need to either amp up the scares or the dramatic intensity (or both, if possible). Few horror franchises can do this, and even fewer succeed. After The Woman in Black (2012) signaled to the world that Hammer-produced films were back in business and that pure, traditional ghost stories -- a dying breed in the last couple decades -- could be both critically and commercially successful, I expected a series to start. But whereas the first film took its inspiration from tried-and-true source material (a book, television movie, and wildly popular stage play), I worried that any sequels would fail to match its impact.
My misgivings were well-founded. The new script leaves a lot to be desired, both in terms of dialogue and pacing and in terms of thematic integrity. Essentially, the film follows young schoolteacher Eve as she shepherds her students out of London during the Blitz. We know, of course, that children should not be within a hundred miles of Eel Marsh House, the crumbling Gothic mansion in a foggy, desolate swamp. But sweet Eve doesn't seem to appreciate that the abandoned town (complete with crazed, lone inhabitant) and the filthy, dangerous mansion are no place to hide a group of children. As we expected, things go bump in the night, shadows move in the background, and nightmares creep into reality, and though Eve begins to lose her cool, it is not until the end that she finally declares the house unfit for her charges. No shit, girlfriend.
The main problem with this film is its script, lumping exposition into a couple scenes with painfully blunt dialogue, and forgetting until the last twenty minutes or so that character development is important. None of the actors are allowed to shine much, because none are given much material to work with, and the plot's minimal drama makes the characters flat and uninteresting. I felt no sympathy for Eve because she communicates poorly, loses track of her students constantly, and repeatedly falls into sentimental stupor. Since the emotional arc of the film hinges on her, that's not a good thing for me to say.
While few horror films could wish for a better cast than The Woman in Black (Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer), its sequel harbors its own gems. Phoebe Fox (a relative newcomer) and Helen McCrory (Harry Potter, The Queen, Hugo) do the best with what they are given, and at least manage to make distinctive character choices. Handsome Jeremy Irvine (War Horse, The Railway Man) stole the movie for me, acting as a love interest (and, unfortunately, the film's deus ex machina) with intelligence and surprising intensity in otherwise dull scenes.
New director Tom Harper (James Watkins brilliantly directed the first) seems determined to succeed in visual style where the script lacks. Though not as visually striking as the first film, he pumps in the atmosphere so much that the film feels dreamlike. In fact, some moments are so dark (in terms of color and light) that I could barely see what was happening in the background (which is of course where all the exciting things happen), even on the big screen. But Harper fails at scaring up any new thrills or chills, resorting to recycled bits from the first film to make us jerk awake. In fact, some of these "scares" had me giggle a little, simply because they were familiar, rather predictable, and poorly executed. That's not to say the film is a waste of time -- in fact, the best moments showcase the chemistry between our wonderful Jeremy Irvine and the lead girl (what's her name again?) -- but it could be better. And if you want to see a blind Ned Dennehy lunging out of the darkness in a nightmare-worthy scene, you could do worse than a visit to Eel Marsh House.
IMDb: The Woman in Black 2
No comments:
Post a Comment