Great storyline, but you literally can't see anything. They made everything so dark that you have no clue what's going on half the time because you can't see.

... if you're going to try to cash in on success at least do it well! I loved The Woman in Black - both the original and the remake - and, like most people of the same opinion, looked forward to revisiting the spookiness of Eel Marsh House. What a let down!The acting is reasonable. Phoebe Fox looks suitably scared running along dark corridors and peering fearfully through windows. They all do their best within the limitations of the script and the direction. The film is annoyingly dark and hazy, which I imagine was an attempt to create atmosphere (as precious little else in the film does) but instead is just ... well, annoying! There are a few frights but the fright formula is repeated so frequently throughout the film that it becomes tedious and predictable. The real villain of this piece is the director. As a stand alone film this would probably scrape by as an average horror but the problem is we judge it against it's predecessor and it doesn't come close. The Woman in Black was a class act, atmospheric and spooky with some genuine frights and good acting. This looks like it was thrown together in a couple of days. Watch it if there's nothing else on telly but don't pay good money to see it.

The original TV version was outstanding. This version was a sequel to the Hammer version starring Daniel Radcliffe.Too many scenes were so dark as to obscure what was happening. The general gloom reduced the atmosphere rather than adding to it.Scriptwriting lacked a clear dynamic. The original story by Susan Hill was a classic ghost story and provided a credible premise for the haunting. It should be possible to build on this, but unfortunately this sequel failed to do this. Ostensibly, all the ingredients were present, but... well, it takes more than an old neglected house and a bunch of wartime child evacuees to make a spooky film.Too episodic in plot to be effective. Overall short on tension and thrills.

Where's the time that Hammer was a standard for creepy flicks or Gothic stories. That's a long time ago. Hammer came back years ago and all geeks were cheering about the fact that they were here to stay, unless, they gave us crap. This isn't crap but it's just on the edge of becoming one. Picking in on the success of Woman In Black (2012) and the comeback of ghost flicks like the Insidious franchise Hammer found it time to make a follow up to the 2012 entry. Can't say that it was badly shot but there wasn't any scary moment to pick up. Oh yeah, when teens would watch it those would scream it aloud. It takes almost over 1 hour and 15 minutes before things really are shown, before that it's the sound that should do it, you know, hearing voices, children singing, the old trick done years ago but here, sadly for me it didn't work at all. Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5