christmaspikachu Whilst not being as good as the first Woman In Black film, it wasn't too bad overall. The tension was well built and the scares weren't too bad. The only thing that put me off was some of the cheesy acting. But, I've seen much worse!

rzemph Yet another horror film that feels like it was made with a by-the-numbers horror-film kit for the intellectually challenged. Are we never to have another that isn't just the same collection of clichés served up like a cheap oily burger and chips in a gaudy cardboard box? The heard-it-a thousand-times-before music, the tired old camera angles, the groan-inducing characters, as two-dimensional as the computer graphics that lend to every scene that flat, video game quality we've come to hate so much: yes, they're all here yet again, folks. Electronically distorted whispers that swell on the soundtrack whenever a character is being haunted, glass-eyed dolls and mechanical toys, cobwebbed corridors and peeling wallpaper, and, of course, jump-scares galore. But are these hackneyed sounds and images really what a paying audience is meant to accept as horror cinema in the 21st century? When will the cinema industry outgrow this ghost-train garbage and actually put in the effort and artistry and creativity to come up with something original, atmospheric, thought-provoking and genuinely frightening to put on our screens? For real horror these days one must turn to the news.

lorraineesimpson ... 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.

view_and_review If I could have one wish for all horror movies. Please oh please stop with the unresponsive person (usually a woman or a child) with her back turned only to have her turn around to reveal a grotesque face for the cheap jump scare. I don't know who started that but it's become so cliché. It is this generation's cat-jumping-from-hidden-location. I don't think there is a scary movie today that can do without the back turned person. One of these days I want the approaching person to just turn around and leave.As for the movie: it was alright. What could I expect? The premise was already known and established as well as the woman in black, so what much could they do with that besides give her more kids to kill. Insert new adults and new kids and there's your sequel.