Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

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!

hongkong666 A majority of sequels are way worse than the first movie. This one is no exception. During most of the movie you barely see anything. The lighting is so bad, that it soon becomes even boring to watch. A director switch to Tom Harper did not improve this movie at all. Even worse, here we have even more stupid jump scares lurking behind almost every corner and almost the only "horrifying" thing about this movie are these terrible loud sound effects, included for no reason but to hide the fact, that this movie lacks a lot of substance. I don't recommend seeing this one!

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.

metalrage666 Question- what do you get if you dress head to toe in black, only come out at night and stay in the shadows?Answer- absolutely nothing! If you can imagine yourself trying to appreciate a black painting with the lights off then that's pretty close to trying to enjoy this movie. Set in WWII London during the blitz, several children are rounded up and relocated to Eel House far out in the English countryside of Crythin Gifford. This movie is a very unremarkable and watered down ghost story that's even more derivative than its predecessor. With its many clichés, you can basically be watching any other ghost movie written in the last 20 years. Not long after they all move into the house, weird noises, strange messages and toys that move by themselves are among the first indicators that you're watching a recycled script unfold. One child has been rendered mute due to the trauma of having both his parents killed during the bombing of London, so he becomes the target of some teasing from 2 other boys. For some reason the spirit of the house gets revenge on one of the boys by making him leave the house during the middle of the night only to end up dead on the moors, wrapped in barbed wire. There's no real rhyme or reason as to why this happened other than we seem to have a vengeful spirit with a conscience on our hands. We learn at some point that other bus loads of children had been sent to the same location but have all been killed by the woman in black. There's some bizarre flashback/dream sequence where the teacher accompanying the children gave birth when she was really young and at that time, if you weren't married or well to do, babies were forcibly removed from unmarried mothers and placed in foster care. Somehow the house spirit knows this and sets about making the woman feel guilty about "abandoning" her baby despite her desperate search for him using the "vast" resources available in the 1930's. So now we have an opinionated vengeful spirit with a conscience and morals. I started losing interest at some point as I was wondering when this was supposed to start getting scary and making some kind of sense. The kids and co decide to leave after a second child dies and they end up at a dummy airfield complete with fake planes designed to confuse enemy bombers from destroying real targets. The woman in black follows them there, she decides to show her face for an attempt at some random scares and fails dismally. There's an epilogue where the young teacher has now adopted the student who had lost his parents and they are now living in an apartment back in London. The woman in black appears, (this is the ONLY time you get a half decent look at her), she destroys a photo on the mantle and the movie ends. I didn't really get this at all and the convoluted back story just gets in the way of the material. The excessive use of shadow, during the middle of the night made it almost impossible to work out what the hell was going on. The feeble attempts at building atmosphere are outweighed by the predictable jump scenes that rely on silence followed by the sudden high pitched screechy music. There's nothing new in this that hasn't been seen before and simply calling it boring is actually doing it a favour. Don't waste your time watching this, go and hang a black coat somewhere in the room, turn all the lights off, pretend it's a ghost and you've just re-created this entire movie for free.