The Woman In Black was okay. I didn't much like the ending, but as a haunted house movie it was serviceable. And complete. The story ended and that was enough of that, thank you very much. Except that isn't how it works in the 21st century, and since the film had some financial success, a sequel has been greenlit.
Spoilers, I guess, but Daniel Radcliffe won't be returning for the sequel, which is to be called The Woman In Black: Angels of Death. What WILL the sequel be about? From a Hammer Films press release:
The Woman in Black was set in the early 1900’s and based on the tale of a young lawyer who is ordered to travel to a remote corner of the UK, to sort out the papers of a recently deceased client. In the eerie setting of Eel Marsh House he discovers the vengeful ghost of The Woman in Black. This next instalment, The Woman in Black: Angels Of Death, will continue this story four decades later and focus on the concept of a couple and the experience they have when they encounter the haunted setting of Eel Marsh House.
So... more of the same? There was a nice simplicity to The Woman in Black, and when the film was finished it felt as though the ghost had been thoroughly explored. If I had to say I was interested in anything about this sequel it would be based on curiosity - will this be anything more than a remake with 40s clothes?
Susan Hill, author of the original source material, came up with the story for Angels of Death, so maybe there's something good happening there.
Now, it's important to note that the press release I got said this is NOT a sequel to Woman In Black, but rather a continuation of the series. This is the sort of twisting of language and logic you usually get from publicity hacks - a movie with the same surtitle, same location and, presumably the same ghost is NOT a sequel to the film preceding it? Of course it is.