Hammer Studios today announced a sequel to 2012 hit The
Woman in Black, a film based on a book which didn't in itself have a sequel.
Why? Because it didn't need one. And neither does the film.
You can read my full review to see precisely what was
wrong with James Watkins' The Woman in Black (and what was right with it - I
did enjoy it to an extent), but allow me to sum it up for you anyway.
As a film, it has its strengths - but falls a bit flat as a
horror. Dan Radcliffe is good when he isn't speaking (a trait which he's carried
over from the Potter films), but it leaves little to the imagination on a
whole. The book did a much better job of building tension (and on that note, Watkins'
adaptation is definitely not one for purists).
But no matter how good or bad the film was, a sequel is most
certainly the last thing it needs. There was nothing more needed to be said -
the tale was told; done and dusted.
Once again, money presides over artistic vision. The original has now grossed more than $120 million worldwide, becoming the highest grossing British horror film of the past 20 years - the sure motivation for the written-for-screen sequel.
Titled The Woman in Black: Angels of Death, the film will be set 40 years after the original, and focus on a couple staying in the eerie Eel Marsh House. With that in mind, it's unlikely that Radcliffe will return when the film is released, which is likely to be in the next two years.
Original author Susan Hill is said to be working with Hammer on the screenplay, though even then I'm dubious. What more tale is there to tell? The sense of mystery from the first film will surely be lost... and perhaps an audience too.
Source: Cine-Vue
0 comments:
Post a Comment