‘The Woman in Black’ Sequel, ‘Angels of Death’ Gets Green Light
Fingers crossed that the sequel to The Woman in Black, to be called The Woman in Black: Angels of Death, will have an era-appropriate cover of Slayer’s most famous song buried somewhere in the story. (Seems unlikely, but one can hope. I’ll probably have to just be happy with the song’s use in Gremlins 2.)
Here’s what we know about the sequel to the highest-grossing British film of the past 20 years: the story begun in the first film will be continued 40 years later. Jon Crocker is developing the script based on a story by Susan Hill, who also wrote the tale upon which the first film was based. But will Daniel Radcliffe return? Big spoilers follow for those who haven’t seen The Woman in Black.
Hammer Films announced the developing sequel via a press release, saying that the new film 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.”
“This story” being the early 1900s tale of a young attorney (Radcliffe) sent to sort out the affairs of a recently deceased client of his firm. He finds the Eel Marsh House haunted by the spectre of a woman. When that spectre appears, it lures children to their death.
But Daniel Radcliffe’s character doesn’t survive the film; his son is lured into danger by the spectre, and in an attempt to save him both father and son perish. The son’s nanny (played by Jessica Raine) is left alive, but it doesn’t seem as if she’ll play a part in the new story. And given that the film takes place 40 years later, most of the other adult actors (such as Ciaran Hinds) are also unlikely to return. Some might hold out hope for a ghostly Radcliffe cameo, but that doesn’t seem very likely.
The press release says “The Woman in Black: Angels Of Death will be brought to the big screen by the same production team behind The Woman in Black,” which suggests that James Watkins might return to direct the sequel. The full creative team and cast are yet to be formally announced, however.
That's what I was thinking. Was it really that much of a Box Office hit?
looking at the overall Box Office Returns of close to a 113 Million Worldwide I guess you could call it a hit.
It did huge over here, so I guess that'll be enough to make a sequel (UK is always desperate to make a franchise, we've ended up churning out Nanny McPhee 2 and Johnny English Reborn)
It did huge over here, so I guess that'll be enough to make a sequel (UK is always desperate to make a franchise, we've ended up churning out Nanny McPhee 2 and Johnny English Reborn)
I see those are released into theaters over here and i'm just wondering why?
Considering the budget was under $20M, yeah it was a hit.
Do we need any movies?
I suppose, but this is one of the cases where it really feels unnecessary, definitely including that the first had an open to interpretation ending and the book and play never had a sequel.
Here’s How the ‘Woman in Black’ Sequel Will Get Along Without Daniel Radcliffe
This past spring, Hammer Films announced that it is developing The Woman in Black: Angels of Death, a sequel to the horror/thriller that starred Daniel Radcliffe. The first film was Radcliffe’s first major non-Harry Potter role, and interest in the actor helped push the picture to a gross of over $100m worldwide. The fact that the film wasn’t bad at all didn’t hurt, either.
But for a number of reasons we didn’t expect Radcliffe to show up in the sequel. Jon Croker, who worked on the first film as story editor, has penned the follow-up, and now we’ve got the story details below. Spoilers for the first film are generously included after the break.
STYD reports this is the plot of the film:
Quote:
Seized by the government and converted into a military mental hospital during World War II, the sudden arrival of disturbed soldiers to Eel Marsh Harsh has awoken its darkest inhabitant. Eve, a beautiful young nurse, is sent to the house to care for the patients but soon realizes she must save them from more than their own demons. Despite Eve’s efforts to stop her, one by one they fall victim to the Woman in Black.
In the first film, Radcliffe’s character, a young lawyer, was sent to Eel Marsh House to sort out the affairs of a deceased client of his firm. There, and in the nearby town, he experienced strange goings-on and saw the unusual deaths of several children. Soon he found that the spirit of a mourning mother was responsible in some means for the deaths of the children. Radcliffe’s character didn’t survive the first film, and while there is vague reason to hope that he might show up as a ghost in the second, that seems fairly unlikely when the general trajectory of his career is taken into account. He doesn’t seem like a ‘lame cameo’ sorta guy.
So with the one movie did The Woman in Black establish itself as a name brand? The movie is a solid standalone chiller, and I’m not sure how welcome a second will be. But I’ll be willing to give it a look, especially if it has the same style and atmosphere as the original.
While not bad, I found the film to be terribly boring and lacking any genuine scares. It sure was pretty though. That being said, I have no interest in seeing a sequel.
It's like you knew all the scares that were going to happen seconds before they happen. and plus they that thing where they blare sound music where something is suppose to be scary or spooky.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
'The Woman in Black: Angels of Death'
)
Linear Mode
