13 of 17 people found the following review helpful
A real disappointment,
This review is from: The Woman in Black: Angel of Death (Hammer) (Hardcover)
I really wanted to enjoy this book having read the original Susan Hill novel, (and her other books), seen the play twice and even liked the movie. I thought this had a lot of potential - that Eel Marsh House still stands empty, damp and almost derelict and in 1940 it is requestioned to be used for evacuees from London. So the Woman in Black would have a whole house full of children and teachers to haunt, torment, etc. A great set up.
However it didnt work for me - the suspense wasnt there, Waites just didnt capture the suspense, fear and power of the original novel or even the film. I really wanted to like it and Waites is obviously a great fan of this genre but I just couldnt and didnt.
I am not sure he has read the original book since he has missed some main points - that if you see the Woman in Black you are doomed. The new main characters do see the Woman often and somehow survive.
He also needs to do some historical research - the RAF DONT have Captains- they have Group Captains but that is quite a Senior rank, they didnt have Halfiax's in 1940. The British didnt have jeeps at this stage in the war either. The Blitz, which is referred too, was 1940-1941, but most evacuations began 1939-1940. The bad winter that is mentioned and that one of the characters has a husband and son in France suggests again that its the winter of 1939-1940. But the mention of the Blitz sounds like a year later.
This historical confusion wont bother many but it bothered me, a lack of simple research distracted me and affected the story.
This novel is basically the script of a new film coming out in 2014, I hope the film is better than this novel.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 21 Nov 2013 15:40:40 GMT
J L Cobban says:
Doubt it, if the first film was anything to go by.
Posted on 19 Dec 2013 17:06:03 GMT
Amazon Customer says:
Agree absoloutely about the lack of knowledge of WWII. Spitfires with "two machine guns"? RAF "Captains", Lancasters and Halifaxes in 1940? If the film features these mistakes it is likely to be ridiculed. How can we criticise American films about WWII if we can't get it right?
‹ Previous 1 Next ›