One Star, but darn goodSunday, May 08, 2005
This is the third movie in a great trilogy if you just want to watch really bad horror movies.
The first movie had me laughing my butt off, this one was slower and on a higher budget (which makes it worse), but it was still pretty funny.
If you want a real horror film, don't watch this movie. If you want a stupid horror film to laugh at (think "Scarecrow Gone Wild), you'd like this movie and love the first one. They are so bad, you have to keep watching them over and over.
1 out of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Decent enough, but the 1st time was REALLY the charmSunday, April 03, 2005
In case the title confused you, what I'm trying to say that the very first Ginger Snaps movie in this so called "triology" was the one most people will remember. This 3rd entry into the series, "Ginger Snaps Back" is a decent enough film. It's entirely watchable, and it's a way superior sequel to Ginger Snaps Unleashed. What I find hysterical is that some of you do not like this film but yet raved about Ginger Snaps Unleashed. Just goes to show drugs are a terrible menance in our society.
This movie takes place in the "ye olden days" if you will and we find our heroines wandering through the woods where Brigette gets her foot caught in a hunters trap. She gets freed by this Native American dude who leads them to this fort in the wilderness which is being attacked and overrun by werewolves nightly.
The people at the fort are none to happy to see Ginger and Brigette waltz through the front door after the Native American guy, nicknamed "The Hunter" leads them there. This motley ground holding down the fort if you will, include ofcourse the odd assortment of characters these types of movies usually have.
They are, the commander, who is one of the few kindly and sane ones of the group. The old grizzly doctor is in the house, one rather pyschotic guy who you know is going to cause trouble, and also, including one really annoying preacher who thinks everything is going to hell in a handbasket because he doesn't like the idea of women, Ginger and Brigette there, while he should be more concerned about the damned werewolves, and there are plenty who keep attacking the fort night after night.
After Ginger and Brigette are shown thier quarters, ofcourse as is the custom in these types of movies, Ginger wakes up in the middle of the night, wandering where she has no right to wander as a guest in the house because she hears the sobbing of a child.
She then finds the room the sobbing comes from, ofcourse, once again OFCOURSE she unlatches the door, goes to the child, who's really the commander's son who's been bitten by one of the werewolves and is changing himself with his face all distorted almost more than Michael Jacksons.
Turns out the commander led everyone to believe his son was already killed by the werewolves along with his wife who really is dead and he locked the son in a room in one of the main houses of the fort for what reason other than morbid sentimentality, I have no idea. He should have done right by the boy by putting him down and doing his duty as a father and a man than letting him go on like that. But ofcourse, for the sake of the horror movie you can't make it that simple.
But as for Ginger ofcourse after she approaches, the kid winds up biting her, and then she and Brigitte find out the deal with the werewolves and that before long she will be one of them herself.
Ofourse there's that silly "together forever" pact that Ginger and Brigette make and suffice it to say, the Native American, tells Brigette she must be the one to kill Ginger, but ofcourse Brigette just wont take that for a answer, nevermind the fact that her sister won't be her sister no more but a cursed animal.
Ends with Brigette who should have done her duty to end this once and for all, kills the poor Hunter dude rather than her own sister. Awwwww, she just Wuvvsssss her sister so much, that thanks to her the curse will live on and haunt and damn future generations right down to Ginger Snaps 1 & 2. At least know you know who to blame. Someone should have plunged a knife into Brigette's whiny ass to spare us all this. Oh well, that's 3 for 3 that have God awful,depressing endings. No happy endings for ANY of the 3 movies in the triology but hey, at least thier consistent which is something.
In closing as I have said after the total turnoff of Ginger Snaps Unleashed, it's a miracle I even had the stomach to try and watch the 3rd film but it's watchable like I said. Let's just say Ginger Snaps, is the still the best one, Ginger Snaps Unleased, totally blew like you would not believe......or maybe you might, who knows? 1 & 3 are alright, stay away from #2 and you'll be fine. Thanks and peace
0 out of 2 people found the following review helpful:
wellSaturday, April 02, 2005
This movie is a prequel to the previous 2 movies. It is similar to the previous movies to the point were the orginal actors reprise their roles as sisters who are traveling in 1815 America. While staying at a fort for injuries they happen to come upon a child werewolf who bits one of the sisters and the events that happen that lead up to the changing into a werewolf by one of the sisters. Underlying themes to the movie include loyalty to family and love between sisters. Overall great movie!
2 out of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Ginger Snaps Back--Brigitte Breaks A NailFriday, March 25, 2005
I loved the first Ginger Snaps movie and the sequel did some interesting things. So I was hoping that the prequel would be another great entry in the Ginger Snaps franchise. Almost immediately, I knew that my hopes were futile.
The movie is set in the early 19th century, in some trading post in the middle of nowhere. And Ginger and Brigitte (not the ones from the first movies, but apparently ancestors of those two who have the same names and look identical) are inexplicably wandering in the aforementioned middle of nowhere. If that isn't asinine enough, it doesn't seem like anyone tried very hard to sound like they were acting the part of 19th century people. All of Ginger's & Brigitte's lines are spoken without a thought to their anachronistic nature. Actually, Emily Perkins tries at parts to sound old-thyme. She accomplishes this by speaking really slow and not using grammatical contractions. Maybe someone should have told Katharine Isabelle that the movie was set in the past, because she doesn't try at all. Anyway, this whole movie could have been done as a 5 minute flashback and put at the beginning of the sequel, which was filmed at the same time as this movie. This movie doesn't add anything important to the story-line, and actually takes away a lot from the first movie. The first movie uses lycanthropy as a metaphor for newly awakened teenage sexuality. The second compares it to drug addiction. The prequel isn't clever enough to do any of that, and by attempting to show the audience the beginnings of the "curse" of the Fitzgerald sisters, it's saying that the awesomeness of the first movie is meaningless because of predestination. The "curse" was supposed to refer to Ginger's menstruation, not an actual curse.
Obviously, this movie fails as a prequel. So the question becomes: Can this movie stand on its own? The answer is: Sadly, no. The movie is comprised of stock characters, like the evil preacher or the noble Indian. All the characters are exceedingly mean and/or boring, so there's nobody to rally behind. A new mythological element is added to this movie: If You Kill the Werewolf That Bit You, You Will Not Become One. If someone else kills it, you're screwed. I can't say that this new nugget of folklore really upset me, but it still seemed like a cheap route to go in order to produce some sympathy for these really bad characters. There aren't any scary moments in this movie, and the werewolves look a little too lumpy. And events are fairly predictable. Any horror-fan knows that, invariably, when more than one person is running away from something scary in the woods, one of those people will get their foot caught in a bear-trap.
If you liked the fist Ginger Snaps and tolerated the sequel, stop there and savor those two fun movies. This prequel (like seemingly all prequels) does little more than detract from the original. If you're a completist, you've probably already seen this awful movie. If you're a casual fan, don't waste your time on this weak entry in the series.
4 out of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Not that goodSaturday, March 19, 2005
This is the prettiest of the three Ginger Snaps movies, with a bigger budget, a more styalized look, a polished feel, and better werewolf FX. But on a story/script level, it is the worst.
The Ginger/Bridget story is a rehash of the original movie: Ginger gets bitten by a werewolf (this time a child), and Bridget fights to save her from the curse and to hide it from others. Just swap out the "puberty metaphor" from the first film for "Native American mystical mumbo-jumbo," and replace the drug-dealeing helpful guy from the first movie with a Native American hunter/tracker, and it'll all feel real familiar. The outpost-versus-a-monster story has been done many times, and thus doesn't hold much interest; the characters are all obviously werewolf fodder from the start.
If you've seen the first two films, this isn't a terrible film. But after the quality and inventivness of the first two, this one disappointed me greatly.