Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
60 of 66 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent End to the Trilogy!, September 24, 2004
Once again we are treated to the lycanthropic likes of Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and her sister Brigitte (Emily Perkins), and are not disappointed. This time, Ginger and Brigitte are travelling alone in the snow in the 1800's after their boat was sunk and their parents drowned. An older Indian woman, a seer, warns them to "kill the boy or one sister kills the other." Without thinking too much about the warning, they move along on their path through the woods. As chance, and a bear trap, would have it, the two end up in the hands of a hunter (Nathaniel Arcand) who leads them to an outpost where things are clearly not going as well as they could.
The girls are informed that a hunting party set off to collect supplies and rations, but has yet to return. Furthermore, strange animals have been attacking the outpost. Animals that bear some resemblance (via tattoos and other discernable markings) to the members of the hunting party that had left months ago. In addition, the leader of this outpost has his own secret that will place Ginger and Brigitte in a less-than-desirable position that will test the bounds of their sisterly love for one another.
Yes, the same actresses return for this film, and yes, they bear the same names as the sisters in the previous films. Is there some kind of time warp or reincarnation tale at work here? No. I suppose the viewer is supposed to take the coincidences as merely that. Coincidences. As odd as this sounds, it really does work quite well, and makes this movie a stand-alone addition to the trilogy.
The sets are highly atmospheric, haunting, and sinister. The costumes are just as well done, and only add to the creepy, gothic feel of the film, as does the score. I really loved the combination of these elements. If you've seen the previous two films, then I need not even discuss the talent these two actresses possess. The whole feel of this film is very different than that of the previous two films. Different, but still equally as dark and brooding. If you have already seen Ginger Snaps: Unleashed, and were somewhat disappointed with it in comparison to the first film, fear not. Ginger Snaps Back redeems the vitality and originality of the first film. If you have yet to see any of the Ginger Snaps films, then you are missing out on some excellent werewolf movies. In a genre strewn with cheesy cliches and over-done make-up, Ginger Snaps is a breath of fresh air.
Overall, this is a great film that really shouldn't be missed. One needn't view the previous two tales in order to understand and appreciate this film, though it of course doesn't hurt! This is an outstanding end to the memorable trilogy, and belongs in every horror collection.
|
|
|
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Together forever?, October 8, 2004
It is winter the early part of the 1800s on the outskirts of the Canadian frontier. Orphan sisters Ginger and Brigitte Fitzgerald find themselves lost in the woods when a native young man rescues them and brings them to a nearby fort, the last remains of a settlement of fur traders. It seems its population has been cut down quite a bit by dangerous creatures roaming the wilderness. But there's also a dark secret within its walls that most of the men themselves are not even aware of.
The original film used lycanthropy as a metaphor for growing up, while the second alluded to drug addiction. This film is a straight-ahead horror movie (or a dark fairy tale, if you like.) It's a disappointment, especially considering the second film was exceptionally good. It should have stopped there. I give the filmmakers credit for choosing not to continue the story in a traditional fashion, but the story they came up with is completely uninteresting. It could have been kept afloat by the two heroines of the film if only they had any of the personality they possessed previously, but they are given very little to do or say this time around. Emily Perkins is reduced to glaring at everything, a mannerism that was endearing before but now is simply irritating. Katie Isabelle's role is even further diminished. Except for a nice comeback in the final act, she barely seems to be there at all. There was more substance to her role in the second film even though she only appeared as a shade. The clever and witty dialogue we used to hear is forsaken for a lot of mystical mumbo-jumbo about dreams and visions. The film takes itself entirely too seriously.
It's a shame because it's easily the best looking film of the three. The photography is beautiful and the production quality is top notch. There's just nothing to hang it all on.
You don't necessarily need to have seen the other films to understand this one, but if you haven't then you'll likely wonder what all the fuss has been about since this probably isn't going to impress anyone. See the first and second for sure, but consider passing on this one.
|
|
|
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
better than the second entry... not kidding, October 14, 2004
The Ginger Snaps films are some of the most imaginative, well done werewolf movies since Howling and AWiL. While the first is a true horror classic, the second movie was very dark, yet uninteresting. The story started out good, but deviated too much from the werewolf theme and delved too much into drug addiction... Which brings me to the third and unfortunately FINAL entry. This film was much better looking than the second and very close to the first. The cinamatography was excellent and captured the feeling of cold, isolated 1700's Canada well. The techniques such as the fast motion photography used to set up atmosphere prior to the wolf attacks was nicely done. While I cannot say that the movie had a better look than the origional because they are both completely different settings, time periods and stories, the production value was of the highest quality. The creature effects rival any werewolf film ever made. The story, contrary to what the other reviews say, was well concieved. Yes, it did draw upon the first movie quite alot. There was a purpose in this as this story is forshadowing of the next two entries. My wife found this confusing and rightfully so, it can be if you are not in the right mindframe. I will give you some hints as to how and why this "rehash story" works. First, ask yourself why does Ginger have to get bit. The effects of the change are identical to the origional movie, continuity is good. Second, what does the "curse" have to do with the setting. The name of the fort is Fort Baily (Baily Downs). In order to end the curse or prevent it in the first place, Ginger needed to kill the boy BEFORE she was bit. It made no difference if she did so after. The curse is in the blood already. Now, one sister must kill the other. Bridget must kill Ginger. She does not... At the end both girls are sitting together. Both have cut hands, a reference to the first film. Ginger has given the curse to her sister. Direct foreshadowing of a neverending curse. Therefore, the curse continues in Baily Downs until one sister kills the other. (Without becoming a werewolf herself) This will manifest itself in the next two films. Ginger again will pass on the curse to her sister before she dies... You need to look at these films with an open mind. You need to understand some of the folklore behind lycans. Almost all of what popular culture attributes to lycans was created for the 1942 movie The Wolf Man. None of it is based in folklore. If you want a repeat of every other werewolf movie with lots of meaningless gore and killings and a basic storyling, watch an 80's flick. If you are interested in folklore, storyline and atmosphere, check these films put.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
DVD ~ Peter Keleghan
DVD ~ Emily Perkins
DVD ~ Sean Pertwee
DVD ~ Jenny Agutter
DVD ~ Samantha Adams (II)
