Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

storm-of-bt The original Ginger Snaps was a masterpiece, and the second was more hollow, but entertaining on its own right. However, this third one is at least weird.So, there were two movies, and they wanted to sell them in a DVD-box of a trilogy. So they needed a third one. However, the second movie ended in a way that's impossible to continue. I'm happy they at least admitted this, unlike other sequel-makers (like Highlander and The Crow). Instead of making a kind of a spin-off instead, however, they decided to make a prequel. Not a wise choice, and here is the result.We go back to the early 19th century, to the supposed beginning of the werewolf-curse. Ginger and Brigitte Fitzgerald from the originals had ancestors, also called Ginger and Brigitte Fitzgerald, who even looked exactly like them. At least that's the idea that generates the least retrospective plot holes. Still, upon meeting them in the first minute of the movie, you are already in a state of head-scratching. They come across a trader fort under siege by werewolves, and get stuck there with a bunch of weird people.So, after the first movie's ingenious metaphor of growing up, and the second one's less original, but still somewhat fresh conflict of one's environment sabotaging one's survival out of stupidity, this flick presents the much more overused horror trope of the isolated house, or fort in this case. This hurts the movie a lot, because it feels familiar, while Ginger Snaps supposed to be fresh, like something you haven't seen before.Humor is also gone. The first movie's sick and twisted humor was reduced in Unleashed to a few jokes, though those were truly perverted and still funny. This one lost it all.I wouldn't say it's a terrible movie. The effects finally got realistic (as the soul fades from the trilogy, the creatures get more and more solid). The chemistry between the sisters is still there, and it's still good. This is the saving grace of the movie, because all other characters are shallow. The hunter's potential is never used to its full, the fort's inhabitants have been used in millions of other movies, with only the captain and the truly entertaining priest showing something beyond the clichés. Admittedly, the shot that opens the climax, when Ginger lets the werewolves into the fort is the most beautiful scene you'll ever see in any Ginger Snaps film, but this is not enough, as a Ginger Snaps film should be way much more than a few cool scenes and loving sisterhood.The main issue, however, is the way this movie treats the originals. When I watched this, I felt it was made by people who never saw the first movie. So now there is a curse that strikes down ten generations later? The whole werewolf problem in the first movie was a result of bad luck! It had nothing to do with the family being cursed! Also, to fill out the runtime, the sisters get a new quest to save the bitten Ginger: kill the werewolf who bit her. Then the curse will be gone. What??? In the original, the werewolf that infected Ginger was dead within five minutes. And in Unleashed, Brigitte carried an infection she got from Ginger, whom she killed in the first movie. Based on the logic of Beginning, at least the sequel shouldn't have even happened, but even the original is questionable. And why do ancestors of the original sisters look exactly like them? Why do they have the same name? Why doesn't Ginger transform like in the original? Why does this 'curse' strike only almost two centuries later?All in all, this movie is acceptable only if watched BEFORE the original. It will still raise plenty of questions, but less than if you see them in the convenient order. It could work if it wasn't set in the universe of Ginger Snaps. This way, however, it is like a family of police members having a criminal child.

Leofwine_draca The third and final instalment of the GINGER SNAPS trilogy and also by far the best of the three films. Eschewing the teen angst and modern-day ponderings of the first two movies, GINGER SNAPS BACK posits itself as a sort-of prequel, telling virtually the same story but setting it in the 19th century and in a remote area of the Canadian wilderness.The plot involves a remote outpost under siege, not dissimilar to THE ALAMO. The besiegers are werewolves. If that's not enough to whet your appetite, then I don't know what is, but I was hooked from the outset. There's still plenty of mileage to be had in the sisterly relationship between Ginger and Brigitte, and as in the first film their bond holds everything together.Let's get this straight: this is a B-movie made on a low budget, although for the most part that budget is well hidden. The settings, from the wooden mini-fortress to the snowbound woodlands, are well shot and atmospheric, and the creature effects are the best of the whole series. The characters are all stereotypes, but fun with it: there's the fire-and-brimstone preacher, the grieving captain, the friendly Native American tracker, the elderly doctor, the hard-ass soldier. Guessing which of them is going to be the next to be bumped off is half of the fun.The story plays out as you'd expect, building to an impressive and grisly climax in which the full horror of the situation becomes apparent. Yet it's that sweet, poignant central relationship that makes this film stand out above other similar fare. Katharine Isabelle may bag the more obvious role of the two sisters, but it's Emily Perkins who ends up as the most bewitching. Director Grant Harvey, a newcomer to the trilogy at this late stage, handles the elements remarkably. It's just a shame more B-movies don't have the imagination and strength that this film displays.

adnan tanvir Didn't plan to review it but after watching it, couldn't help it, just to tell how bad the movie is. The first 'Ginger Snaps' is one of my favorite horror film of all time. Just watching the first part, I made decision to watch the other parts. The second part 'Ginger Snaps-Unleashed' was watchable but not great. But then comes 'Ginger Snaps Back: The beginning' which is a total flop and a waste of time. After watching this, the first question that came to my mind is, why? Why did they make this one? It is not entertaining, not horror , not thriller, not suspenseful, nothing. It had all negative sides that a film could possibly have. The plot was completely garbage. It destroyed the image of the first 'Ginger Snaps' which was great in all the directions and it is quite opposite. The original 'Ginger Snaps' was from first to last full of horror and suspense.This was not. I watched this movie at night alone in my room which is in a corner of the house and I was not scared. I couldn't get a clue who is killing who and why? Why they are so unconscious when they know that there are deadly creatures surrounding them? Bottom line is, don't watch this movie if you like the original 'Ginger Snaps' and if you consider your time valuable.

ZombieRanger I have already given my feelings about GS:unleashed, and how the charm of the first film was crippled by establishing that once bitten you're dead, there is no cure. So a prequel about their predecessors(past lives?) wasn't very interesting to me. I waited about four years before checking this one out and despite decent acting and great sets/costumes, it was still a bleak and unsatisfying story. I did like the addition of the leeches into the mythos, but that still didn't change things. Brendan Fletcher was the only real standout in this movie. Hopefully there won't be any further sequels, prequels, remakes, etc.