GL84
Arriving at a secluded fortress, two sisters find the few workers left under siege by former colleagues turned into werewolves and must help them hold off the creatures long enough to escape before being turned.This was quite an exciting and enjoyable effort and was the best in the series. What really helps this one is the fact that there's a lot more action-packed attacks in here, which comes from the general storyline. By going with the ambushed fortress storyline, this allows for numerous opportunities to bring the werewolves to come out from this one which starts off nicely here almost immediately s the creatures unleash an attack nearly as soon as they arrive to show off some great action of the group running around to the different sections of the fort and firing off plenty of defenses while also falling victim to the creatures. This first attack sets up the later ones which are a little shorter but manage some more action within this until this one gets to the finale. That features quite a more massive attack that before as there's multiple werewolves featured here for the majority of the scenes which goes against the previous ones of only having a single creature involved, which manage the rather fun feat of allowing plenty of werewolves to swarm on each of the individuals that's all kinds of fun. There's stalking of the guards throughout the complex, the hunters' action which is tons of fun as he tries to take them out with his tactics of dealing with them and involving the secondary measures of the commander settling his scores before turning the action into the grand finale of burning it all down while the fighting with the werewolves occurs. As well as the gruesome deaths here, what else works here for this one is the werewolf effects that really make the beasts look great in their few scenes which is the film's main flaw. Those scenes are too few and far between in this one so that despite all the great attacks in here there's very little elsewhere to handle the action which leaves this one with spotted sections of great werewolf action surrounded by dullness. Lastly, the film tends to follow a few plot lines from the original by again going for the one sister's transformation that comes off as slightly different from the original yet follows the same principal motive. In the end this causes the later half to be quite predictable and more than a little troubling setting up nonsensical action merely to get this specific story across. Otherwise, this was quite an enjoyable effort.Rated R: Graphic Violence, Language and Brief Nudity.
atinder
I really enjoyed thw other 2 movies in the series, I had this movie for few years now, I have tried to watch it a few times, I could never really get into. So yesterday , I deiced to watch in full for once and I still find it really hard to get into movie. I wasn't bored with this movie, I was just watching it but I was not liked what I was seeing. There were some decent bloody and gory moments in this movie, That I liked and I the werewolf looked good in the movies, some decent effects. I didn't enjoy ginger snap 3 as much as the other to movies in the series. 5 out of 10
freeist
I'm saddened. I really wanted to like this movie as I am the biggest fan of the original Ginger Snaps; and its leads, Katharine Isabelle and Emily Perkins for their work in the original, and Perkins even more so for almost single-handedly saving "Ginger Snaps: Unleashed." Alas, I am afraid that this series is like the original Highlander: "There can only be one."You know you're in for a long ride from the very beginning. It breaks a rule of cinema narration that no scriptwriter was dumb enough to break prior, a rule so dumb to break nobody thought previously to make it a rule: it has two introductions. The first introduction is in screen text, about a hunting party never returning in 1816. Stark, dark, and ominous. Except then they followed it with a narrated introduction by Isabelle. The latter, I am afraid, is an incoherent train-wreck about the curse of the red and black (checkers?) having a chance to be stopped . . . blighting the land . . . the white man bringing diseases . . . oaths higher than God or fate . . . or something. Even Ed Wood, Jr. would have been embarrassed enough to rewrite it. Unfortunately, Isabelle drew the short straw on reading the mess, and I felt sorry for her. This "has-it-begun-yet" effect starts the movie out at a leaden pace, from which it never recovers, and creates a half-assed horror-myth for the story to depend, which insults the audience, not to mention, perhaps, Native Americans.The story starts in 1816 as two orphaned teenage girls Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and Brigitte (Emily Perkins) come to a fort in the wilderness that has been under siege for months by some kind of diabolical creatures (I think they might be werewolves). The remaining men in the fort are just a little suspicious since the sisters were able to reach it untouched when nobody else could reach it or set foot outside it without getting ripped to shreds. Except an Indian called Hunter.It is apparent that the entire production was in over its head at attempting a period piece like this, from the producer, the scriptwriter, to the director and crew, to the actors. The dialog sounds anachronistic, and isn't very good anyway. The characters do not act 21st century, but neither do they act in a way that's believably 19th century. Isabelle and Perkins, and the other actors, are given no historical point of reference and no dialog coaching to be able to pull this off. I could forgive the dialects being inconsistent; if anything, I think dialects were far more diverse in that area then, but they sounded too commonplace. At this budget, they could have aimed for a squalid, scaled down, timeless feeling, but they did not. I could not believe that Isabelle and Perkins' characters fit into the early 19th century at all. The movie tries to joke about this. Ginger (Isabelle) occasionally pipes in with modern swear words that so lilted her dialog in GS1, but given that this movie never sounded 19th century anyway, the comical contrast never works. Music was a plus in both the original and "Unleashed." In this movie it is just awful. It sounds like they hired a single cellist to play four notes and then looped them repeatedly. Then there was Ginger's transformation: at least they should have made it somewhat consistent with what occurred in GS1, instead of making her feverish and dizzy. Please. To see a young woman in that time period misbehaving Ginger did. THAT would have been exciting. What we got was boring. The rest of the cast tries with varying degrees of success. J. R. Bourne does well as the second-in-command, but his character is just two-dimensional, the a—hole dimension and the d—chebag dimension. Hugh Dillon as the Reverend, also a villain, is allowed to overplay his part, and his accent sounds jarringly anachronistic. In writing his role, however, it's apparent that the screenwriter took care to consult neither the Bible, nor sermons written at the time. The Reverend's preaching sounds almost as nonsensical as the werewolf myth given at the beginning, and I don't think it was deliberate. Matthew Walker as the doctor and Brendan Fletcher as Finn give very good performances, and Fletcher's was so good I was surprised and saddened he did not have a larger part. Tom McCamus does a fair job as the fort commander, or would have done one had the makeup department not given him such a silly wig. He almost makes it look dignified, but his gravitas was one false move away from side-splitting comedy. I think I'm the wrong gender and sexual orientation to judge Nathanial Arcand playing hunter. Moreover, he reminded me too much of David Carradine in Kung Fu, and that probably means I'm the wrong generation, too. It makes me want to recuse myself from reviewing him. The movie never rises above its leaden pace and never becomes actually scary. Then there are the little things, like the aforementioned music, or that a werewolf makeup was an immobile mask that was a throwback to the 60s. The werewolves looked like neither wolves nor men, nor anything like the werewolf in GS1.The only good thing: the ending. No, I'm not being the droll critic talking about what a relief it was that the movie was over. It did have a good ending. You should decide fifteen minutes in if you think it's worth waiting for. Unfortunately, I think this was a desperate endeavor to try to cash in on a great movie's name while putting forward as little money and effort in as possible.(Upgraded one star from my original review. It is very good to see Perkins and Isabelle work together, and sisters' bond was still evocative and interesting.)
jodavis-2
i really loved the whole concept back in 1815 and the sisters where the same age as in the first and second installment. i never seen the first or second, i started with the prequel first and got me really interested in the others. if your in to dark fairy tales like the brother grim type of stuff you should give it a chance and i heard this was the weakest one out of the 3, so really looking forward to it.the way this film was shot was very gloomy on the woods of Canada, it had a horror feeling to it, with not a lot of blood for gore hounds but enough to keep you wanting more. the acting was great especilally with the sisters. it's a great rainy day movie to create the perfect feeling for this movie so i suggest you give it a shot, i give it 7/10
