BA_Harrison
The first Ginger Snaps sequel—Unleashed—didn't feature much of Ginger (the lovely Katherine Isabelle) but made up for her absence somewhat by being wonderfully weird, with an off-beat atmosphere, bizarre characters, surprising hallucinatory scenes, and an unusual industrial soundtrack.Isabelle fans will be happy to hear that Ginger plays a much bigger part in Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning; unfortunately, the film itself is far less entertaining—a dark, somber, and ultimately rather boring tale set in the wild west, where two sisters, Ginger and Brigitte (Isabelle and Emily Perkins), survivors of a ship wreck, stumble across a woodland fort inhabited by a group of men under regular siege by werewolves.The majority of the film revolves around the distrust and mounting tension between characters, and Ginger's gradual transformation after she is bitten by a wolf-boy, the afflicted son of one of the fort's occupants. This is told in a dreary, lifeless fashion by director Grant Harvey—who is clearly more interested in presenting artistic images than in telling a riveting story.While the use of the same characters in a different time period and setting is undeniably unique, it is inadequately explained, which proves frustrating, and although the film does deliver some decent werewolf action in the final act, it's not nearly enough to compensate for the drab nonsense that has gone before, which is complete with trite mystical Native American mumbo jumbo for good measure. On the plus side, Perkins, who has spent the last two films being sullen, is finally allowed to show us how attractive she can be.
MaximumMadness
I find that all too often... prequels just don't work that well in movies. Sure, they can occasionally be good. Even flesh out characters or a storyline in a way that makes the audience appreciate the previous films even more. But they just don't jive well much of the time. And I think this is definitely one of those cases where a "prequel" doesn't quite work. (In fact, I wouldn't even call this a "prequel", but we'll go with that term, as that's the way it was advertised.)"Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning" tells the story of the Fitzgerald siblings, Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and Bridgette. (Emily Perkins) In the year 1815. Taking refugee in a fort in the Canadian wilderness, they find their new dwelling under the siege of werewolves and the general unease of the other "citizens." Only adding to the problems, Ginger is soon bitten by a young boy afflicted with the werewolf curse, and soon finds herself transforming into one. Setting off a chain of events that threatens to destroy everyone. ... wait, what?!Yes, that's the basic plot in a nutshell (I won't go into any more of a synopsis to avoid spoiler-territory), and it's... odd to say the least.It's been 10 years since the film was released, and it still sorta throws me for a loop. For all intents, this doesn't feel like a "prequel", so much as a strange remake of the original film. It feels like the producers watched the original film again and said "I wonder what would happen if this movie took place 200 years ago?" And then just decided to make that film and market it as a "prequel", even though it doesn't necessarily work as one.But I digress. I could write for hours trying to explain how this film fits (or doesn't fit) into the series as a whole, but that would be a disservice. I'll just review it on its own merits and how it stacks up to the previous films quality-wise, rather than how it fits into the trilogy.Written by Stephen Massicotte and Christina Ray, the script is problematic. The film can't quite decide on tone or style, and seems fundamentally confused about what made the first two movies as good as they were. Many things seem contradictory. Characters say and do anachronistic things in some scenes, while acting more-or-less "normal" (for the time period) in others. Some sequences are played for creature-feature scares, while others strive to be artistic in a contradictory fashion. It's quite jumbled. I wouldn't be surprised if there were multiple scripts that were combined, because things don't come together as they shoot. It's also apparent neither writer quite got the wit or provocative content of the previous films. Gone are the interesting metaphors about puberty, addiction, etc. Instead, they are replaced with gross-out gore and by-the-books scares. Gone is the biting humor and satire, replaced with routine (and somewhat joyless and cliché) character and plot development.Directorial duties are handed to Grant Harvey, an assistant director and producer on the previous films. While I'll say that from a fundamental standpoint, his work is solid, I also feel its lacking. John Fawcett and Brett Sulivan did much for the previous films in their direction, injecting slickness, style and a personal touch to the storytelling. But Harvey's work is just too basic. It's of no real note, which I think is a problem. Even though the script is underwhelming, expert direction could have saved the film. But the so-so visuals and occasional generic "film school" compositions put the flaws at the forefront. It also makes the issues with the cheaper budget stand out. This looks too much like a "TV Movie of the Week." It lacks expert guidance.However, I'd be lying if I said the film was all bad. Because there are some good aspects that save it.Most importantly, the performers give a lot of life to the project. Particularly Emily Perkins, and supporting roles from the likes of Nathaniel Arcand and Brendan Fletcher. Perkins really gives her all, and is able to re-invigorate otherwise forgettable scenes. She effectively reminds us of how well the first two films worked thanks to her and Katharine Isabelle's performances. (Though I feel Isabelle, while decent, isn't utilized properly in this film. Her character is a bit too flat.) This is one of those cases where the writing and dialog is elevated by actors. They make the shoddy writing and occasionally- shoddy direction forgivable in enough key moments to make you overlook a few of the bigger flaws.There is also just a lot of charm to be had here. While it makes little sense, the period setting offers some interesting new ideas, and gives just enough flavor to the keep the film afloat. The score by Alex Khaskin is lovely. There are some truly well- done sequences with a dreamlike atmosphere that are quite stunning and refreshing. I enjoyed a lot of the new concepts. (Were- leeches... 'nuff said!) And there are some really great moments peppered through the script.This is a tough one. It's messy, doesn't fit in with the series really, and it's all over the map tonally. Yet I don't hate it. In fact, I liked a lot of it. And there's some fun to be had with the concept. It just doesn't work quite as well as it should have. If they had gone with a straight remake/re-imagining, instead of shoehorning into being a "kinda-sorta prequel", or set it outside of the "Ginger Snaps" universe, I think it would have been better.While definitely the weakest entry in the trilogy, "Ginger Snaps Back" is still watchable and mildly enjoyable. I give it an average 5 out of 10. Worth checking out for fans of the series, but I don't think it'll be appealing enough for other audiences.
Jonny_Numb
The original "Ginger Snaps" was a fun, affecting coming-of-age tale disguised as a werewolf movie that introduced us to Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and Brigitte (Emily Perkins), two of the most endearing horror heroines in recent memory. "Ginger Snaps Back"--a prequel of sorts--takes a decidedly different route from its predecessor, transposing the Fitzgerald sisters from the present day to a 19th Century Civil War base, where it turns out The Curse is alive and well. I have to give the filmmakers credit--as opposed to slavishly sequelizing the first film for a quick buck, writers Christina Ray and Stephen Massicotte and director Grant Harvey have revamped the original "Ginger Snaps" mythos into a mostly successful period piece. "Back" is beautifully photographed, with excellent sets and costumes; the inhabitants of the base (including a general hiding a deformed son) are clichéd, yet ultimately well-drawn; and the undercurrent of themes--from serious Indian spiritualism to the importance of family to the dangers of fundamentalism (among others) are subtly incorporated. While the film's anachronistic feel threw me for a loop, the well-intentioned performances (sans any self-referential irony) kept me watching...above all, Isabelle and Perkins display the same sisterly devotion that gave the first "Ginger Snaps" its humor and heart--there is an undeniable power to their on-screen interaction that sustains "Back" for its duration.
