Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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.

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.)

Backlash007 ~Spoiler~ Shot back-to-back with Unleashed, Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning is my least favorite of the series. But it's still not a bad flick. This is a prequel that takes place in an early 1800's trader's fort that is besieged by "Wendigos". The prequel idea was probably the best way to get Ginger back into the series (even though she's not the reason I enjoy these movies). Both Isabelle and Perkins (who is the reason I enjoy these movies) are completely at home in these characters now. Strong character actors like JR Bourne, Nathaniel Arcand, and Brendan Fletcher (who got killed in the last Ginger Snaps movie as well) also help set the scene. It may be my least favorite, but this one looks the best. Second unit director for the original Ginger Snaps, Grant Harvey, is at the helm and really gets good use out of the Canadian wilderness. The setting really is unbelievable. Fort Edmonton Park (recently seen in a Fear Itself episode) is a fantastic place for a period horror film. The last film also best showcases the KNB werewolves. This is the only Ginger Snaps film to show the werewolves full on. Hopefully this is the last film in the series, because overall it was a fine little trilogy.

epicedium What a load of rubbish.. I can't even begin to describe how awful this film was. The rating it has here is really hard to believe.Avoid... Particularly if you enjoyed the first ginger snaps. The first one was well written, well directed, well executed.. a brilliant film with a fantastic aesthetic and atmosphere. The second one was 'alrite'- decent as a self-standing film, but clearly not up to the level of the first... The third is an insult to the series, period. I rate the films: 10, 6, 1. It's that bad.Oh, and yes it really is set in the past, the sisters are still called Ginger and B Fitzgerald... all muddled in with some half-assed native American mythology. The sisters don't have any real story, or progression, or even a clear relationship... They're just trying to survive and be 'together forever'. That's about as deep as it gets.Staggered that the girls agreed to be in this pile-of-shite, after reading the script.Oh and another thing, staging of action was terrible- people appearing from nowhere regularly, like the girls turn around and there's an elaborate candle-lit setup with a mystic native American woman just sitting there, about to go into a speech. Sets were terrible, couldn't get away from the fact that it was all obviously based in a set, which really didn't help. Also, there was consistently snow outside the camp, but not a trace inside (..on the set).Arrghh,,, so bad! I really was hoping it would be at least as good as the second one.