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.

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

lastliberal I haven't seen the first two films in this series, but that is unimportant as this third film takes place 200 years before the first one.I am always drawn to films about werewolves and vampires. The shapeshifters have always intrigued me and the overt sensuality of the films is a plus. I say sensuality, as there is not sexuality in the roles of the two sisters, Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and Brigette (Emily Perkins). They just exude sensuality in their every move and manner of dress.Other than the two stars, and some Native American legend, this is pretty much just the same werewolf film you have ever seen in a different package.I am now ready to watch the first two.

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.