This review originally ran in The Battalion, Texas A&M’s student newspaper. It was one of the first reviews I ever wrote — so please forgive the sweet, sweet love I make to hyperbole throughout the piece.
There should be a rule that direct-to-video horror movie sequels will suck and should never be made. But even though the bargain bin at your local Wal-Mart is filled with cast-off sequels to “Wishmaster” and “The Lost Boys,” it may be a good thing such a rule is not in effect.
If the rule was in place, we would have never had gotten “Ginger Snaps II: Unleashed,” the sequel to 2000’s Canadian werewolf thriller.
The original “Ginger Snaps” was made on a meager budget but was a tongue-in-cheek horror movie equipped with bloody effects and a dark sense of humor. The sequel is a flashy, high-octane follow-up that even comes close to surpassing the original in some ways.
The ending of “Ginger Snaps” found Brigitte (Emily Perkins) on the killing end of a knife plunged into her sister’s heart. Ginger (Katharine Isabelle), Brigitte’s sister, had been bitten by a werewolf and was promptly transformed into a full-fledged beast of the night. With no alternative left, Brigitte was forced to end her sister’s curse the only way she knew — by killing her.
“Ginger Snaps II” picks up with Brigitte on the run from her past. Now infected with the curse herself, Brigitte must counteract every night’s gradual change with a dose of monk’s hood, a plant with the power to halt her transformation when taken intravenously.
The problem is, another werewolf is on her trail, hoping to mate.
After being attacked by the werewolf, Brigitte is picked up by the local authorities and mistakenly put into a drug rehabilitation center thanks to the empty syringes found near her. Trapped without her tonic, Brigitte finds herself feeling the pull of the curse stronger with each passing day.
From the first scene, fans of the “Ginger Snaps” will realize they have a whole new creature on their hands. The original films’s intimate directing style, which utilized a decidable lack of complicated camera tricks, has been replaced with a flash-and-awe editing style witch long, sweeping camera arcs.
All the camera tricks in the world can’t protect a film from bad acting, though. It’s a good thing “Ginger Snaps II” features an adequate array of actors and actresses. Perkins easily carries the film’s weight on her shoulders.
Unfortunately, the film’s producers felt the need to replace the character’s original moody attire (think MTV’s “Daria”) with sexier clothing, complete with midriff-baring tops. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it is completely out of character for this particular werewolf on the loose. Fortunately, Perkins compenstates for the wardrobe choice smoothly by adding depth and maturity to her character unforeseen in the previous movie.
What sets “Ginger Snaps II” apart from the previous installment is the complete lack of innocence in the movie. While the original movie took place in a suburb that reeked of normalcy, the majority of the action in the sequel takes place in a clinic where everybody has a secret.
From the orderly who trades fixes of other patients’ addictions in exchange for his own sexual pleasure to the unusual and eerie quirks of the patients themselves, everybody has a hidden agenda. The film is a bleak and uncompromising horror flick that rises above the mediocrity of its predecessor.
It easily improves upon the original’s clumsy effects. The transformation prosthetics are subdued and more realistic. The final werewolf is wisely hidden in the shadows for most of the movie. Instead of presenting blood and guts eye candy, the director utilizes lighting and mood to convey growing terror. Plus, the wolf actually looks like a wolf in this movie as compared to the original’s hairless rat.
“Ginger Snaps II” meets every expectation set by the original film and even manages to improve on the original in some ways. With its dismal tone and unhappy ending, “Ginger Snaps II” is not for everybody. Fans of intelligent horror, though, should not pass up the opportunity to watch this surprisingly good sequel.
No comments:
Post a Comment