IMDb > An American Werewolf in Paris (1997) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
An American Werewolf in Paris
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 16:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 159 reviews in total 

33 out of 40 people found the following review useful:

Not a sequel – more a cash-in title

Author: bob the moo from United Kingdom
28 January 2002

When a trio of American teens travel to Paris for a daredevil challenge they decide to bungee jump off the Eiffel Tower. During the jump Andy manages to save the life of a girl attempting suicide. However when he later tries to find her again he finds that she has something to hide. When he and his friends attend a party held by friends for hers they find they are trapped by werewolves. Andy gets bitten and becomes part of a world he wants no part of.

This is a belated sequel to the 1980's classic `American Werewolf in London' and indeed it tries very hard to be just like it - the corpse black humour, the dreams within dreams sequences etc. However the story is different as it introduces a wider werewolf conspiracy idea to the plot. It actually works quite well - it's not better than many other creature features but it works OK.

The main problem with it is that it is very much another teen horror movie - with a stupid rock soundtrack, valley girl style humour and dumb spectacle. It lacks the original's black humour and it isn't anywhere near as tense as `London'. The special effects are totally CGI and they don't work as well as `London's' - it all looks too computerised, and seeing everything takes the scare factor out of it.

In fairness when you look at it as a stand-alone film it's not so bad even though it doesn't stand out from other teenage horror movies. But a sequel to `London'? - sorry but it's not a great addition to that piece of work. Tom Everett Scott looks like he's stepped out of American Pie into a horror movie! He's OK but he doesn't compare with Dunne all those years ago. Julie Delphy is actually quite good - she doesn't have much of a character but she carries herself well. The other characters are either rough French skinheads or American teens.

Overall it's entertaining enough - but it pales terribly when compared to the original.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

So what next? "An American Werewolf in Athens"?

6/10
Author: Lee Eisenberg (lee.eisenberg.pdx@gmail.com) from Portland, Oregon, USA
15 August 2006

OK, so I don't know why they decided to make another movie about a Yankee college student going to a European capital and becoming a lycanthrope. But still, "An American Werewolf in Paris" definitely has its moments. Some scenes were no doubt thrown in for comic relief, like "You can't just pop up and tell me what to do." I agree with a previous reviewer that people who slam this movie are comparing it too much to "An American Werewolf in London". Maybe there's a slight feeling of that one, but you have to take this one as something new - and rather campy - to really enjoy it. Tom Everett Scott and Julie Delpy do a pretty cool job. But either way, I think that I've had my fill of movies about US citizens becoming lycanthropes in the Old Continent.

So what do YOU plan to do the next time that there's a full moon?

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Retrogade Werewolf Movie

4/10
Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland
3 August 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I can't honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of John Landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . I suppose you can't really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in London: An American tourist visits a famous European capital , he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague , he embarks ( Pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession , he turns into a werewolf , he's visited by apparitions of his dead victims , etc etc . and reading the previous line I've just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . The difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the Landis movie is

With this Paris based movie there's no scenes that really stand out . There's no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he's going to get back home with no money or clothes , there's no bizarre dream sequence of Naziwerewolves and there's no spectacular climax . AAWIP does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour ? I'm thinking of the scene where Andy McDermott has to convince someone he's got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there's no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . You really do feel sorry for the protagonist's fate and dilemma in the London movie , here you just feel Andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . There's also a large number of plot holes visible . Is this the first time The Lunar Club have carried out a massacre ? If not then aren't large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world's press ? Why haven't the police got leads ?

Everyone else has mentioned it and so will I - The visuals are poor . Look at the bungee jumping scene at The Eifell Tower , it's painfully obvious that it's achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish CGI . I won't put Anthony Waller in the same bracket as Stephen Sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on CGI ( The major problem with AAWIP is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but I would have preferred the Rick Baker type special effects used for the transformation . To be fair it's reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far . But at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that didn't need to be made and DOG SOLDIERS is much better entertainment

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

A genuinely hilarious horror film.

Author: panamajaq04 from the Bay Area, California
25 February 2004

"An American Werewolf in Paris" is an excellent horror-comedy, in the great tradition of "The Lost Boys" and "Fright Night". I see that a lot of people dislike this movie. These are obviously hardcore horror fans who wanted to see something dark and gothic; but instead got something blackly humorous and were not amused by it. I admit, "An American Werewolf in Paris" is not really scary, but neither are "The Lost Boys" and "Fright Night," and those two movies seem to be highly regarded by horror fans. I don't understand why everyone hates this one so much. If you are a fan of horror-comedies, or if you have a morbid sense of humor, this is definitely for you. I think it's great: nine out of ten stars (On a one star DVD, I should say. It would have been nice to have some extra features besides the trailer.)

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Don't Look at it as a Sequel

Author: BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC
8 July 2004

As a sequel to An American Werewolf in London, this film is sure to disappoint many. It certainly doesn't have the talent that was involved on that one. No John Landis. No David Naughton. No Jenny Agutter and other more-than-competent actors. No Rick Baker and dazzling, innovative special effects. I could go on...and on. But if one distances themselves from seeing this film as a sequel(and really it is not a sequel at all...it doesn't have any of the same characters from the first film), this film is not that bad on its own. Sure it is relying on your memories of the London film to get fannies in the seats. Yep, it uses the same character TYPES and situations(dead victims talking and being funny comes to mind quickly). Other than that and the fact that werewolves are involved(and a romance of course), I found few other similarities. This film is definitely going for more laughs and takes itself even far less serious than An American Werewolf in London. The leads...Scott and Delpy are pretty good. The rest of the actors are pretty good too, with Julie Bowen as a slutty American and the guy playing Claude particularly good. I also loved all the French police and the gentle humour inherent in every line they said. The script has some genuine scares laced throughout the picture but always comes back to the humour. French werewolves enjoying feasting on Americans was a particular funny storyline. Director Anthony Waller creates a fast-paced film with some excellent sequences interspersed with some sophomoric plot strands. By no means is this a great film, or even a great horror film/spoof, but it is a film that should grab and hold your attention. Make you jump a few times and laugh out loud now and then.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

What a train wreck....

1/10
Author: cybercuke from United States
21 June 2006

This DVD is missing its calling as a Heineken coaster.... This is a great example of why no one should ever go see a sequel with a different director/writer than the original. Two hours of this turkey left me begging for Exorcist 2 reruns.

NO legitimate laughs. NOT ONE decent scare. The script was just a mess and I felt bad for the actors who had to perform it (they must have had sick relatives at home or monster coke habits or something).

The original was a makeup effects landmark. So naturally, the producers of the sequel thought it would be a great idea to to scrap makeup FX and do CG werewolves instead. These CG werewolves had me laughing a lot harder than any of the "comedy". It was just a total miss. If ya want a night's entertainment, go rent the original again. Or go take a film class and make your own horror film. You're bound to do better than these fools did.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Agreed... this movie stunk!

Author: satyr_child from United States
30 October 2004

I don't know why I get my hopes up for sequels... my hopes are always destroyed.

This movie is no exception. For starters, it's important to note that An American Werewolf in London (AAWiL) will always have a special place in my heart as one of the first horror movies I remembers seeing on HBO as a kid.

This movie lacked just about everything that AAWiL had: good acting, good special effects, a decent soundtrack, etc.

Tom Everett Scott is a terrible actor... the kind of actor I see and wonder how he ever gets casted for anything. Julie Delpy is OK and I dig her accent. Everyone else was pretty much fluff and/or fodder. The effects were God awful. It's hard enough to pull off CGI monsters and hairy ones are even harder to make believable. When you are making a sequel for a movie that had effects that are still impressive by today's standards, some serious effort has to be made if the intent is to make a movie that rivals the original. This one isn't even in the same league as AAWiL. The music for AAWiL was also very well done. AAWiP had... Bush? Yeah, that's the route you want to go to create a timeless classic.

Unlike other reviews I wouldn't even go so far as to say this movie would have good as a stand-alone (no connection to AAWiL), but I wouldn't even give it that much credit.

It just sucked.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

An enjoyable enough timewaster.

Author: Li-1
28 November 2002

5.5 out of 10

Werewolf movies are usually alarmingly bad, even though they should, in theory, make for more interesting villains than vampires, zombies, and slashers. But An American Werewolf in Paris is an exception, sort of. Tom Everett Scott stars as a daredevil who tours Europe with his buddies, performing outrageous stunts. During one particular escapade, he saves the life of a young woman (Julie Delpy) who tries to commite suicide. Thinking she's the girl of his dreams, little does he know what he's getting into.

Paris tries to be a mixture of different genres: it wants to work as a horror film (to a mild extent), an action/adventure, and as a comedy. Dog Soldiers was definitely far superior at these aspects, but AAWIP's campy approach makes it a decent timewaster. There's not a single boring moment, though a lot of the material is admittedly very silly. Thankfully, none of it's taken very seriously, and some of the humor is actually very funny. Scott and Delpy (who's probably the third most beautiful French actress I've ever seen, behind only Mathilda May and Sophie Marceau) have good chemistry together, even if Scott's performance is a little on and off. The werewolf effects are obviously CGI, but more "serious" effects work would have ruined the campy mood.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

The Big Rip-off

1/10
Author: Dierk from Hamburg, Germany
9 February 2002

Well, what can be said about a "horror comedy" that features neither horror nor comedy? There are no characters in the film, but much too many plot lines - all underdeveloped and mostly superfluous.

The computer generated creatures look bad, a bit like Disney versions of oversized rats without a tail. The walking dead are the biggest rip-off apart from the title, the shall look like the dead in Landis' movie, but are far removed. They just look like bad actors with abit of plastic and bull's blood added.

Two plot lines really showed some promise (the love story and the "company" story), but failed as miserably as the director, the writers, the SFX department, the production and the actors.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Could be the Worst Film I Have Ever Seen

1/10
Author: moviewizguy from United States
3 June 2007

The daughter of the werewolf from AWIL is alive and living in Paris where her mother and stepfather are trying to overcome her lycanthropic disease. A trio of American tourists on a thrill seeking trip around Europe manage to stop her from plunging to her death from the top of the Eiffel tower and are embroiled in a horrific but often hilarious plot involving a secret society of werewolves based in the city and a drug which allows werewolves to change at any time... This time there's no need for a full moon...

This film is so bad, it could be the worst film I've ever seen. The characters in the film are very dumb, we don't even care about them, and seem to have fun making the movie instead of making a good horror film.

There are so many horror clichés in this film, but I think they were trying to make fun of them. This film relies on humor more than making a scary film. And for the funny scenes, I did not believe it one second. I thought they were trying to make a horrible film on purpose! And in this horror film, it has violence, gore, and tons of sex scenes (AKA a lot of nudity). That's probably the lines for a horror movie. The sex scenes comes out of nowhere, like the director told the actors to perform them because of the line "sex sells".

All of the acting in the film are horrible. The CGI was mediocre. I really didn't like that that much either. Well, here are some good things in the film: The last 10 or so minutes in the film have some horror elements. It's more like a creature fight between two werewolves.

If you would like to see a horror film, STAY AWAY from this one. I think people who love this movie are so dumb. Maybe they've seen another film. This is one of the worst movies ever with everything bad in it and characters who don't even know they are in a werewolf film.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 16:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history