An American Werewolf in Paris (1997) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
158 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Not a sequel – more a cash-in title
bob the moo28 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.
33 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So what next? "An American Werewolf in Athens"?
Lee Eisenberg15 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?
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Retrogade Werewolf Movie
Theo Robertson3 August 2005
Warning: 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
17 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't Look at it as a Sequel
BaronBl00d8 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 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.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A genuinely hilarious horror film.
panamajaq0425 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.)
21 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Go with the Prequel
Loogaroo9 November 1998
If you want a great plot, terrific special effects, good humor and characters you can really care about, rent An American Werewolf in LONDON. Stay away from this tripe.

For one thing, the supposedly high-tech special effects are terribly disappointing. Hard to believe that even though the original movie was made 14 years before this one, its SFX are actually more realistic, mostly because the transformation scenes in this movie often happen either off-camera or while the character is running behind something.

Also, the humor in the movie falls short. Granted, the "chewing gum" skit was pretty funny, but as I walked out of the theatre I was pretty ashamed of myself for laughing at such an immature joke. The Eiffel Tower scene is funny only because of its felonious breaking of the laws of physics (Uh, since the Tower spreads outward, wouldn't these bungee jumpers wind up slamming into it at some point during their fall?)

And finally, the plot is simply insulting. Even though the original movie had little more behind its story than "I'm a werewolf, oh no" that is even better than this stereotypical drivel about an anti-American punk who wants to "purify" the world from the country. If that's not bad enough, their method (luring Gen-X tourists into a club to meet their grisly deaths) is awful inefficient. And to top it off, there are numerous mentions and depictions of eating/drinking someone's heart (including a scene in which Julie Delpy sticks a human heart in a blender - yummy), none of which are suitable for anyone with a stomach.

As stated in the beginning, if you really want to see a good werewolf movie, the original 1983 film will suit you just fine. But if you rent this one, be warned: the producers and writers spent more time getting Bush to sing the theme song than they did writing the plot.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Agreed... this movie stunk!
satyr_child30 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.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What a train wreck....
cybercuke21 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.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Amusing, Scary But Not 'London'
ccthemovieman-128 February 2006
I have mixed emotions about this film, especially as it compares to its forerunner,

"An American Werewolf In London." That film had it's funny moments, it was still more of horror tale than anything else. This updated version, now set in Paris, does not have that "edge" at all and simply isn't in the same class....but it does have some good things going for it that the first film did not have and overall it's still fun to watch.

So, "werewolf purists" aside, most of whom think this film is pure garbage compared to the London version, I'll still give it decent marks since I don't care what others think. I liked it even though I agree "London" is better and I prefer that version, too.

The first 30-40 minutes of this movie is strictly played for laughs including a hysterical scene with a "balloon" in a restaurant. It also introduces the lead female character, played by Julie Delpy. I don't see enough of this actress. She doesn't seem to make that many films, or least ones I hear about over here in America. This French actress has a face that is classic beauty, so the film got points for having her in it, and she looks great.

When the horror starts, it can get scary and the special effects are good. I also liked the lack of profanity in this film, unlike the first one: no f-words and no Lord's name in vain - amazing!

However, there are plenty of sexual remarks and there is one scene with a guy running out of bar tied to a cross which was blasphemous to me. The soundtrack is heavy metal which isn't appealing to a middle-aged guy like me, either. This film is geared a lot more toward 20-somethings, if that helps anyone.

It's entertaining.....just don't expect it to live up to the first film.
40 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An enjoyable enough timewaster.
Li-128 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.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews