One man's struggle to contain the curse he hides within... and his last-ditch attempt to free himself with the love of family. But when it looks as if he is losing his battle, and ... See full summary »
Set in 19th Century Canada, Brigette and her sister Ginger take refuge in a Traders' Fort which later becomes under siege by some savage werewolves. And an enigmatic Indian hunter decides to help the girls, but one of the girls has been bitten by a werewolf. Brigitte and Ginger may have no one to turn to but themselves.Written by
The movie states it takes place in 1815. All of the rifles/muskets used in the movie are percussion locks, not flintlocks. The percussion cap was invented in the early 1820's. Percussion style rifles did not start becoming prevalent until the 1840's. In fact many of the "Northwest trading companies" produced flintlock trade guns well into the late 1880's. See more »
The Indians say the curse began in the time of the Ancients and was passed down through the blood of generations. There are legends of the Wendigo and the coming of the Red and the Black. Legends of the Day of Reckoning, when Death would consume the land, and good would face evil; of the day the curse would be broken forever - or grow stronger, and live on to plague generations to come. But ours was a story of survival; of two sisters bound by blood. A bond that would not be broken...
See more »
When I first heard that the third 'Ginger Snaps' film inexplicably transported the weird sisters back into 19th-century Canada, I smiled and thought to myself, 'There isn't another horror series clever enough to pull this off.'
As it turned out, even this series wasn't clever enough, and director Grant Harvey, who worked in the crew on both 'Ginger Snaps' and its witty first sequel 'Unleashed,' seems not to understand what was good about these films in the first place. There's no explanation for the temporal jump, which is fine, but there seems to be no *reason* for it either, which is not. The dialogue manages to be pompous and dull without being authentic to the period, the story's incomprehensible, the supporting characters are ill-defined and unlikable, and there are no jokes. Worst of all, Emily Perkins, who did the heavy lifting in terms of acting in the first two films, is given next to nothing to do here, and Katharine Isabelle, not as gifted an actress, is left to carry the material more or less by herself. She's not terrible here, but she has nothing to work with. About the only thing of interest in the film is the beautiful, spooky cinematography, but even that smacks too much of music videos, with its 'subliminal' cuts and generically nightmarish forest. All in all, this is a real disappointment. 3 out of 10.
10 of 19 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this