User Reviews

What made the original Ginger Snaps a classic horror movie is the way it used the genre to explore universal themes. It offered a unique take on sibling rivalry, death, suicide, puberty, feminism, sexuality and love. Most poignantly, it gave us Ginger, a complex character with a genuine hatred of herself and everything around her.

Ginger Snaps also introduced Katharine Isabelle and Emily Perkins, two talented, beautiful and utterly believable actresses. So while I was a bit put off by the premise of Ginger Snaps Back, I was excited for the chance to watch the girls reprise their roles.

Ginger Snaps Back is a very watchable movie. It re-imagines the sisters in a different era, which is interesting. It's creepy. The special effects are much better than in the original. The climax is very cool. And the sisters are both perfectly portrayed. Unfortunately, when it was over, I wasn't thinking about my own mortality. I was just thinking, "Hey, cool werewolves."

I was also irritated by the dialog. Most of the time, the characters speak in stilted sentences appropriate to the era. But occasionally, Ginger drops a pithy one liner or a curse word which seems completely out of place.

The supporting cast was filled with stereotypes. The harsh minister and the sage native American hunter were especially flat.

Ginger Snaps Back gives you two things. An entertaining werewolf movie. And an excuse to watch two talented actresses portray Ginger and Brigitte. But it doesn't give you anything beyond that.

This prequel concerns the sisters, Ginger and Brigitte, making their way through 19th century Canada in what one can assume to be a previous incarnation.

Having lost their parents, the orphaned girls trek alone through the wilderness during a cold, harsh winter. They stumble upon the remains of an Indian village, which looks to have been ripped apart by some great beast. One of the few survivors, an old wise woman, warns them that they must "kill the boy" or "one sister will kill the other." When Brigitte accidentally steps into a bear trap a short time later, the two girls are rescued and assisted by a handsome Indian man known only as The Hunter, who leads the girls to nearby Bailey Fort...perhaps the very fort around which the future suburban community of Bailey Downs will spring. The fort is in poor shape. The men are suspicious, the atmosphere is bleak and the supplies are running low. It seems that the men who were sent for winter provisions several months before never returned...at least, not in human form. Indeed, several strange and vicious beasts seem to be stalking the woods just beyond the fort...and there may be one within as well!

This 3rd installment in the imaginative and intelligent Ginger Snaps series lacks the black humor and witty script of the previous two. The girls are lovely and convincing, the setting of a snowbound fort is both creepy and beautiful, and the new character of The Hunter is intriguing and nice to look at, but this film takes itself far too seriously. I also had a hard time accepting the fact that a young girl in the 19th century would utter a phrase like: "These people are f-cked." Such instances of modern dialogue inserted into a setting of 100+ years past is disconcerting at best...but maybe I'm the only one it would bother.

The beasts are highly visible in the final scenes of the film, and are pretty impressive looking. Other than that, the films gets a little weighted down by the gloomy atmosphere, with nary a joke to be found. The religious metaphors and Native American mysticism seem to have been pulled right out of "The Crucible," "The Scarlet Letter" and "Thunderheart" and seem to have been used for set dressing rather than as crucial plot devices. Still, there's a good amount of blood and gore to please most splatter enthusiasts, and an open ending which seems both to resolve the second film and bring us right back around to the first.

It's not a terrible movie by any means, but since I'd come to expect a certain amount of smart black comedy and found none here, it was just a little disappointing. The girls do a great job with their characters, as they always do, but they had far less to work with this time around. I give this a 6 on a scale of 10, whereas the first two each get a 9.

Ginger Snaps and Ginger Snaps II: Unleashed were very clever movies. This one, Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning however lacks the dark humor and brains that the first two had. Although it is interesting to see this situation, as Ginger and Brigitte face the whole werewolf problem in the 19th century, without the benefits of the time ahead of them.

Ginger Fitzgerald (Katherine Isabelle) doesn't have the full attitude the Ginger from the first movie had. The sisters don't have that mysterious darkness that they had before, which is quite disappointing as it is what attracts you to the movie in the first place. The speech is strange... they will talk in a sort of old fashioned way, then start talking more modernly, and sometimes will swear, which makes it slightly less believable.

Although there are some great scenes this film, its only good if you are a fan of the Ginger Snaps series really. Otherwise this may seem just a long and boring hour and a half of snow, blood and one big fort. *6*

After the success of the superior werewolf thriller "Ginger Snaps", it seems Lions Gate rushed to churn out two sequels in the shortest amount of time possible, those being the frightening "Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed" and the disappointing "Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning". Where "Unleashed" was a bit of letdown compared to its predecessor, it made sense and it followed the storyline well and even managed to wrangle up a boatload of genuine scares. Then there's "Ginger Snaps Back", the weakest and wholly unnecessary entry into the series. It should have stopped with "Unleashed" but the writers have decided to give our doomed heroines Brigitte and Ginger one last go around.

This time Ginger and Brigitte (a major plus is that Katharine Isabelle reprises her role as Ginger whereas she was missing in the second film save for a few scenes) are wandering around in the Canadian wilderness after being stranded in the early 1800's. For some reason it's a prequel that has nothing to do with the story that was developed in the first two films, so what's the point besides some cheap werewolf scares? When they come across a wrecked Indian camp that depicts carnage and brutal murder, they hastily make way to find shelter. That's when they find a strange fort in the middle of nowhere that some soldiers reside in, and that's where the nightmare begins. At night, a pack of vicious werewolves continually attacks the fort outside the thick log walls, and by day things take a nasty turn for Ginger when she is bitten... again. It's all apparently a foreshadowing of the events in the first film but none of it is needed. There's no tension or intrigue where there was in the first and second, plus any trace of black humor that made the first film so ingenious is not apparent anywhere. The editing and cinematography seem rushed and at times I found the film almost incoherent. A huge disappointment that further ruins the integrity of the first. They should leave Ginger and Brigitte alone now.

I first saw this more than a decade back on a dvd. Revisited it recently. I liked this part n found the earlier two parts boring.

This third and final installment takes place in 19th century n the settings is pretty atmospheric of that of a fort situated in the wilderness facing the harsh cold winter and vicious werewolves. Apart from the atmospheric settings, this part has lots of werewolves n action which were missing in the earlier two parts.

I'm saddened. I really wanted to like this movie as I am the biggest fan of the original Ginger Snaps; and its leads, Katharine Isabelle and Emily Perkins for their work in the original, and Perkins even more so for almost single-handedly saving "Ginger Snaps: Unleashed." Alas, I am afraid that this series is like the original Highlander: "There can only be one."

You know you're in for a long ride from the very beginning. It breaks a rule of cinema narration that no scriptwriter was dumb enough to break prior, a rule so dumb to break nobody thought previously to make it a rule: it has two introductions. The first introduction is in screen text, about a hunting party never returning in 1816. Stark, dark, and ominous. Except then they followed it with a narrated introduction by Isabelle. The latter, I am afraid, is an incoherent train-wreck about the curse of the red and black (checkers?) having a chance to be stopped . . . blighting the land . . . the white man bringing diseases . . . oaths higher than God or fate . . . or something. Even Ed Wood, Jr. would have been embarrassed enough to rewrite it. Unfortunately, Isabelle drew the short straw on reading the mess, and I felt sorry for her.

This "has-it-begun-yet" effect starts the movie out at a leaden pace, from which it never recovers, and creates a half-assed horror-myth for the story to depend, which insults the audience, not to mention, perhaps, Native Americans.

The story starts in 1816 as two orphaned teenage girls Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and Brigitte (Emily Perkins) come to a fort in the wilderness that has been under siege for months by some kind of diabolical creatures (I think they might be werewolves). The remaining men in the fort are just a little suspicious since the sisters were able to reach it untouched when nobody else could reach it or set foot outside it without getting ripped to shreds. Except an Indian called Hunter.

It is apparent that the entire production was in over its head at attempting a period piece like this, from the producer, the scriptwriter, to the director and crew, to the actors. The dialog sounds anachronistic, and isn't very good anyway. The characters do not act 21st century, but neither do they act in a way that's believably 19th century. Isabelle and Perkins, and the other actors, are given no historical point of reference and no dialog coaching to be able to pull this off. I could forgive the dialects being inconsistent; if anything, I think dialects were far more diverse in that area then, but they sounded too commonplace. At this budget, they could have aimed for a squalid, scaled down, timeless feeling, but they did not. I could not believe that Isabelle and Perkins' characters fit into the early 19th century at all. The movie tries to joke about this. Ginger (Isabelle) occasionally pipes in with modern swear words that so lilted her dialog in GS1, but given that this movie never sounded 19th century anyway, the comical contrast never works.

Music was a plus in both the original and "Unleashed." In this movie it is just awful. It sounds like they hired a single cellist to play four notes and then looped them repeatedly.

Then there was Ginger's transformation: at least they should have made it somewhat consistent with what occurred in GS1, instead of making her feverish and dizzy. Please. To see a young woman in that time period misbehaving Ginger did. THAT would have been exciting. What we got was boring.

The rest of the cast tries with varying degrees of success. J. R. Bourne does well as the second-in-command, but his character is just two-dimensional, the a—hole dimension and the d—chebag dimension. Hugh Dillon as the Reverend, also a villain, is allowed to overplay his part, and his accent sounds jarringly anachronistic. In writing his role, however, it's apparent that the screenwriter took care to consult neither the Bible, nor sermons written at the time. The Reverend's preaching sounds almost as nonsensical as the werewolf myth given at the beginning, and I don't think it was deliberate. Matthew Walker as the doctor and Brendan Fletcher as Finn give very good performances, and Fletcher's was so good I was surprised and saddened he did not have a larger part. Tom McCamus does a fair job as the fort commander, or would have done one had the makeup department not given him such a silly wig. He almost makes it look dignified, but his gravitas was one false move away from side-splitting comedy.

I think I'm the wrong gender and sexual orientation to judge Nathanial Arcand playing hunter. Moreover, he reminded me too much of David Carradine in Kung Fu, and that probably means I'm the wrong generation, too. It makes me want to recuse myself from reviewing him.

The movie never rises above its leaden pace and never becomes actually scary. Then there are the little things, like the aforementioned music, or that a werewolf makeup was an immobile mask that was a throwback to the 60s. The werewolves looked like neither wolves nor men, nor anything like the werewolf in GS1.

The only good thing: the ending. No, I'm not being the droll critic talking about what a relief it was that the movie was over. It did have a good ending. You should decide fifteen minutes in if you think it's worth waiting for. Unfortunately, I think this was a desperate endeavor to try to cash in on a great movie's name while putting forward as little money and effort in as possible.

(Upgraded one star from my original review. It is very good to see Perkins and Isabelle work together, and sisters' bond was still evocative and interesting.)

Nothing special. And that's a shame.

Ginger Snaps Back is a retelling of the storyline used in the original, with a few changes here and there. I got this movie the day it came out and couldn't wait to watch it. However...

This is a period piece and while I respect the fact that the director didn't want the sisters to speak with phony accents, the dialogue really didn't match up with the time. Lines like "These people are f***ed" really took me out of the story. It actually started to remind me of watching a high school play put on by jaded teenagers.

But being the fan and overall geek that I am, I still watched the movie again with the director's commentary track. I expected it to be boring. I didn't expect it to make me angry. The running theme for the commentary was "not enough time". I really angered when I found out that the script wasn't done until there was only ten days until the first shooting day. That along with the director and writer talking about how they came up with the idea for the film was infuriating. You see, they thought it would be a "treat for the fans" to do this movie. Maybe I'm just cynical, but that sounds like a lame attempt to make some money off of a title many horror fans have come to love.

But I'm getting off topic.

Overall, I liked this film. It's good to see Canada's finest (Katharine and Emily) on screen together once again. The dream sequence felt very abstract and Argento-like, which was cool. The only real complaints that I have are the dialogue and certain subplots that didn't belong. They should've gotten Karen Walton to write this one (she wrote the original).

I give it 6/10.

Oh yeah, one more thing...

This might be nitpicking, but where was the original song? It only appeared once in Unleashed and is completely absent from this one. This is disappointing to me because I always thought of that song as the theme for the films.

Let's start at the beginning, shall we? 'Ginger Snaps Back' is the second film in the series, but first chronologically - set in 1815. Part of an adventurer family, sisters Ginger and Brigitte were washed ashore after their ship sank, and their parents drowned. Now, they are in lost in the Canadian Wilderness.

Having stumbled upon a bloodied Cree camp, and with their horse spooked, they flee into the woods, where Brigitte is badly injured. A young Cree man saves them and takes them to a nearby fort, where the occupants are cautious, and still awaiting food supplies to arrive - now already two months late.

What happens next, is a series of events that firmly establishes 'Ginger Snaps Back' as one of the scariest and best werewolf movies ever made. They should have a Warning stating 'Effective jump scares ahead'! Wow, man, those jump scares made my blood run cold!

Interestingly, in this movie they use leeches to test whether someone is a werewolf. In general, this film doesn't make use of any of the werewolf cliches. This is refreshingly original, with a twist on the genre. The film is eerie and constantly foreboding, and very atmospheric. The performances from the entire cast are really good, and the make-up is excellent. Katharine Isabelle in particular is excellent as the strong and determined Ginger.

Ok, so the werewolves are not all that realistic and even a bit stocky at times, but they are still terrifying. The film is thrilling from beginning to end and there truly never is a dull moment. I love this!

Would I watch it again? Yes.

Origin Stories are Cool, most of the time. But in the Original Ginger Snaps the Origin was Original enough to make it the Sleeper Hit of its Era. It was sharp, smart, and, yes, snappy. This Movie is none of the above, it is dull, depressing, and slow.

It looks good and there seemed to be some Energy in the Production but it all gets lost in a wildly muddled Script. The Characters are all bland and the Native American Curse stuff is painful and confusing. Our two Sisters huddle together forever and look out of place and out of time/space.

An unwanted and ill received mess, this is not horrible but really takes an effort to like. A shame, because the Audience is with this from the beginning. Bringing along previous thoughts and anxieties from the first two Movies that had a genuine allure.

This one is Soul less with rough edges that are never smoothed into a believable and exciting Film. It tries way too hard to be a Profound Period Piece, adding depth to the Trilogy. In the end it is an unwelcome miss on most levels, but Horror Fans may give it a Pass. Ginger Snap Fans may give it a Fail.

I watched this after seeing both previous movies (Ginger Snaps and Ginger Snaps- The Sequel) so I knew what to expect. You have to realise that even though this film has werewolves in it, its main theme is unbreakable sisterly loyalty. I have to say that I'm a fan so a bit biased, but as in the previous films the best thing in this one is the atmosphere- menacing and charged and the setting (dark winter woods) is just perfect! Another thing that made me come back is the two main characters. They are played with so much conviction that you really believe they could overcome anything as long as they trust each other enough. The only problem was the werewolf story itself- just a bit too predictable. Other than that I was entertained throughout and I will watch this film again!

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.

Neither sequel has been nearly as good as the original, but considering how brilliant "Ginger Snaps" was, no one could reasonably expect that. Actually, my main disappointment with both sequels is that I wanted what GS had--horror, humor, hipness, irony. But anytime there's a sequel that tries to be the original, it fails because it tried to emulate the first installment. Both sequels have completely different story lines and character. The only real continuity is in the characterization and the themes. And that's a brilliant decision. I probably liked "The Beginning" better than "Unleashed," but I just finished watching the former, so I can't be objective. It is, in its own right, a really terrific film. All of the films have had their fair share of visual panache, but this one is so beautiful it reminded me of "Sleepy Hollow" at times. I almost wish they'd been released under completely different titles--I can't help but compare the sequels to the original, and they're not really sequels. They all feature the same two leading actress; they're all about werewolves; "Unleashed" even picks up after the first left off. But you could watch "Unleashed" without having seen "Ginger Snaps" and still know what's going on, and since the third starts close to 200 years before the first, you obviously don't have to see the others. They're separate films connected by actresses and themes, as I see it. Speaking of the actresses--Emily Perkins and Isabelle Katherine are, of course, beyond reproach. Their direction is wrong; they don't fit in to the milieu they're put in, but I think that's a director error. Or the director's way of maintaining the integrity of the characters we know from the first two movies. Ginger and Bridget can't exactly be Puritans, can they? Next to the drop-dead brilliant score Mike Shields composed for the original, this soundtrack doesn't stand a chance. But it works very, very well with the setting and the action. I had to watch one scene towards the end (the fire) twice only because of the music. One thing I absolutely loved, though found a bit campy--Ginger spends half the movie dressed as Little Red Riding Hood, though her hood, and the rest of her clothes, are black...It makes for some stunning cinematography, though. So basically, after "Ginger Snaps," it's a bit of a letdown. But not taking the original into account, it's an incredible film that you shouldn't miss.

This one is set in the 19th century at a Canadian fort & basically it's the story of how the sisters's bloodline was originally tainted by the werewolf curse. Which, means to say that the bite scene in the first Ginger Snaps is of course pre-destined. So, this will explain to those who aren't getting the storyline why the Fitzgearld sisters are now in the 19th century. Their their ancestors previously. Not enough gore for me personally but good solid storyline & great acting from the awesome Katherine Isabelle & Emily Perkins once again. As well I was very glad to see the always great American Indian actor Nathaniel Arcand in this fil,m as the Werewolf hunter. Personally, even though I adore the 1st film, didn't care for the 2nd in this series, I really liked this one but end this series as too do another fim will ruin the greatness of a truly innovative series. Definitely worth watching. *** out of *****

This is not only the worst of the three GS films but quite possibly the worst movie ever made. It lacks logic, plot, continuity, and structure. It is a mockery of Canadian Flimmaking and an insult to horror fans. Glorified violence and a semi-nude scene does not redeem this film. I don't understand how reviewers can sit and postulate theories on why and how the sisters ended up in the 19th century. Even hyper logic fails to shed light on the topic. Time travel? Come on now!! Incarnation? Please! Ancestry? Where's the period dialect. Do the filmmakers actually believe that dropping a few f-bombs would ameliorate this film through subtle comic relief? The only explanation for such a debacle is disposable income. AND why was Brendan Fletcher (Jeremy the library boy in the second film)recast as Finn in the third installment? Is the list of Canadian talent that short? Shame on the directors and the producers for ruining a great Canadian horror series.

Sisters Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and Brigitte (Emily Perkins) get re-imagined for a different time and place in this yarn. The two girls are all on their own in the bleak winter of 19th century Canada, and take shelter in a traders' fort where the residents aren't all very welcoming. Unfortunately, the fort is often under siege by violent canine beasts, and to make matters worse, Ginger is bitten by the werewolf that's already in their midst.

More predictable and formulaic than the previous two films, "Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning" has a less provocative script as well, but it's still good at portraying a dedicated sibling devotion. It ties what goes here to the legend of the Wendigo, as well. And it's good at depicting the fear and ignorance of these not-that-macho men that now surround Ginger and Brigitte.

All of this said, changing the environment for the now familiar sibling characters proves to be a good idea, adding a lot of genuinely spooky atmosphere. The gore by KNB is excellent, but their werewolf design leaves something to be desired. The music score composed by Alex Khaskin is superbly ominous. And the film is not lit by cinematographer Michael Marshall any more than it needs to be, adding to the overwhelming mood of the piece.

The girls are compelling to watch, as always. They're assisted by a strong Canadian cast including Nathaniel Arcand as an Indian hunter, Hugh Dillon of rock band The Headstones as the pontificating Reverend, Brendan Fletcher (who acted with Perkins in "Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed" and Isabelle in "Freddy V. Jason") as the amiable Finn, Tom McCamus as Rowlands, the guy who's more or less in charge of the fort, Matthew Walker as the doctor fond of using leeches in his work, and Stevie Mitchell as the creepy little Geoffrey.

Things do get rather anachronistic: the antiquated dialogue and delivery are sometimes interrupted by much more modern-sounding utterances of variations on the F-word. And things are played VERY straight, with none of the dark humour that marked the previous two films.

Still, hardcore horror fans are sure to derive some entertainment out of it.

Seven out of 10.

The third and final instalment of the GINGER SNAPS trilogy and also by far the best of the three films. Eschewing the teen angst and modern-day ponderings of the first two movies, GINGER SNAPS BACK posits itself as a sort-of prequel, telling virtually the same story but setting it in the 19th century and in a remote area of the Canadian wilderness.

The plot involves a remote outpost under siege, not dissimilar to THE ALAMO. The besiegers are werewolves. If that's not enough to whet your appetite, then I don't know what is, but I was hooked from the outset. There's still plenty of mileage to be had in the sisterly relationship between Ginger and Brigitte, and as in the first film their bond holds everything together.

Let's get this straight: this is a B-movie made on a low budget, although for the most part that budget is well hidden. The settings, from the wooden mini-fortress to the snowbound woodlands, are well shot and atmospheric, and the creature effects are the best of the whole series. The characters are all stereotypes, but fun with it: there's the fire-and-brimstone preacher, the grieving captain, the friendly Native American tracker, the elderly doctor, the hard-ass soldier. Guessing which of them is going to be the next to be bumped off is half of the fun.

The story plays out as you'd expect, building to an impressive and grisly climax in which the full horror of the situation becomes apparent. Yet it's that sweet, poignant central relationship that makes this film stand out above other similar fare. Katharine Isabelle may bag the more obvious role of the two sisters, but it's Emily Perkins who ends up as the most bewitching. Director Grant Harvey, a newcomer to the trilogy at this late stage, handles the elements remarkably. It's just a shame more B-movies don't have the imagination and strength that this film displays.

Ginger Snaps Back the Beginning: 5/10: The original Ginger Snaps truly deserves its cult classic label. Leads Katharine Isabelle and Emily Perkins created original characters that transcended both the teen angst genre as well as werewolf films needless to say. The second sequel transports both characters to the 19th century Canadian wilderness. The good news is that the girls and their relationship is exactly the same as the first film. The bad news is that the first film took place in modern suburbia and the girls' characterization simply couldn't feel more out of place. It's like coming across a valley girl in a WWI Drama.

Anachronisms aside what they really don't have from the first film is the witty banter and subtext of the story. The script is a true bare bones affair with that old Assault on Precinct 13, Rio Bravo plot. But instead of gang members our antagonists are werewolves. Now this plot can work mind you (See Dog Soldiers for a perfect werewolves trapping people movie) but with the first two Snaps films about puberty and addiction a trapped with crazy people plot line is quite a let down.

The script is lazy in other ways as well. We have a ridiculous preacher character that would have been thrown out of 17th century Salem for being too fundamentalist and we also have endless Native American (okay Native Canadian) mumbo jumbo.

There are very very few things that grate on my nerves faster in a movie than the wise Indian character with the endless intelligible incantations and feathered dream catchers. And of course they predict the future and give warnings of bad tidings and initially scare our girls but turn out to be the real good guys that everyone treats badly. Pretty generic and lazy screen writing.

Needless to say the movie is all over the map. The end is good, the werewolves look good and honestly I can watch Katharine Isabelle all day long. The plot however is a really a mess and Snaps really doesn't make much sense if you haven't seen the other two Ginger Snaps films and even less sense if you have.

This movie was nowhere near as good as Ginger Snaps or Ginger Snaps 2 : Unleashed, but what I do have to point out is that the person who commented before is clearly unaware that this is a Canadian Trilogy and therefore has nothing to do with American anything. The movie is worth a watch if you enjoyed either of the first ones, if not however it will be lost on you like any other movie series continuation. There are obvious differences between the original and this feature but I feel that as the prequel it does dispel some of the feeling left at the end of the previous two. Again I have to say that this movie is Canadian and was filmed in Fort Edmonton Park, Alberta Canada. If you are a Ginger Snaps fan you will like and want this. If not, then it just won't be for you.

Do the makers of Ginger Snaps Back have any idea what they are doing?

This movie is an utter mess. The script feels like a rehashing of fifty other horror movies, including some parts from the original Ginger Snaps. The story is paper thin, dull, and makes no sense. Even the title of the movie is stupid. To say Ginger Snaps Back, would have to mean that she has done it once already. But she hasn't, this movie is set in the 1810's in the region that would become Canada fifty years later, and almost two hundred years from Ginger Snaps. The historical setting does not enrich the story at all.

Sisters Ginger and Bridgit end up re-enacting much of what they did in the first feature, only with ten times less character. It's almost impossible to care. Kathrine Isabelle was one of the driving forces behind Ginger Snaps. If she was given something new to do here it would've helped. As the movie progresses it gets less about her and more about Briget, as it did the first time. Problem is that Emily Perkins is not as interesting or as good an actress as Isabelle.

The only time Ginger Sanps back did something for me was during the climax. I remember last year wanting to make a short werewolf movie, but I couldn't figure out how to make it convincing. If I'd gotten it to work, It' would have looked something like Ginger Snaps Back. The animatronic, muscular beast from the first (and also the second) is now nothing more that a guy in costume with a mask that it practically identical to the ten dollar item I bought in the Haloween store. The money which should've gone to the make up effects department ended up somewhere else.

Ginger Snaps Back, wasn't even necessary in the first place. Considering how mediocre the second was, a third entry sounds even less promising and, all the idiotic decisions and miss judgements which went into designing the film, take the already silly idea and make it worse.

In 1815, in Canada, the sisters Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and Brigitte (Emily Perkins) survive to a boat sinking, where her parents die. Alone and lost in the forest, they meet an old clairvoyant Indian that foresees their fate. Later, they are guided by the Indian The Hunter (Nathaniel Arcand) to a fort, and they seek for shelter with the men of the Northern Legion Trading Company. They note that the place is under siege of "Wendigos", a sort of werewolf that has killed most of the dwellers of the place, and the survivals are very afraid. Their lives are put in danger by the deranged locals and by the surrounding beasts.

I usually hate sequels and remakes, but "Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning" is a great movie and I liked it more than the cult "Ginger Snaps". The cold cinematography is very sad and beautiful. The good story try to explain the curse of the two sisters, but is completely different from "Ginger Snaps" and "Ginger Snaps: Unleashed". It uses only the characters of Ginger and Brigitte, and werewolves of course, taking place in different time and situations. The costumes of the sisters, specially the dark "Little Red Riding Hood" clothes of Ginger, are scary and complete the atmosphere imposing a sort of fear. The make-up of the werewolves is excellent. The DVD is full of Extras. Therefore, I liked this film a lot and highly recommend it to the fans of these cult characters. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Possuída – O Início" ("Possessed – The Beginning")