Home>>Films By 2004>>Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning film online free

  • Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning
    • Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning
    • Runtime:94 min
    • Release Date:2017-01-16 08:00:50
    • Director: Grant Harvey
    • Genres: Fantasy, Horror
    • Studio:
MOVIE REVIEW:Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning


*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Didn't plan to review it but after watching it, couldn't help it, just
to tell how bad the movie is. The first 'Ginger Snaps' is one of my
favorite horror film of all time. Just watching the first part, I made
decision to watch the other parts. The second part 'Ginger
Snaps-Unleashed' was watchable but not great. But then comes 'Ginger
Snaps Back: The beginning' which is a total flop and a waste of time.
After watching this, the first question that came to my mind is, why?
Why did they make this one? It is not entertaining, not horror , not
thriller, not suspenseful, nothing. It had all negative sides that a
film could possibly have. The plot was completely garbage. It destroyed
the image of the first 'Ginger Snaps' which was great in all the
directions and it is quite opposite. The original 'Ginger Snaps' was
from first to last full of horror and suspense.This was not. I watched
this movie at night alone in my room which is in a corner of the house
and I was not scared. I couldn't get a clue who is killing who and why?
Why they are so unconscious when they know that there are deadly
creatures surrounding them? Bottom line is, don't watch this movie if
you like the original 'Ginger Snaps' and if you consider your time


I am 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

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

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.

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

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 fact that the movie
soundtrack seems to completely be a cello playing the same four notes,
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.


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.


*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have already given my feelings about GS:unleashed, and how the charm
of the first film was crippled by establishing that once bitten you're
dead, there is no cure. So a prequel about their predecessors(past
lives?) wasn't very interesting to me. I waited about four years before
checking this one out and despite decent acting and great
sets/costumes, it was still a bleak and unsatisfying story. I did like
the addition of the leeches into the mythos, but that still didn't
change things. Brendan Fletcher was the only real standout in this
movie. Hopefully there won't be any further sequels, prequels, remakes,

Watch Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning Online for Free

Comments for this Movie Reviews(1)

Leave a Comment:

  •   Name(Required)
Related Movies
  • Cyrus


    Runtime: 87 min

    Release: 05-19-2010

    Director: Mark Vadik

  • Des hommes et des dieux

    Des hommes et des dieux

    Runtime: 122 min

    Release: 05-18-2010

    Director: unKnown

  • Hard Ride to Hell

    Hard Ride to Hell

    Runtime: 94 min

    Release: 05-18-2010

    Director: Penelope Buitenhuis

  • Gunfight at La Mesa

    Gunfight at La Mesa

    Runtime: 88 min

    Release: 05-18-2010

    Director: Chris Fickley

  • Tamara Drewe

    Tamara Drewe

    Runtime: 111 min

    Release: 05-18-2010

    Director: Stephen Frears

  • The Reef

    The Reef

    Runtime: 94 min

    Release: 05-17-2010

    Director: Andrew Traucki

  • Autoreiji


    Runtime: 109 min

    Release: 05-17-2010

    Director: Takeshi Kitano

  • I Wish I Knew

    I Wish I Knew

    Runtime: 112 min

    Release: 05-16-2010

    Director: Zhang Ke Jia

  • Photovps
  • Site Map | Browse Movies: #  A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z