Some years ago, when I watched "Ginger Snaps," I thought it was one of the best werewolf movies that I had seen in a long time. So perhaps it seems pretty strange that I've avoided watching this first sequel - but I've seen enough disappointing sequels that somehow I was reluctant to risk spoiling my memory of the first movie. Well, I finally bit (pun intended) and watched "Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed." It didn't exactly spoil my memory of the first movie. It's not a bad movie. But it's nowhere near as good as the original.
I found the first movie had an interesting way of approaching Ginger's transformation into a werewolf, setting it in the context of female puberty and the beginnings of menstruation. In a weird sort of way it was a coming of age movie. It was a fresh way of approaching the whole werewolf idea. That was all missing in "Unleashed." This is a much straighter take on the concept. Ginger, of course, is gone - although Katharine Isabelle does take up the role again as a sort of ghost, I guess, who periodically visits Bridgette. Honestly, while it was nice to include her, the presence of Ginger even in this limited way wasn't really necessary. Emily Perkins is again in the role of Bridgette. She does well with it. She's now being stalked by a werewolf, and she's attempting to prevent her own transformation, injecting herself with monkshood - but it only seems to delay the process, and there is a gradual transformation taking place. Things get worse when she ends up in an institution for drug addicts, and is not allowed to have her "medicine."
All that was working well enough. Not as imaginative an approach as the original, but Perkins was doing well carrying the story, and there were enough edge of your seat moments and things that made you jump to make this a decent horror movie. But things do fall apart just a little bit. I personally did not like the character of Ghost, played by Tatiana Maslany. She just didn't appeal to me, and she was too front and centre in the movie, when really Bridgette was the only character in the whole movie that I particularly cared about. One somewhat irritating character aside, this movie did (mostly using the setting of the rehab facility) try to inject some humour into the story. The original was a very successful blend of humour and horror, but this one wasn't able to pull that off. Most of those attempts revolved around Dr. Brookner (Patricia Idlette) - some sort of psychologist or psychotherapist at the centre. But, to me, they didn't come across as funny. Silly more than anything, and forced - often without much connection to the heart of the story. The ending didn't really resolve too much, although it did set up another potential sequel. Strangely, though, the third movie in the series was a prequel of sorts - "Ginger Snaps Back" (which I haven't seen) being set in the 19th century, but still focusing on Ginger and Bridgette.
As I said, this isn't a bad movie, and it has some good scenes and a good performance from Emily Perkins. But overall, I'd still call it mediocre at best. (4/10)
I found the first movie had an interesting way of approaching Ginger's transformation into a werewolf, setting it in the context of female puberty and the beginnings of menstruation. In a weird sort of way it was a coming of age movie. It was a fresh way of approaching the whole werewolf idea. That was all missing in "Unleashed." This is a much straighter take on the concept. Ginger, of course, is gone - although Katharine Isabelle does take up the role again as a sort of ghost, I guess, who periodically visits Bridgette. Honestly, while it was nice to include her, the presence of Ginger even in this limited way wasn't really necessary. Emily Perkins is again in the role of Bridgette. She does well with it. She's now being stalked by a werewolf, and she's attempting to prevent her own transformation, injecting herself with monkshood - but it only seems to delay the process, and there is a gradual transformation taking place. Things get worse when she ends up in an institution for drug addicts, and is not allowed to have her "medicine."
All that was working well enough. Not as imaginative an approach as the original, but Perkins was doing well carrying the story, and there were enough edge of your seat moments and things that made you jump to make this a decent horror movie. But things do fall apart just a little bit. I personally did not like the character of Ghost, played by Tatiana Maslany. She just didn't appeal to me, and she was too front and centre in the movie, when really Bridgette was the only character in the whole movie that I particularly cared about. One somewhat irritating character aside, this movie did (mostly using the setting of the rehab facility) try to inject some humour into the story. The original was a very successful blend of humour and horror, but this one wasn't able to pull that off. Most of those attempts revolved around Dr. Brookner (Patricia Idlette) - some sort of psychologist or psychotherapist at the centre. But, to me, they didn't come across as funny. Silly more than anything, and forced - often without much connection to the heart of the story. The ending didn't really resolve too much, although it did set up another potential sequel. Strangely, though, the third movie in the series was a prequel of sorts - "Ginger Snaps Back" (which I haven't seen) being set in the 19th century, but still focusing on Ginger and Bridgette.
As I said, this isn't a bad movie, and it has some good scenes and a good performance from Emily Perkins. But overall, I'd still call it mediocre at best. (4/10)