Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
Prequal to 'Ginger Snaps' has the orphaned sisters Ginger and Brigette, before becoming werewolves, in 1815 Canada where they stumble into a war between Native American "Wendigos" besieging a remote trading post populated by brutal settlers.
| Katharine Isabelle | Ginger Fitzgerald |
| Emily Perkins | Brigitte Fitzgerald |
| Nathaniel Arcand | The Hunter/The Indian |
| JR Bourne | James |
| Hugh Dillon | Reverend Gilbert |
| Adrien Dorval | Seamus |
| Brendan Fletcher | Finn |
| David La Haye | Claude |
| Tom McCamus | Wallace Rowlands |
| Matthew Walker | Doc Murphy |
| Fabian Bird | Milo |
| Kirk Jarrett | Owen |
| David MacInnis | Cormac |
| Stevie Mitchell | Geoffrey |
| Edna Rain | Elder |
| Grant Harvey |
5.90 out of 10 (1729 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Solid if not spectacular
posted on 31 Jul 2009There have been many attempts to update or change the werewolf theme in movies. Only a scant few have been successful. The "Ginger Snaps" series has provided an interesting storyline with the two devoted sisters that always seem to be battling the hairy undead. However, the science or mythology that accompanies Bridget and Ginger through their battles is often convoluted and complicated and never develops strong enough to possibly elevate this series into the rare pantheon of horror classics. That's not to say that all three films in the series don't have a lot going for them. The acting and cinematography is pretty good all around and the two sisters make each of the films a worthwhile excursion for the viewer. This 3rd entry attempts to go back and establish a basis for the story and it succeeds sporadically. There's nary a boring moment in the entire series and things move along briskly enough to keep things entertaining. Don't hesitate to buy or rent this one. If you haven't seen any of this series you might be better off seeking out this 3rd installment first before you go back to numbers One and Two.
Good way to end the trilogy
posted on 03 Jul 2009So what do you do when you want to complete a trilogy but the two main characters in your franchise aren't really around any more? You take them both back to the nineteenth century of course! We join the Fitzgerald sisters travelling through the harsh Canadian wilderness following a shipwreck. They come upon an old Indian woman who warns them that something terrible might happen, and then Brigette is rescued from a wolf trap by a hunter who takes them to a nearby fort. There is something very strange about the occupants of the almost-deserted fort, and they seem to live in constant fear of something outside ... and what are those bloody claw marks on the front gate? Soon the sisters discover what's going on, and find that their own fate, their own legacy, is somehow connected with those creatures out in the woods ...As you can probably imagine, the atmosphere here is just terrific. A group of unique characters living together in this fort, besieged by a pack of werewolves, in a world that feels like hell has just frozen over and grown some trees. There is, of course, tension within the fort as well as outside it. Nobody trusts the deadly Indian hunter, a half-crazed preacher is ready to sacrifice everyone to save them from hell, a cruel officer seems set on making Ginger's life a misery and even the good-hearted commander harbours a dark secret in the bowels of the fort. The cast plays these parts extremely well, and there are a lot of great supporting actors here, the most memorable being Nathaniel Arcand, JR Bourne and Hugh Dillon. Also Brendan Fletcher, who played Jeremy in Unleashed, returns here as a different character.Historically, it's not the most accurate film, but in the context of the trilogy it doesn't matter. Some of the language they use, often for comic effect, is certainly very modern day, and some other liberties have been taken for dramatic reasons. It's the same basic plot as Unleashed, with a group of people stalked by a werewolf while one of them turns into a werewolf themselves. Except here, they are in fact besieged by a whole pack of werewolves, which means more werewolves than we've ever seen before in the previous movies (essentially there was only one in each). The final scenes of this movie will blow your mind.In many ways, this is my favourite in the trilogy, and it is certainly a welcome addition to the Ginger Snaps saga. If you like the previous movies, then definitely check this one out.
Ginger franchise is going out of steam...
posted on 03 Jul 2009As I have noticed mostly the fans of the prequels of this prequel :-) supply the comments for this flick. Same it is here. I loved Ginger Snaps and enjoyed Unleashed. But this, this is something else. Something bad for the series...It's certainly worst achievement out of three. And it's not even the acting or the plot or the modern language in 19th century what drags it down. It's the lame and corny dialogs, stupid predictable spooks and stinking boredom from now and then. The movie has its merits despite the cheap budget and spin-off production, even some twists are there and camera is quite impressive - just watch Brigitte in her dream and she shall be in yours :-).But in overall it's a bummer. I have to admit though that if you see Ginger Snaps Back prior to any other Ginger, you might rate it higher but then you spoil yourself the experience from Ginger Snaps... It's kinda vicious circle - if you see one Ginger you won't like the other one that much because they are too much alike.Therefore just 5/10 from me.
A beautiful horror film
posted on 19 Jun 2009This film , the third part in the Ginger Snaps series, is very much in the vein of Neil Jordan's The Company of Wolves which deals with many similar themes. It has a dark almost fairytale feel to it brimming with unused sexuality. It is very much a film for grown ups securing an 18 rating in the UK and a R in America,this is for the unsettling imagery and a little light gore. This isn't a gorehounds film but more in the line of Dracula and Frankenstein it is wonderfully shot with many haunting images that will stay stuck in the back of your mind for years to come .A new Gothic horror classic which will thrill titillate and in the greatest traditions of Gothic horror,chill you to the bonedavidroth
GREAT
posted on 16 Apr 2009First of all,let me say that this movie is great and iam giving it a 10 regardless of what.Now the reason,well they are quite simple,The acting is great as always by the two leading actresses Emily perkins and Katharine isabelle and i have become a great fan of both of them and i really think that with a little more work these two actresses can go on to win the Oscar award.Secondly there was humor in this movie albeit a considerably lesser than the first two but i think it was more than made up for by the eerie surroundings of the prarie wilderness,the dark isolation of the wood's,the snow which was used in a creepy sort of way very remarkably by the director of the movie,the constant horrifying flashes that both ginger and briggete got and the howling of the wolves which was quite scary giving the movie the EERIE and DARK feel that i think it deserved and which was there but not in considerable amount in the first 2 movie's.Also the last werewolves attack scene was great,especially the wolves which looked really scary.And i also really liked the the connection between the two girls,which was introduced and emphasized in the first and cemented in this movie showing how their bond is unbreakable and the film is also given an ending which more than makes up for the disappointing end of the 2nd movie which almost ruined an otherwise very good sequel.Overall i really loved this movie and i give it a 10 and the fact is confirmed that last time i checked this movie's overall rating was only 5.7 but now it has increased to 6.0 and iam sure it will increase as only 57 people plus me have voted for it which is quite surprising considering ginger snaps is such a successful and beloved franchise.
Not As Clever As Buffy
posted on 19 Mar 2009Okay, the lead actresses are cute, but this film has way too many problems with the details (Nineteenth century women speaking 21st century slang? Theprophecy is overturned, making it not a prophecy? Sometimes you become awerewolf slowly, other times you can kill the attacker and not become one?).Overall, this film is rather goofy. If you want funny, intelligent horror, watch the Buffy TV show. The problem with Ginger Snaps Back, is that vampires areMUCH sexier and more complex than werewolves... at least when talking aboutTHESE werewolves! For a more complex, more cohesive, more thought-outview of werewolves and vamps, see the movie "Underworld".
A disappointing third act for the sisters
posted on 17 Mar 2009The first two Ginger Snaps films set themselves apart from many other horror movies because they mixed the elements of the werewolf legend with a coming of age story and the result was an original take on the classic tale. For this prequel, we go back to the beginning of the story, and the action has moved to 19th century Canada. Unfortunately, in the move from suburbia to the 19th century, the themes that made the first two such great films haven't remained and what we're left with is a simple horror story about a trader's fort that has to fend off a bunch of savage werewolves, Night of the Living Dead style. Quite why the same two characters from the other two films are in the nineteenth century is never actually explained, and that's one of the film's downfalls. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for innovation in a series; but not when that innovation sees the characters from the first film in a setting that takes place 200 years earlier without an explanation. The only thing I can think of is that the producers wanted a third film, and didn't want to risk making it without the stars of the series...but that isn't a good reason really.The script was one of the best things about the other two films. Their scripts were intelligent and witty, and it was a delight seeing the actors deliver it. The script here is sloppy to say the least. It's half old style English, but then we've got a pretty big dose of new language and one-liners in there too, and it doesn't really blend together very well at all. The film does feature some nice action and horror sequences, and the wolves themselves look better than they did in the other two films; but it was the smart script and the interaction between the characters that made the first film what it was, and as I said; this film doesn't deliver in that department. This film was shot back to back with Ginger Snaps Unleashed, and almost comes across as an afterthought. Even the two leads don't impress as much as they did in the previous two films. The sexier of the two sisters, Katherine Isabelle, didn't get a lot of screen time in Unleashed, and I was looking forward to seeing more of her in this one; but she doesn't get to do a lot with the screen time she has here either. In fact, she isn't nearly as sexy in this film and I'd even go as far as to say that Emily Perkins surpasses her there.The last two films had great endings, and I was hoping that this one would redeem itself and deliver on that front, but alas; it didn't. It seems that the Ginger Snaps series will end on a disappointment instead of the high that it could have done. I warmly recommend the first two, but this one should be viewed by die-hard fans only.
Ginger Snaps, Again
posted on 11 Mar 2009This second (pre)sequel to the surprise sleeper "Ginger Snaps," is not as good as the original film (I have yet to see the first sequel). I'm not a big fan of the series, but I do agree these films are fun to watch. At the very least, this third film in the series tries a new approach. It is not very effective, but it is not a waste of time either. If you are a fan of the series, you are probably going to give this movie some slack. As expected, the story deals with werewolves, curses, etc., that really don't make much sense. It is not very original, but the film has some very effective scenes, specifically its climax. Unfortunately, the movie needed more of those sequences in order to cause a bigger impression on me. Katharine Isabelle and Emily Perkins are good (as sisters Ginger and Brigitte), but they are beginning to look a little too old for this mixture of horror and teenage anguish.
"Dying is an overlooked art"
posted on 13 Feb 2009I agree to the idea that all three films could be considered separate and not as sequels, having said that I do not think that anyone could have played the parts better than Emily Perkins and Katherine Isabelle. Ginger Snaps the original was better without a doubt because it was so much more of a horror movie, it even explores a minority trend that cannot be classified by words like Prep, Goth, Punk, Jock or any of those; unique fascinations with death and beauty of blood covered corpses is something that few people understand, and this is the first movie to really show such a brilliant examination of such people, I thought Brigitte (Perkins) did a much better job of it, than Katherine, she played a perfect anti-social recluse, I loved it.
Back to the Lycanthropic Future
posted on 14 Jan 2009The original "Ginger Snaps" was a fun, affecting coming-of-age tale disguised as a werewolf movie that introduced us to Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and Brigitte (Emily Perkins), two of the most endearing horror heroines in recent memory. "Ginger Snaps Back"--a prequel of sorts--takes a decidedly different route from its predecessor, transposing the Fitzgerald sisters from the present day to a 19th Century Civil War base, where it turns out The Curse is alive and well. I have to give the filmmakers credit--as opposed to slavishly sequelizing the first film for a quick buck, writers Christina Ray and Stephen Massicotte and director Grant Harvey have revamped the original "Ginger Snaps" mythos into a mostly successful period piece. "Back" is beautifully photographed, with excellent sets and costumes; the inhabitants of the base (including a general hiding a deformed son) are clichéd, yet ultimately well-drawn; and the undercurrent of themes--from serious Indian spiritualism to the importance of family to the dangers of fundamentalism (among others) are subtly incorporated. While the film's anachronistic feel threw me for a loop, the well-intentioned performances (sans any self-referential irony) kept me watching...above all, Isabelle and Perkins display the same sisterly devotion that gave the first "Ginger Snaps" its humor and heart--there is an undeniable power to their on-screen interaction that sustains "Back" for its duration.
Lost Its Bite
posted on 10 Jan 2009Ginger 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*
The Trilogy?
posted on 04 Jan 2009I was reading these comments and i was kind of perturbed to find that no one wanted to really try to make sense of the fact that the third Ginger Snaps was ... a bit far-fetched and unlinked from the other two. I first saw the original Ginger Snaps back about 5 years ago, on HBO. and the thing that got me to look away from my computer and watch the movie that was playing on the TV was the Slide Show in the beginning. The music by Michael Sheilds got me to look over, and the slide show play to my morbid humor. after that it was the awesome script and oddly humorous situations. The Second one in which i finally watched last year , proverbially knocked me off my feet. That movie not only followed the sad tragic truth of the downward spiral of infected Brigette after Ginger Fitzgerald, but had twisted that messed with you. I loved the Second one Just as much as the first. The Third is an awesome film ( i just recently watched that for the first time about 4 days ago) but with both of the Fitz's before the curse.. in the 19th century is out of place and doesn't really tie in with the other two. Now depending on how creative you are you can look at this two different ways. 1) that its just a different way so telling the Ginger Snaps story... or 2) [ this is how i look at it ] Since it is suppose to be the beginning of their curse I feel that this movie is trying to portray the fact that Ginger and Bridgette were actually Cursed in or before the 19th century and then, Their Damnation is that they relive life over and over again only to be infected and die once more. This may be because [ this is my reasoning from the prequel] there was a set destiny for the girls and their pact and love for one another ( To be together no matter what ) disrupted the flow of destiny that was suppose to set everything right.. and now they are damned.. and they will never change their way .. Their pact is their curse. If the third movie portrayed this .. These movies would be very very deep and imaginative.. and i throughly believe they are leaning toward this Story line... And if thats the case .. their could be a fourth...fifth .. This could be the equal to The Lord of the Rings .. The Dark Tower... In its own respected Field mind you . I'm partial to these movies to start with tho. Watch them all at least once.. you wont be disappointed
An amazing movie
posted on 03 Dec 2008Ginger Snaps Back precedes the previous two movies by 190 +/- years and therefore can hold its own alone. This is by far my favorite of the series and I've been following it since the first movie premiered. This time the movie involves multiple werewolves and a lot more blood. Even the kills are more terrifying as you are able to feel pity for the poor soul being ripped apart on screen. Even if you haven't seen the previous movies and are an avid horror fan, you NEED to see this movie. Also, notice the use of the colors black and red in the movie. Keep an eye on the color of the wardrobe of Bridgette and Ginger aswell. Notice anything ironic? The atmosphere in the movie is portrayed so well that you actually feel like you are in the early 1800's. The cinematography has a lot to contribute to this. No werewolf fan should pass this up. You wont be disappointed.
Watchable, but shallow
posted on 23 Nov 2008What 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.
embarrassing
posted on 14 Oct 2008It is 1815 and 2 lost girls are trying to find some shelter and some help after their parent's boat had capsized. The girls come across an Indian hunter who leads them to a Fort. However once they get in, getting out is gonna be a lot harder. Seems the woods are filled with werewolves and a lady named, Ginger, is almost destined to be bit by one.Overall: I really wanted to enjoy and love this movie but frankly I can't figure out what the point was in making this film. It really comes off as a film about 2 girls somehow sent through time and they have to survive in order to get back to their own century. How else do you wanna explain why everyone in the film uses 19th century language, except the 2 girls? 'We're f**ked!'???? So when the film never did give me any time machines or wormholes, it really just started to get embarrassing. Basically I think this film can stand alone and be a nice film and even be a nice prequel and had it come out before the other 2, it would be a nice series but frankly, being a part 3 you just sit there watching the movie going 'and why did u make this?' The girls have the same names, same relationships, have the exact same problems as part 1 and always pledge to be together. So how do they magically show up in the original film, set 180 years later having the exact same experiences? The film purports to show that these girls are 'Descendants' of the ladies from the first film, but come one, you watched this movie. Does that seem obvious to you in the way they portray these characters? In fact the dialogue is the exact reason the 'descendant' excuse lacks credibility. And the first film made such a big deal of how the 2 girls were born to their parents therefore no question these girls aren't immortals. Frankly the film is so in conflict with the first film, it really is a shame they couldn't get anyone to fix these continuity problems and that's exactly what these studios need before putting crap out on DVD/video. Really, as you look back on this film, it's an absolute mess in the grand scheme of the trilogy and really should not have been made until the problems were worked out.The film added nothing new and explained nothing in the grand scheme of the trilogy. This really did a disservice to the series and frankly, I'd be embarrassed if I was the director. How do you allow the ladies lines to reflect 21st century jargon in a 19th century time period? I have expected Brigette to pull out a walkman and start listening to music. The film really is a mess in terms of the whole trilogy and frankly, it should have been re-shot by more competent professionals.Comparison: Ravenous meets the Wolf Man
The best of three
posted on 16 Sep 2008An ambitious effort for the prequel and the final entry to the Ginger Snaps trilogy, Ginger Snaps 3 (The Prequel) takes place in the middle of nowhere in the 19th Century! The poor sisters are lost somewhere in the northern Canadian wilderness. It's not explained why they're hiking through the Fort where they meet up with an Indian hunter and again run into wolves. Supposed to be a prequel to the series, though they look exactly the same and the mannerisms are not 19th Cent. Interesting characters they meet up with including the eccentric Reverend Gilbert (defunct Headstones' front man Hugh Dillon). Better than G2 but just as good as G1.
This movie ROCKS!!!.....wait a second....
posted on 14 Sep 2008Ginger Snaps was cool and funny in a dark humor sort of way. Ginger Snaps 2 was not very funny, but had a good story, awesome ending, and was a GOOD movie overall, not just good for indie horror, but actually good. This movie, Ginger Snaps 3 or Ginger Snaps The Beginning, should only be watched to give a fan of the first two films closure. If you like thed first two, watch this. There, you did it, you saw the trilogy. Now go to sleep or listen to some heavy metal. If you didn't see the first two or didn't like them, don't watch this movie. It's not that it's bad. I really liked it, especially the character Rowlands. It's just that it's not as good as the first movie, and no where near as good as the second.
Ravenous Part Deux
posted on 02 Sep 2008I have this theory about sequels that I might have stolen from somewhere that I can't remember... and that is that usually with a trilogy either movies 1 and 2 are good and 3 sucks, or 1 and 3 are good and 2 sucks. An example of the first scenario would be Terminator, example of the second scenario would be Indiana Jones. Ginger Snaps Back, the third installment in the Gingerwolf franchise, puts this series in category 1. Not to say that this movie totally sucks. As far as indie horror goes, it's a fair effort and it has its moments. But at the end of the day, it winds up feeling like "Ravenous" with werewolves. There's even a Native American guy who spends a lot of time talking about the wendigo myth in this one. I deduct points for a lack of originality.
Like the Sequel, this Prequel Stands on Its Own (minor plot spoilers)
posted on 05 Aug 2008While most trilogies are comprised of films with similar feels and photography, the Ginger Snaps series features three very different films. This is an enjoyable change from the mold; the viewer gets to enjoy the continued adventures of characters s/her enjoys with the benefit of experiencing something new."Ginger Snaps Back" (GSB) was not only a clever way to keep the series going, it also gave the cast and crew the opportunity to combine the best elements of the two previous films. Personally, I liked "Ginger Snaps: Unleashed" better than the first film because of the underdog character of Brigitte drove the action of the film (I have a soft spot for second bananas). Brigitte also drives the main plot points of GSB, but we still see Ginger leading the action as the brash and sassy "red" sister who eventually comes to embrace her lycanthropy. This combination of dual-antagonists works well. Combine that with multiple references to the first two films and the introduction of a mythic component to the series, and GSB is a winner.Some fans were disappointed about the fact that there were some mythic components to GSB. The first two films portray lycanthropy as a scientific/medical condition. What fans don't seem to realize is that GSB does this as well; the Hunter and the Seer merely speak of the legend of the wendigo that the white man brought with him from oversees. The added aspect of the legend of the "two sisters, one black and one red" is more of a meta component of the film -- that is not an attempt to explain lycanthropy, it's an attempt to explain the series -- a post modern move on the part of the writer.Fans also complain that the sisters do not share the dark, death obsessed bond they have in the first film. Again, I disagree. Both sisters have secrets about their parents death and an extremely close bond. There darkness was accentuated in different ways from the first film; after all, there were no disposable cameras and slide shows in the 19th century.My only complaint about GSB is that, at times, the dialog is rather anachronistic. Yet for the most part the cast does a believable job. Also, it was wise that the director chose not to go the route of 19th century-speaking; that would cut off the audience's main point of entry to the film.Overall, GSB is a great ending to a great trilogy. For successful conclusions rarely wrap up a series, they often make you rethink the previous films and the canon or continuity of the characters.
An Usual Direction For Part Three in the Series...
posted on 10 Aug 2009After parts one and two of "Ginger Snaps" being so powerful, one would assume part three would continue the story where the second one left off. Particularly since the door was left wide open for another plot. But no, they have steered this boat in another direction entirely.In Canada in the early 1800s, Bridget and Ginger Fitzgerald (but not the same two, just two ancestors with the same names who look identical) take refuge in a trading post where a werewolf is loose. As the traders die one by one, suspicion turns to the girls.This film is very confusing because there seems no point in its being made, when they could have made the same story without the Fitzgerald sisters. And by using them, I am left wondering how these girls are the ancestors since they would lose the surname upon marriage. But perhaps I think too much.The sexiness is toned down in this third installment, but they do not spare the gore. We see the aftermath of a bear trap, jars of leeches and one of the most deformed wolf creatures ever imagined. So what we're lacking in a consistent plot we almost make up for with consistent creativity.I would recommend this film, though there is no point in watching it with the other two. It gains nothing from them, and they gain nothing from this. I would almost compare this to the "Halloween" movie with the poisoned candy, except that had even less to do with Michael Myers than this has to do with Ginger Fitzgerald... all in all, this one's still better than much or all of the modern new release horror you're find on the straight-to-video shelf.