I love this movie so much

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Best movie of this year hands down!

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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.

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.

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, etc.

I haven't seen the first two films in this series, but that is unimportant as this third film takes place 200 years before the first one.I am always drawn to films about werewolves and vampires. The shapeshifters have always intrigued me and the overt sensuality of the films is a plus. I say sensuality, as there is not sexuality in the roles of the two sisters, Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and Brigette (Emily Perkins). They just exude sensuality in their every move and manner of dress.Other than the two stars, and some Native American legend, this is pretty much just the same werewolf film you have ever seen in a different package.I am now ready to watch the first two.