Ginger Snaps (2000) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Here's another tip for you movie-making youngsters.

Do you want to make a good movie? I advise against werewolves, vampires, and zombies. Francis Ford Coppola has made some of the best movies in history, yet he couldn't make a good vampire flick. So if Coppola couldn't do it, what are your chances?

Actually, genre fans say this is a good one. This particular film is in the "teenage werewolf" sub-genre. For me it was kinda OK, I guess, but represented another long evening.


none. We see a tail hanging out from Katherine Isabelle's underpants.
It features two goth sisters, teenage outsiders with a death obsession. They are 16 and 15, but neither one of them has had her period yet. They make a pact to be united forever, but some things happen to the older sister which start the two of them on the road to splitsville.

1) The older girl gets her period, and starts to like the slimy guys they used to make fun of

oh, and 

2) She turns into a werewolf.

I'm not completely sure why the genre lovers thought this was a cut above the usual. They did try to keep the movie a straightforward teen angst flick, adding the lycanthropy as a backdrop, so that the girl's mutation into a wolf was really just a symbol for her outsider status. And there was some humor, although not nearly enough.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • full screen

  • no features except a trailer

For me, renowned hater of almost all vampire-werewolf-zombie movies, the best element was Mimi Rogers as the comically supportive self-actualizing mother. Mimi is one of those moms who thinks that lycanthropy is just another stage they're going through, and if you've made up your mind that you're going to be a werewolf, dear, you just be the best darn werewolf you can be. 

When dad finds some body parts in the back yard, Mimi says that "it's just one of their little projects". I didn't know that Mimi had such a gift for comedy, but I thought she was terrific.  

The Critics Vote

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 7.2 , Apollo users 85/100
  • With their dollars ... straight to vid in the USA. It had a theatrical release in some European countries. It is a Canadian film
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description ...  I could take it or leave it. I thought it was nothing special, but the reviews and the IMDb scores are excellent, so the right score must be C+.

Return to the Movie House home page