Ginger Snaps

Film

Horror films

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>3</span>/5
Rate this
 

Time Out says

Vampires, zombies and cat people may have their feminine side, but werewolves are almost always male. So when 16-year-old late-developer Ginger Fitzgerald starts experiencing heavy shit a couple of days after a hairy encounter with a savage dog, she automatically assumes it's related to menstruation. But her kid sister Brigitte realises the true nature of Ginger's lunar cycle, aghast as her former best friend in the whole world starts running wild with boys, staying out all night and leaving a trail of blood behind her. The film uncovers virgin territory in a genre we all thought had been flogged to death. It begins by establishing a bummed-out mood of suburban teen disaffection: Bailey Downs is a torpidly nondescript north American burg, hardly flattered by Fawcett's forceful low budget handiwork. Just as the Fitzgerald sisters get their kicks by photographing each other in staged suicide scenes, the movie gives off an exploitation movie buzz belied by its obvious intelligence. From Brigitte's 15-year-old perspective, lycanthropy is just a more extreme example of the gross hormonal hula hoops adolescence has in store; for Ginger, it's confusing - she feels she's grown a tail between her legs - but also liberating: 'I've got this ache, and I thought it was for sex, but it's to tear everything to fucking pieces.' With a trio of strong female performances (Isabelle is Ginger, Perkins her sister, Rogers her mom) and enough suspense to camouflage some dodgy special effects, this isn't just a good horror movie, it's a good movie. Period.
0

Reviews

Add +

Release details

UK release:

2000

Duration:

104 mins

Users say

0
<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>0</span>/5

Average User Rating

5 / 5

Rating Breakdown

  • 5 star:1
  • 4 star:0
  • 3 star:0
  • 2 star:0
  • 1 star:0
LiveReviews|4
1 person listening
Ursule

And that's supposed to be a good movie? It trudges at a painfully slow pace from a gratingly laborious scene to the next one, depicts two hopelessly neurotic girls - not to mention their psychologically impaired mother - who find it funny (well, not even. It just eases their existential boredom) to stage violent demises for themselves. One century ago, they would both have been locked in a loony bin. Today, that they should pass for normal says heaps about the society we (try to) live in. Every bloody scene is splattered (or caked, depending on the mood of the director) with, precisely, blood. Some have made this movie into a feminist manifesto of sorts... Well, if girls (or feminists) are supposed to be like that, I don't want to be either a feminist, or a girl at all. Let me get this straight: women who become movie monsters = feminist movie. It's a joke, right ? Right ?

Ursule

And that's supposed to be a good movie? It trudges at a painfully slow pace from a gratingly laborious scene to the next one, depicts two hopelessly neurotic girls - not to mention their psychologically impaired mother - who find it funny (well, not even. It just eases their existential boredom) to stage violent demises for themselves. One century ago, they would both have been locked in a loony bin. Today, that they should pass for normal says heaps about the society we (try to) live in. Every bloody scene is splattered (or caked, depending on the mood of the director) with, precisely, blood. Some have made this movie into a feminist manifesto of sorts... Well, if girls (or feminists) are supposed to be like that, I don't want to be either a feminist, or a girl at all. Let me get this straight: women who become movie monsters = feminist movie. It's a joke, right ? Right ?

Alexander Cross

Yet more proof that large budgets do not mean better films. That CGI is not only unconvincing, but also rather dull by comparison with real stunts, in camera effects,costume,make up, and especially good writing. This little seen Canadian horror film is probably the best in horror of its decade. Should have made huge careers for director Fawcett, writer Walton, and turned Emily Perkins into a household name...its that good. It didn't do any of those things of course, but it is out there waiting to be seen. Shot on a budget of pocket change and hope this is a great little film.

Alexander Cross

Yet more proof that large budgets do not mean better films. That CGI is not only unconvincing, but also rather dull by comparison with real stunts, in camera effects,costume,make up, and especially good writing. This little seen Canadian horror film is probably the best in horror of its decade. Should have made huge careers for director Fawcett, writer Walton, and turned Emily Perkins into a household name...its that good. It didn't do any of those things of course, but it is out there waiting to be seen. Shot on a budget of pocket change and hope this is a great little film.