As a huge fan of the original Urban Legend, this film is an embarrassment to share the same title
You've must've seen "Urban Legend" at a key point when you were young because it's not that significant of a slasher movie. While it's a slickly-made and entertaining late 90's slasher with a stellar cast, it's also hackneyed, cartoony, contrived, over-the-top and unbelievable; the revelation of the killer in the last act is particularly roll-your-eyes, not to mention Rebecca's campy crazy-girl acting. It's also not scary. But, like I said, it's amusing and polished; and there are some thrills. I also like the NE locations (Toronto area). Alicia Witt plays a strong heroine and it's inexplicable that she didn't become more popular, although she's had steady work ever since.
In any case, you might be viewing it through a nostalgic lens.
The plot was contrived, copy and pasted from Prom Night II.
Like the plot of "Final Cut" wasn't cut & pasted from the first movie? Like both of those movies weren't cut & pasted from a gazillion other slasher flicks?
Besides, the way Mary dies in "Bloody Mary" is different than in "Prom Night II." Plus the trunk in the latter film only held the girl's prom accessories, not her body. Furthermore, "Prom Night II" contains religious elements and bodily possession. "Bloody Mary" has neither, so it's not quite as cut & pasted as you claim.
the CGI was tragic. It bothered me more they relied on CGI since the past 2 movies were pure slashers. Even the scenes that were supposed to be terrifying like the spider and bloody mary herself just weren't.
The special effects weren't
that bad, particularly considering the film is a decade old now and, being direct-to-video, had a lower budget than the first two movies. They did a good job considering the funds available.
The "people can lick too" legend was so badly executed it was almost a parody.
It was probably the least of the death sequences in the movie, but the "people can lick too" legend ties into the urban legends discussed in the other two films (I think more so the second one), but in this film they actually
depict it. As far as parody goes, the first film was at times so cartoony and over-the-top that it was literally funny (and definitely not scary, although sometimes thrilling). "Bloody Mary" is less cartoony and generally more serious. It also has more memorable deaths than the first two movies, with Mary's horrifying death in the trunk at the top of the list, followed by the excellent tanning bed sequence, the spiders episode and even the electric fence.
Kate Mara's acting was beyond wooden that at times it felt like she was deliberately acting awful knowing this movie would go nowhere but straight to the dvd bin.
Like someone would intentionally ruin their career through a lousy performance. Kate may not have been as good as Alicia Witt or Jennifer Morrison as the female protagonist, but she was effective enough. It's really just a matter of taste as to which one you prefer.
the UL series is about killers recreating popular urban legends to savagely murder teenagers. It's not a series about disgruntled ghosts seeking revenge on the children of the seniors who murdered them. This was basically Nightmare on Elm St: Bloody Mary, not Urban Legends 3
The first two movies dealt with mad killers imitating urban legends. The filmmakers could've gone the same route with "Bloody Mary," but they understandably felt it would've been redundant and so they shook up the formula a bit with the addition of the ghost plot while still keeping the urban legends theme. They also stirred things up by changing the location from a university in the NE to a high school and surrounding neighborhoods in Salt Lake City. Different is good. We already have the first two films, why make another one just like 'em? It would be redundant.
Urban Legends 2 gets a lot of hate but it was way more enjoyable than this
I like the first two films and they're both more polished than "Bloody Mary" because they had bigger budgets, but "Bloody Mary" is worthwhile for the strengths listed, plus it has that notable scene with Audra Lea Keener and, to a lesser extent, the one with Olesya Rulin, both of which beat any similar scenes in the other two movies.
"Bloody Mary" isn't that bad of an installment in the series and has its strong points. Yes, the ending is flawed, but so were the endings of the other two. Give it a fresh viewing sometime; it's a worthwhile sequel and on par with the others, albeit different. In some ways it's even better.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
reply
share
misbegotten
8 years ago
Maybe Mary Lambert or the screenwriters missed the memo, but the UL series is about killers recreating popular urban legends to savagely murder teenagers. It's not a series about disgruntled ghosts seeking revenge on the children of the seniors who murdered them.
All the popular urban legends that could conceivably be recreated by a serial killer had practically all been used by the first two movies. In order to portray other well-known legends - such as hordes of spiders erupting from a spot - a supernatural approach had to be taken.
Also, the
Urban Legends films were always a response to then-current horror movie trends. The first two films jumped on the post-
Scream bandwagon, but when
Urban Legends: Bloody Mary came around, J Horror movies such as
The Ring and
The Grudge were starting to make waves (
Bloody Mary was made before the American remakes of those two aforementioned films). Hence the appearance of a vengeful, long-haired female ghost as the villain.
http://hexfan.proboards.com/
reply
share