"Mirror, Mirror III: The Voyeur" follows an artist with a ghostly woman/ lover stalking him after he relocates to a mansion where a mysterious antique mirror is housed. She randomly appears to him and they have sex in front of the mirror, which bleeds whenever she kills someone. A subplot detailing her death at the hands of a drug dealer is intermixed.
That's the best I have at describing the plot of the film, and even that may be totally off-base. The truth is, there is not much of a decipherable plot to this film, and I say that completely ingenuously. There really is no "story" to "Mirror, Mirror III"; it is more like a series of badly-shot "shock" images peppered within a Cinemax soft-core porno—no story, no intrigue, no subtlety. I don't really know what it was about, except that the majority of it was made up of tacky sex scenes and bad dialogue.
The editing and special effects are horrendously sloppy; for example, there is a long, drawn-out opening montage featuring FX-enhanced images of a car speeding through Los Angeles that attempt to thrust a backstory at the audience before the exposition has even begun (there isn't any exposition after all I suppose, so it ultimately makes no difference). At moments, the filmmakers seem to attempting to channel David Lynch, but the result is embarrassingly bad. Billy Drago spends most of his time on screen moping around a bedroom when he's not having sex with Monique Parent on the bed while curtains flap around them in the wind. The only honest-to-God reason I finished the film was because Mark Ruffalo (who was also in an unconnected role in the previous sequel) was infectiously adorable in it, as well as the only actor to turn in a somewhat solid performance.
Overall, "Mirror, Mirror III: The Voyeur" is an unequivocally bad film—like, really bad—and I rarely say that about a movie. It is some of the laziest filmmaking I've ever seen, and also a disgrace to the original "Mirror, Mirror," which, although no masterpiece, was a decent horror movie. Even the prior installment, which was bad for other reasons, was ten times more watchable than this. Literally one of the most dumbfounding experiences I've had watching a movie. Monique Parent spends virtually the entire film naked, so there's that, and Ruffalo also shows his body off at the end, serving as proof that he's always looked great. Other than that, there is no reason to watch this film—intellectually, visually, or otherwise. 2/10.
That's the best I have at describing the plot of the film, and even that may be totally off-base. The truth is, there is not much of a decipherable plot to this film, and I say that completely ingenuously. There really is no "story" to "Mirror, Mirror III"; it is more like a series of badly-shot "shock" images peppered within a Cinemax soft-core porno—no story, no intrigue, no subtlety. I don't really know what it was about, except that the majority of it was made up of tacky sex scenes and bad dialogue.
The editing and special effects are horrendously sloppy; for example, there is a long, drawn-out opening montage featuring FX-enhanced images of a car speeding through Los Angeles that attempt to thrust a backstory at the audience before the exposition has even begun (there isn't any exposition after all I suppose, so it ultimately makes no difference). At moments, the filmmakers seem to attempting to channel David Lynch, but the result is embarrassingly bad. Billy Drago spends most of his time on screen moping around a bedroom when he's not having sex with Monique Parent on the bed while curtains flap around them in the wind. The only honest-to-God reason I finished the film was because Mark Ruffalo (who was also in an unconnected role in the previous sequel) was infectiously adorable in it, as well as the only actor to turn in a somewhat solid performance.
Overall, "Mirror, Mirror III: The Voyeur" is an unequivocally bad film—like, really bad—and I rarely say that about a movie. It is some of the laziest filmmaking I've ever seen, and also a disgrace to the original "Mirror, Mirror," which, although no masterpiece, was a decent horror movie. Even the prior installment, which was bad for other reasons, was ten times more watchable than this. Literally one of the most dumbfounding experiences I've had watching a movie. Monique Parent spends virtually the entire film naked, so there's that, and Ruffalo also shows his body off at the end, serving as proof that he's always looked great. Other than that, there is no reason to watch this film—intellectually, visually, or otherwise. 2/10.