A seventeen-minute prologue, which we are informed took place two months prior, in a second sequel to a second-rate horror film? Sure, why not. Two recognizable stars, one up-and-comer (now more famous than the others), and a relative of an even more famous actor? You bet! Lovingly shot but empty and nevertheless prolific love scenes, acting that is almost uniformly either limp or overdone, dubious sequencing and editing, and dialogue, scene writing, and direction that one could be forgiven for thinking came from the mind of Tommy Wiseau? Check! It really seems from the start that scribe Steve Tymon was straining to summon workable story ideas when all he actually had to do was focus on an evil mirror. Two credited directors were both equally unable to shape this into a cohesive, meaningful, or baseline interesting form, nevermind a tantalizing or exciting one. The music here is even more bland and milquetoast than it was in either of the previous films. I'm supposing it was producer Jimmy Lifton, the common link of these titles, that decided 'Mirror mirror III: The voyeur' was a good idea. Producer Jimmy Lifton, however, was deeply mistaken.
The 1990 progenitor was no peak of horror, nor storytelling or film-making, but it was overall pretty well done and enjoyable. The first sequel, 'Raven dance,' was marked by direly weak writing, direction, and acting, a desperately inferior follow-up to a less than stellar product, but at least it had a cute cat. One tends to assume diminishing returns in movie series, horror above all, and we've seen that trend time and again. This series, however, went from "hey, this is pretty decent" to "by the gods, this is awful" to "bafflingly dull, languid, and useless." In fact, it's readily apparent that this 1995 dud was intended to be and built as an erotic thriller first and foremost, a few hairs shy of softcore, with the genre element mostly represented in the mere presence of a ghost who in life dabbled in magic doodads. It's not until we're almost two-thirds through the length that the mirror even really comes into play, and as it does we're treated to another sore spot in this production, which was absolutely bottom-dollar visual effects. Action sequences are pretty much downright senseless. A more concrete horror aspect does show up in the last third, but it is very thin and insufficient.
The most interesting and clever 'The voyeur' gets is arguably in a short, throwaway scene in which Mark Ruffalo's character is preparing a sandwich, and with the space of a couple minutes the scene makes small references to this picture's predecessors. Those facets of the story centering David Naughton or Richard Cansino's characters are all but completely superfluous. When the horror does show up more firmly n the last stretch it gives a surprising tiny boost to the proceedings, but it's not nearly enough all on its own to count for much in the grand scheme of things. There's some nice lighting, perhaps, and art direction, and practical effects. But what else about this feature comes off well? I'm hard-pressed to name anything. I had low expectations and still I'm flummoxed by how terribly meek this is. That the last act is marginally stronger than the preceding length saves this from the extreme bottom of the barrel, but for as flaccid as the presentation is in almost every single way, the distinction is almost totally meaningless. Whatever it is that you think you might get out of 'Mirror Mirror III,' I regret to inform that you are gravely mistaken, and I urge all potential viewers to more wisely spend their time elsewhere.
The 1990 progenitor was no peak of horror, nor storytelling or film-making, but it was overall pretty well done and enjoyable. The first sequel, 'Raven dance,' was marked by direly weak writing, direction, and acting, a desperately inferior follow-up to a less than stellar product, but at least it had a cute cat. One tends to assume diminishing returns in movie series, horror above all, and we've seen that trend time and again. This series, however, went from "hey, this is pretty decent" to "by the gods, this is awful" to "bafflingly dull, languid, and useless." In fact, it's readily apparent that this 1995 dud was intended to be and built as an erotic thriller first and foremost, a few hairs shy of softcore, with the genre element mostly represented in the mere presence of a ghost who in life dabbled in magic doodads. It's not until we're almost two-thirds through the length that the mirror even really comes into play, and as it does we're treated to another sore spot in this production, which was absolutely bottom-dollar visual effects. Action sequences are pretty much downright senseless. A more concrete horror aspect does show up in the last third, but it is very thin and insufficient.
The most interesting and clever 'The voyeur' gets is arguably in a short, throwaway scene in which Mark Ruffalo's character is preparing a sandwich, and with the space of a couple minutes the scene makes small references to this picture's predecessors. Those facets of the story centering David Naughton or Richard Cansino's characters are all but completely superfluous. When the horror does show up more firmly n the last stretch it gives a surprising tiny boost to the proceedings, but it's not nearly enough all on its own to count for much in the grand scheme of things. There's some nice lighting, perhaps, and art direction, and practical effects. But what else about this feature comes off well? I'm hard-pressed to name anything. I had low expectations and still I'm flummoxed by how terribly meek this is. That the last act is marginally stronger than the preceding length saves this from the extreme bottom of the barrel, but for as flaccid as the presentation is in almost every single way, the distinction is almost totally meaningless. Whatever it is that you think you might get out of 'Mirror Mirror III,' I regret to inform that you are gravely mistaken, and I urge all potential viewers to more wisely spend their time elsewhere.