The first film, released in 1990, was no great peak of horror, nor storytelling or film-making generally, but it was suitably well made and enjoyable. It also felt a lot like something that could've been easily mistaken for a Charles Band production with the somewhat middling nature of most facets, from basic production values and music to the way that dialogue, scenes, and characters were written. And, well, then one sits to watch the sequel. Let me speak plainly: this immediately comes off as substantially weaker, an inferior revisit of a less than stellar product. There are some recognizable names and faces involved, and we know what they're capable of, but between what was very apparently a modest budget and the seemingly unpracticed skills of some chief figures the end result is tiresomely flimsy right from the start. 'Raven dance' is just sadly just not very good.
While Jimmy Lifton produced the predecessor, this was his first work as a director, and to be frank, it shows. The direction readily comes off as scattered and inconsistent (but mostly just meager). In turn the acting is highly variable in its quality (but mostly just unconvincing); in fairness, I wonder about the skills of some of the actors in the first place. The plot at large feels very forced (and sometimes almost downright incohesive), and the scene writing shares all these mentioned qualities while also often seeming unfinished - part of an idea, but not fully conjured. It goes without saying that all this applies to the dialogue, too, and as an aside, please note a content warning for substantial, ugly ableist language. The pacing was lax in 1990; in 1994 it's rather slothful. 'Mirror mirror II' relies a lot more on post-production effects, and as these evidently received the least portion of those resources available to the feature, they do not come off well.
This was only Mark Ruffalo's first full-length film, but in all honesty even in a supporting part he acts circles around all his co-stars, especially (but definitely not limited to) Veronica Cartwright and Lois Nettleton. To whatever extent Lifton's direction can be faulted for the bad performances, the cast obviously share some responsibility, too. I guess the art direction is easy on the eyes, and the choreography; of all things the cinematography is unexpectedly strong. The costume design, hair, and makeup are nice. But then, Lifton's music is mostly even more bland here than it was the first time around, with only bits and pieces of real flavor. While there may be some good ideas in the screenplay Lifton concocted with Virginia Perfili, they are very few, and quite meek in the first place. And I must repeat that by and large the writing is just feeble, and though I'll grant some allowances based on Lifton's inexperience as a director, there's no getting around how flimsy his work is in that capacity.
The more the plot advances, the more deeply questionable and unbelievable that it is. A moment at the start of the third act, precipitating the remainder and specifically "mirroring" a similar instance from the first movie, is terribly contrived for the fact that there's no build-up to it. It's not even firmly, plausibly established why Marlee and Jeffrey are at the "Catholic orphanage" in the first place when literally no one else is. I guess we're just intended to take all this at face value, but I have a very hard time doing that. And for whatever violence, blood, gore, and otherwise horror the previous title may have offered, it's worth observing that there's just simply less of it in this followup. My expectations were mixed to low when I sat to watch, and still I'm rather confounded by how astonishingly unsteady, languid, and limp this picture is. It doesn't make a good impression at the outset, and it only ever gets worse; I'd say the ending is at least appreciable, except it's unabashedly imitative. Whatever it is you're looking for in 'Mirror mirror II,' I really just don't think you're going to find it, and there are far, far better ways to spend your time.
While Jimmy Lifton produced the predecessor, this was his first work as a director, and to be frank, it shows. The direction readily comes off as scattered and inconsistent (but mostly just meager). In turn the acting is highly variable in its quality (but mostly just unconvincing); in fairness, I wonder about the skills of some of the actors in the first place. The plot at large feels very forced (and sometimes almost downright incohesive), and the scene writing shares all these mentioned qualities while also often seeming unfinished - part of an idea, but not fully conjured. It goes without saying that all this applies to the dialogue, too, and as an aside, please note a content warning for substantial, ugly ableist language. The pacing was lax in 1990; in 1994 it's rather slothful. 'Mirror mirror II' relies a lot more on post-production effects, and as these evidently received the least portion of those resources available to the feature, they do not come off well.
This was only Mark Ruffalo's first full-length film, but in all honesty even in a supporting part he acts circles around all his co-stars, especially (but definitely not limited to) Veronica Cartwright and Lois Nettleton. To whatever extent Lifton's direction can be faulted for the bad performances, the cast obviously share some responsibility, too. I guess the art direction is easy on the eyes, and the choreography; of all things the cinematography is unexpectedly strong. The costume design, hair, and makeup are nice. But then, Lifton's music is mostly even more bland here than it was the first time around, with only bits and pieces of real flavor. While there may be some good ideas in the screenplay Lifton concocted with Virginia Perfili, they are very few, and quite meek in the first place. And I must repeat that by and large the writing is just feeble, and though I'll grant some allowances based on Lifton's inexperience as a director, there's no getting around how flimsy his work is in that capacity.
The more the plot advances, the more deeply questionable and unbelievable that it is. A moment at the start of the third act, precipitating the remainder and specifically "mirroring" a similar instance from the first movie, is terribly contrived for the fact that there's no build-up to it. It's not even firmly, plausibly established why Marlee and Jeffrey are at the "Catholic orphanage" in the first place when literally no one else is. I guess we're just intended to take all this at face value, but I have a very hard time doing that. And for whatever violence, blood, gore, and otherwise horror the previous title may have offered, it's worth observing that there's just simply less of it in this followup. My expectations were mixed to low when I sat to watch, and still I'm rather confounded by how astonishingly unsteady, languid, and limp this picture is. It doesn't make a good impression at the outset, and it only ever gets worse; I'd say the ending is at least appreciable, except it's unabashedly imitative. Whatever it is you're looking for in 'Mirror mirror II,' I really just don't think you're going to find it, and there are far, far better ways to spend your time.