An American Werewolf in Paris (1997) User Reviews

Can someone pls tell me how Andy escaped from the morgue? Nonetheless this movie shows the best way to remain calm.

[Fella_shibby · 6/10 · 7 May 2021]

I first saw this in the early 2k on a dvd which I own.

Revisited it recently.

This second installment is about Sérafine (Julie Delpy), daughter of David Kessler and Alex Price from the first part, staying in Paris with her stepfather who is on the verge of developing a cure for stopping the transformation of Sérafine. The cure has the opposite effect as it forces werewolves to immediately transform into their beast form which made Sérafine kill her mother n injure her stepfather.

I liked the movie when i first saw but aft revisiting it, i didn't enjoy it.

The effects are too cartoonish n the werewolves look more like demons with bad cgi.

Most of the creature mayhem scenes are shot in flickering lights n there ain't any good transformation scene or gory moment.

Nonetheless the beautiful Julie Delpy's nudity will calm all viewers.

The dvd which i own has the ending of Andy visiting Serafine at a hospital, where she has given birth to a child, whose eyes shift to look like the werewolves.

The version i saw recently has another ending where the couple are shown getting married on The Statue of Liberty n they both jump for an adrenaline rush cos the cure is adrenaline, which stops the transformation.

So what next? "An American Werewolf in Athens"?

[lee_eisenberg · 6/10 · 15 August 2006]

OK, so I don't know why they decided to make another movie about a Yankee college student going to a European capital and becoming a lycanthrope. But still, "An American Werewolf in Paris" definitely has its moments. Some scenes were no doubt thrown in for comic relief, like "You can't just pop up and tell me what to do." I agree with a previous reviewer that people who slam this movie are comparing it too much to "An American Werewolf in London". Maybe there's a slight feeling of that one, but you have to take this one as something new - and rather campy - to really enjoy it. Tom Everett Scott and Julie Delpy do a pretty cool job. But either way, I think that I've had my fill of movies about US citizens becoming lycanthropes in the Old Continent.

So what do YOU plan to do the next time that there's a full moon?

Retrogade Werewolf Movie

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 3 August 2005]

I can't honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of John Landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . I suppose you can't really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in London: An American tourist visits a famous European capital , he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague , he embarks ( Pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession , he turns into a werewolf , he's visited by apparitions of his dead victims , etc etc . and reading the previous line I've just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . The difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the Landis movie is

With this Paris based movie there's no scenes that really stand out . There's no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he's going to get back home with no money or clothes , there's no bizarre dream sequence of Naziwerewolves and there's no spectacular climax . AAWIP does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour ? I'm thinking of the scene where Andy McDermott has to convince someone he's got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there's no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . You really do feel sorry for the protagonist's fate and dilemma in the London movie , here you just feel Andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . There's also a large number of plot holes visible . Is this the first time The Lunar Club have carried out a massacre ? If not then aren't large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world's press ? Why haven't the police got leads ?

Everyone else has mentioned it and so will I - The visuals are poor . Look at the bungee jumping scene at The Eifell Tower , it's painfully obvious that it's achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish CGI . I won't put Anthony Waller in the same bracket as Stephen Sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on CGI ( The major problem with AAWIP is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but I would have preferred the Rick Baker type special effects used for the transformation . To be fair it's reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far . But at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that didn't need to be made and DOG SOLDIERS is much better entertainment

Not a sequel – more a cash-in title

[bob the moo · 28 January 2002]

When a trio of American teens travel to Paris for a daredevil challenge they decide to bungee jump off the Eiffel Tower. During the jump Andy manages to save the life of a girl attempting suicide. However when he later tries to find her again he finds that she has something to hide. When he and his friends attend a party held by friends for hers they find they are trapped by werewolves. Andy gets bitten and becomes part of a world he wants no part of.

This is a belated sequel to the 1980's classic `American Werewolf in London' and indeed it tries very hard to be just like it - the corpse black humour, the dreams within dreams sequences etc. However the story is different as it introduces a wider werewolf conspiracy idea to the plot. It actually works quite well - it's not better than many other creature features but it works OK.

The main problem with it is that it is very much another teen horror movie - with a stupid rock soundtrack, valley girl style humour and dumb spectacle. It lacks the original's black humour and it isn't anywhere near as tense as `London'. The special effects are totally CGI and they don't work as well as `London's' - it all looks too computerised, and seeing everything takes the scare factor out of it.

In fairness when you look at it as a stand-alone film it's not so bad even though it doesn't stand out from other teenage horror movies. But a sequel to `London'? - sorry but it's not a great addition to that piece of work. Tom Everett Scott looks like he's stepped out of American Pie into a horror movie! He's OK but he doesn't compare with Dunne all those years ago. Julie Delphy is actually quite good - she doesn't have much of a character but she carries herself well. The other characters are either rough French skinheads or American teens.

Overall it's entertaining enough - but it pales terribly when compared to the original.

What a train wreck....

[cybercuke · 1/10 · 21 June 2006]

This DVD is missing its calling as a Heineken coaster.... This is a great example of why no one should ever go see a sequel with a different director/writer than the original. Two hours of this turkey left me begging for Exorcist 2 reruns.

NO legitimate laughs. NOT ONE decent scare. The script was just a mess and I felt bad for the actors who had to perform it (they must have had sick relatives at home or monster coke habits or something).

The original was a makeup effects landmark. So naturally, the producers of the sequel thought it would be a great idea to to scrap makeup FX and do CG werewolves instead. These CG werewolves had me laughing a lot harder than any of the "comedy". It was just a total miss. If ya want a night's entertainment, go rent the original again. Or go take a film class and make your own horror film. You're bound to do better than these fools did.

An American Viewer in Agony

[utgard14 · 2/10 · 10 August 2014]

Crappy nominal sequel to An American Werewolf in London. It really has nothing to do with that movie besides the similar name and some ripped-off ideas. Pretty shameless cash-grab that thankfully was not well-received. It's a terrible movie with some awful performances, a script I wouldn't wipe my ass with, and some particularly shoddy CGI special effects. Tom Everett Scott has a very unappealing screen presence. I just can't with that guy. Julie Delpy is slumming here but we do get her obligatory topless scene. I don't know the names of the actors playing Scott's buddies. They were generic and forgettable so I won't bother to look them up There's very little time devoted to the werewolves, perhaps due to the poor FX. Most of the time is spent on the lame comedy. Avoid at all costs. A real waste of time.

Drivel. Of no consequence. Avoid

[smellthecult-com-1 · 1/10 · 6 October 2009]

Woeful and unnecessary sequel to a bonafide classic. An American Werewolf in London was, indisputably, a gem of a movie: humorous, demented, with just a dash of romance and so very, very British it made me want to stand up and sing God Save the Queen every time the movie ended. Then came this abomination. You know you are in real trouble when the leads are so utterly unlikeable you are glad when they are slaughtered, and actually start cheering for the lycanthropes. Tell you the truth, folks, I only got about half way through this CGIed travesty before losing the will to live and turning it off. Absolutely pitiful and a putrid waste of anyone's time.

Amusing, Scary But Not 'London'

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 28 February 2006]

I have mixed emotions about this film, especially as it compares to its forerunner,

"An American Werewolf In London." That film had it's funny moments, it was still more of horror tale than anything else. This updated version, now set in Paris, does not have that "edge" at all and simply isn't in the same class....but it does have some good things going for it that the first film did not have and overall it's still fun to watch.

So, "werewolf purists" aside, most of whom think this film is pure garbage compared to the London version, I'll still give it decent marks since I don't care what others think. I liked it even though I agree "London" is better and I prefer that version, too.

The first 30-40 minutes of this movie is strictly played for laughs including a hysterical scene with a "balloon" in a restaurant. It also introduces the lead female character, played by Julie Delpy. I don't see enough of this actress. She doesn't seem to make that many films, or least ones I hear about over here in America. This French actress has a face that is classic beauty, so the film got points for having her in it, and she looks great.

When the horror starts, it can get scary and the special effects are good. I also liked the lack of profanity in this film, unlike the first one: no f-words and no Lord's name in vain - amazing!

However, there are plenty of sexual remarks and there is one scene with a guy running out of bar tied to a cross which was blasphemous to me. The soundtrack is heavy metal which isn't appealing to a middle-aged guy like me, either. This film is geared a lot more toward 20-somethings, if that helps anyone.

It's entertaining.....just don't expect it to live up to the first film.

So bad it you can't even laugh about it.

[brothl · 1/10 · 2 October 1998]

One of two movies I have actually thought about asking for money to stay until the end. Most movies have at least one thing that is worth staying for, even if it just to laugh at how bad it is. I never found it for this movie. Nothing was good, from the script, to the very bad effects. The worst movie I have ever seen.

Good but not as good as the first

[buddhadan-1 · 6/10 · 20 September 2006]

Well, if you've seen this movie and you've never seen the original (American Werewolf in London), either because you've never heard of it, you didn't like this one and felt that the original must have been worse, or you just haven't gotten around to it, see the original.

I know, this review is for this movie, not the original, but I still want to recommend that you see the original as it broke so much ground in the concept of a horror comedy, a genre that has so few movies in it that when a good one is made, it stands out.

OK, now this movie here is still a fun movie and it is in the horror comedy genre, so it's got some work to do if it wants to appeal to any group of people out there.

Yes, there are a bunch of people who love horror movies, and probably even more who love a good comedy, but it's difficult to appease both even when you stick with only one genre, let alone trying to find an audience for one that mixes two that are not typically put together.

This movie has some pretty darn good special effects, an actual plot, pretty good acting overall, some interesting settings for their scenes, a little nudity, some blatant humor (things like site gags and one liners) and even some subtle humor that is more biting than outright humor, and it even has (for those who care) a little nudity.

The action scenes are pretty dang fun if not a little gory, and a few surprises for those who enjoy those as well.

See the original if you are only going to see one, but otherwise, see both.

Tries to be a horror and a comedy, but succeeds at neither sadly

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 27 January 2011]

I say this with a heavy heart. An American Werewolf in London is a brilliant film and one of John Landis's best. But An American Werewolf in Paris has none or little of the charm, heart and atmosphere that made London so good. It certainly didn't feel like a sequel, as has been perfectly summed up already if anything it's more of a film with a cash-in title.

Are there any redeeming qualities? Yes. Julie Bowen and especially Julie Delpy are a welcome presence and give good performances. For me all the other performances were bland. Also it does begin well, but sadly that's about it.

Anthony Waller's direction is uninspired, with the exception of some decent shots something is lost in translation and I can't point my finger on it at the moment. The effects are low-key but the movie is very effects heavy, now I don't mind this, but the effects for me didn't do much to enhance and some of the more advanced visuals jarred. The story is messy and lacks the fairy-tale quality of An American Werewolf in London, the soundtrack doesn't fit with the movie at all and the script is pretty dire complete with sluggish pacing and characters that I didn't care anything for apart from Delpy's perhaps. An American Werewolf in Paris tries to be a horror and a comedy, but it succeeds at neither, the comedy is wretched in my opinion and the scary elements are more laughable(apart from the occasional jump) than shocking.

Overall, a big disappointment. 3/10 Bethany Cox

amazing

[rccl · 10/10 · 4 May 1999]

I've seen this movie several times, and I just can't get enough. Every time I see it, I discover some new detail that I enjoy more and more each time.

It combines a tasteful comedy, with a sublime horror. The actors all seem right to their parts, and it bring freshness to werewolf movies, it's not just the killing, it's truly amazing.

Fun, fun, fun.

[angelboy-2 · 7/10 · 14 February 2000]

I loved this movie, although it seems that many people hated it. Do they realise this is an obvious spoof? Yes the special effects were dodgy, yes the acting was laughable, that was the point! This movie is similar in style to starship troopers, not as good though. Lighten up and you'll enjoy this b-grade spoof on horror flicks.

Worst I've seen in years.

[Tirdun · 1/10 · 7 February 2001]

I had been a huge fan of the original "American werewolf in London" and, while I had no real hopes this would be as good as that one (which was just funny good, not really good), I had hoped to be entertained. I was not. Aside from some physics bending during a bungie jump scene, a really weak plot and some really stupid characters, the movie just went nowhere. I've watched training videos that were more fun to watch than this mess.

Don't Look at it as a Sequel

[BaronBl00d · 8 July 2004]

As a sequel to An American Werewolf in London, this film is sure to disappoint many. It certainly doesn't have the talent that was involved on that one. No John Landis. No David Naughton. No Jenny Agutter and other more-than-competent actors. No Rick Baker and dazzling, innovative special effects. I could go on...and on. But if one distances themselves from seeing this film as a sequel(and really it is not a sequel at all...it doesn't have any of the same characters from the first film), this film is not that bad on its own. Sure it is relying on your memories of the London film to get fannies in the seats. Yep, it uses the same character TYPES and situations(dead victims talking and being funny comes to mind quickly). Other than that and the fact that werewolves are involved(and a romance of course), I found few other similarities. This film is definitely going for more laughs and takes itself even far less serious than An American Werewolf in London. The leads...Scott and Delpy are pretty good. The rest of the actors are pretty good too, with Julie Bowen as a slutty American and the guy playing Claude particularly good. I also loved all the French police and the gentle humour inherent in every line they said. The script has some genuine scares laced throughout the picture but always comes back to the humour. French werewolves enjoying feasting on Americans was a particular funny storyline. Director Anthony Waller creates a fast-paced film with some excellent sequences interspersed with some sophomoric plot strands. By no means is this a great film, or even a great horror film/spoof, but it is a film that should grab and hold your attention. Make you jump a few times and laugh out loud now and then.

The Big Rip-off

[Dierk · 1/10 · 9 February 2002]

Well, what can be said about a "horror comedy" that features neither horror nor comedy? There are no characters in the film, but much too many plot lines - all underdeveloped and mostly superfluous.

The computer generated creatures look bad, a bit like Disney versions of oversized rats without a tail. The walking dead are the biggest rip-off apart from the title, the shall look like the dead in Landis' movie, but are far removed. They just look like bad actors with abit of plastic and bull's blood added.

Two plot lines really showed some promise (the love story and the "company" story), but failed as miserably as the director, the writers, the SFX department, the production and the actors.

Could be the Worst Film I Have Ever Seen

[moviewizguy · 1/10 · 3 June 2007]

The daughter of the werewolf from AWIL is alive and living in Paris where her mother and stepfather are trying to overcome her lycanthropic disease. A trio of American tourists on a thrill seeking trip around Europe manage to stop her from plunging to her death from the top of the Eiffel tower and are embroiled in a horrific but often hilarious plot involving a secret society of werewolves based in the city and a drug which allows werewolves to change at any time... This time there's no need for a full moon...

This film is so bad, it could be the worst film I've ever seen. The characters in the film are very dumb, we don't even care about them, and seem to have fun making the movie instead of making a good horror film.

There are so many horror clichés in this film, but I think they were trying to make fun of them. This film relies on humor more than making a scary film. And for the funny scenes, I did not believe it one second. I thought they were trying to make a horrible film on purpose! And in this horror film, it has violence, gore, and tons of sex scenes (AKA a lot of nudity). That's probably the lines for a horror movie. The sex scenes comes out of nowhere, like the director told the actors to perform them because of the line "sex sells".

All of the acting in the film are horrible. The CGI was mediocre. I really didn't like that that much either. Well, here are some good things in the film: The last 10 or so minutes in the film have some horror elements. It's more like a creature fight between two werewolves.

If you would like to see a horror film, STAY AWAY from this one. I think people who love this movie are so dumb. Maybe they've seen another film. This is one of the worst movies ever with everything bad in it and characters who don't even know they are in a werewolf film.

Dumb and Unnecessary

[davitalvitch · 2/10 · 16 January 2006]

It took me nine years to finally see this film. Back in 1997 it sounded like a dreadful idea. However, now, with a Blockbuster Video movie pass, I can take chances on certain films without actually having to 'pay' for them.

It's a dumb film. What made "American Werewolf in London" work was it was more of a serious film than a comedy, and the comedy was wonderfully dark, which added well to the horror element. "Paris" seems aimed toward attention-deficit teenagers, though it's rated R. The lead character is too goony to be of much interest or to be taken seriously, plus he'd have been killed in his early-on rescue scene; therefore, the film doesn't even try to make the unrealistic set-up seem realistic. (You can't buy into a drama or horror film if the film doesn't strive to be true in its own world.) CGI werewolves aren't scary. "London" has outdated effects, of course, but they're still wonderful to watch for the audience is being treated to a painful and prolonged transformation. A real-seeming, nice guy -- not some bland goofball -- is going through something horrific, and the special effects strive for realism and therefore one can buy into the transformation, all the while knowing it's not real. Turning an actor into a cartoon werewolf is not engaging and therefore there's nothing to buy into.

The ending is one one of those "ha-ha" wrap-things-up-in-a-bow scenes that plagued so many horror/suspense films of the 90s, such as the also-unnecessary "The Vanishing", a weak remake of a gut-wrenching Dutch film.

Just Fine

[brooks0591 · 7/10 · 11 January 2019]

This movie wasn't bad to me , maybe because I like werewolf movies, and the werewolves looked fine to me , not as good as werewolf in London but it's worth watching.

An American Debacle in Peril

[fatleprechan · 3/10 · 19 June 2005]

Once upon a time there was a great American film. Which combined horror and comedy with equal thrills. This film featured clever direction. Groundbreaking special effects and superb comedic and serious acting. It was entitled 'An American Werewolf in London.' Sixteen years later the long awaited sequel was finally pinned onto the poster board outside your local theater. Surely it would have at least some of the thrills of the original. Think again. 'An American Werewolf in Paris' is an incomprehensible mess from start to pitiful finish. The problems begin with the leading man. Tom Everett Scott's performance is stiff and tiresome. From the outset he seems intent on proving that all young people are simpletons. In his defense, not even a seasoned Shakespearean thespian could have extracted a good performance from the juvenile and witless dialogue. At one point, one of Scott's deceased friends, who's soul is doomed to walk the Earth after being carved up by one of the werewolves, Is finally able to leave for the afterlife. He then quips to Scott and his friends. 'Okay guys, see ya.' What a memorable goodbye. Julie Delphy soon shows up as Scott's mysterious European love interest. Basically, she's a French girl playing the French girl. It isn't much of a stretch. But all this stupidity isn't even the most disappointing thing about the film. The special effects, such an integral part of the superb original film, fall far short in this flop. The werewolves look like cartoons. And no matter how well you sculpt a cartoon with sinewy lycanthrope muscles. It's still hard to get scared of a cartoon. So instead the vacationing American gang, led by the ultra weak Scott, keep finding excuses to return to the werewolf's catacombs lair. Here it's much easier for this incompetent special effects crew to keep the computer enhanced creatures or absurd beast masks under the cover of darkness. Some have said that if you don't look on this film as a sequel it's not as bad by comparison. I disagree, this film can not stand on its own, and is even more of a disgrace when compared to the brilliant original. If it doesn't want to be looked on as a sequel it should not have borrowed most of the title from the 1981 film. I , don't care how much you love werewolves. Or how much you worshiped 'American Werewolf in London.' as I myself did. This one is simply not worth wasting your time. 'Okay guys, see ya.' Terrible. 3 out of a possible 10 T.H.

Not as bad as it could have been...

[lenscap · 6/10 · 22 October 1998]

This movie was not a terrible successor to the 1981 classic An American Werewolf in London. There are ways in which it could have been worse. The possibility that Seraphine could have been David's (the werewolf in the original) daughter was presented in a rumor mill while the film was still in post, the idea turned my stomach. Thankfully, they took it in a different direction. The humor is good, the special effects are somewhat lacking, but overall the idea was a great one. Fans of the original shouldn't be mad, the two films stand on their own, as separate entities. Will they make another? The question is already being tossed about, I hear.

Kill it!! Kill it with fire!!!

[limeyabroad · 1/10 · 6 October 2013]

I only wish there was a 0/10 option. It is difficult to comprehend just how bad this movie was. Not merely bad as a sequel to a classic - just plain bad.

The actors have zero charisma. Tom Everett Scott has thankfully faded into obscurity and Julie Delpy...well, she must have improved as she has forged a successful career in European art-house romantic dramas.

The transformation scenes are just...just so bad. Again, not even comparing them to Rick Bakers masterpiece, just to any werewolf movie. The Wolfman (1941) had a better transformation.

The CGI werewolves look about half as scary as Sully in Monsters Inc.

The plot and screenplay is lazy. It takes about half of the ideas from the original and redoes them - badly. The rest of the plot was, I would have to guess, written by someone who really hated his job.

The comedy - the only stuff that works is the idea lifted from 'London' - namely the victims haunting the werewolf.

The scares - um, someone forgot to add them into the movie. The scariest thing is that this abomination saw the light of day.

Sequel elements - The love interest is the daughter of David and Alex from the first movie (Alex played in this movie by someone other than Jenny Agutter).

In trying to steer others away from this garbage, I feel I have balanced out all of the bad things I have ever done in my 36 years.

In closing, I would rather get a prostate exam from Freddy Krueger than have to sit through this steaming pile ever again.

A BETTER WEREWOLF MOVIE THAN THE CRITICS SAY

[xbrad68 · 10/10 · 19 June 2004]

AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN PARIS is capably directed by ANTHONY WALLER. The Director manages to keep the dark scenes visible in the film which is not easy to do. TOM EVERETT SCOTT as Andy McDERMOTT and his buddy Brad are vacationing in Paris France and decide to go bungee jumping off the eiffel tower which is illegal and not a good idea. There they meet Julie DELPY as Serafine Pigot who is about to jump from the Eiffel tower. Andy saves Serafine but bumps his head. Later they find Serafines address and go to her house. They are not given a warm reception but are invited to a werewolf bar. At the bar werewolves attack and Brad is killed. Andy is bitten and serafine who has locked herself in the basement tells Andy he will become a werewolf. JULIE DELPY is a really great actress and has no trouble with her role. The love affair between Andy and Serafine is believable. In the inevitable showdown try to think of the battle as a training exercise between American and French intelligence agents that is nonviolent. I liked AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON better than this sequel but I still gave the movie a 10 out of 10. Maybe AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN BEIJING is next in the trilogy

Quite enjoyable.

[svangimst · 7/10 · 6 February 2019]

Luckily the makers of this movie went with a different point of view altogether. Genuinely funny although the end could have been a bit better. Don't judge this movie to harshly. It's not to be compared with its predecessor but why should you. Quite enjoyable.

A bit of fun ... but nothing compared to the original.

[Teknofobe70 · 5/10 · 6 April 2005]

We open in Paris ... the camera pans over the Gothic arches as atmospheric, haunting choir music plays in the background. A man dressed in a lab coat bursts out of the sewers pursued by someone or something. He calls out to a nearby taxi, but as he flees towards it some kind of beast leaps out from a nearby grate, grabs him, and drags him down into the sewers to meet his gruesome fate. Yum. Nice opening.

The general rule of sequels made this long after the original is that they're just cashing on the success of the others, and they really ain't good. Look at The Godfather III or the Star Wars prequels as the best examples. But is this one going to break the mould? An American jock called Andy McDermott is on a 'daredevil' tour of Europe with three friends. He decides he's going to bungee jump off the Eiffel tower for a stunt, but there he meets a girl named Serafine who is committing suicide, and he rescues her with the help of his bungee cord in a pretty neat sequence. As it turns out, this girl is the product of that steamy little shower scene in the original movie and has inherited some of her fathers traits. The title is probably the smartest thing about this movie. It is of course a reference to the original, but also it references the 1951 Gene Kelly classic "An American in Paris". Smart. If only good titles made good films, they'd be sorted.

As a result of all this stuff I mentioned so far, I do enjoy this movie more than I like to admit. But unfortunately, I think that's pretty much all the original ideas that this movie has. After that we're left with basically a teen comedy, with no real horror scenes, plenty of boredom and no sense of continuity. D'oh! There's not a whole lot of respect for the original either. For example, in the original the victims of th e werewolf remained in limbo until the wolfs bloodline was severed. Here, all they need is for the one werewolf who killed them to die. Hmm.

It's a real shame, because the seeds were all here for a good sequel, aside from that terrible decision to use completely CGI werewolves (what were they thinking???). The cast are all pretty decent ... Tom Everett Scott was actually an okay choice for the lead in my opinion, as he does remind me of David Naughton sometimes. Julie Delpy is always great as the mysterious female character, a lot like Emmanuelle Seigner in The Ninth Gate.

An American Werewolf in Paris does have it's moments, certainly, but it could have been a whole lot better.