Urban Legends: Final Cut (2000) User Reviews

Mediocre Sequel To A Decent Slasher Movie.

[drownsoda90 · 5/10 · 15 August 2006]

"Urban Legends: Final Cut" is a sequel to the 1998 slasher movie "Urban Legend". The sequel concerns a group of college coeds, primarily lead by aspiring film director Amy Mayfield. Amy is trying to direct a horror film for her latest project, and is striving to be awarded the Hitchock Award from her school. She introduces the idea of a horror film based on urban legends, but after the crew of filmmakers begin to shoot their project, cast and crew members begin to disappear one by one. The more of the film that is shot, the more students begin to die. Who is responsible for the killing? Could it be Travis' twin brother Trevor? Or could it be someone else? Who knows? Who cares?

The original "Urban Legend" wasn't Oscar worthy but it had a semi-original story, some horror clichés tossed in. But for the most part, it was a decent slasher film. This follow-up is nowhere near the first film. The story was somewhat weak, and it was as clichéd as could be - bumps in the dark, eerie shadows, a misrepresenting interlude, and a killer who can appear out of thin air. The ending wasn't as shocking as the filmmakers were expecting it to be, and the little sequence before the credits roll tied this film to the original, but for what purpose? Reese, the female campus security cop from the original, returns in this film as the a new security guard on this campus, and does give a few laughs with her "Foxy Brown" imitations. The Amy character, our leading woman, does make some smart moves in the film, but all of the others make dumb decisions that cost them their lives. The scene that stood out the most of the whole film was the infamous "kidney" scene, which was actually pretty well constructed and was disgusting enough.

Overall, "Urban Legends: Final Cut" isn't anything great. The story wasn't anything we haven't seen before, it's your basic "find out who the killer is" horror movie. It serves well as a gory slasher flick, but there is nothing new that it has to offer and very little surprises at all. Put all that aside, fans of the first movie may want to check this out. But, while the original wasn't great, I can confidently say it was better than the sequel. 5/10.

Campus fun

[asda-man · 6/10 · 17 August 2011]

I'm just a sucker for a slasher! No matter how bad they are I usually enjoy them all even "Halloween: Resurrection" was quite entertaining in my book, although not needed one bit! "Urban Legends" was another slasher I enjoyed and although I know it's nothing special, it's certainly no "Scream", "Urban Legends: Final Cut" tries to enter the "Scream" franchise but just simply doesn't have the same balls "Scream" has.

Nevertheless it was entertaining and thoroughly enjoyable! It starts out a little bit like Wes Craven's "New Nightmare" being set on a film set, (also like "Scream 3"). If you have seen "Urban Legends" then you basically have seen "Urban Legends: Final Cut" because it's more of the same stalk and slash, only this time not all the kills are off-screen! (That really annoyed me in the first one!) It follows the same formula on the set of a top film college. Everyones trying to win the "Hitcock prize" by making low-budget crap and a Kirsten Dunst look-a-like (the real one was too expensive) is going to make a film about a killer basing his murders on urban legends (de ja vu!) Only the film comes to life and someone is killing off her crew.

That's the basic plot, it's simple and everyone can follow it. This is the type of film girls would watch after "Twilight" on a sleepover thinking its a really adult, extreme horror film after being mildly scared by "Twilight". That means that for the rest of us, the scares are minimal and the action is just enjoyable instead of heart-stopping! However, what I did like was the way it used humour.

It was really funny in some places and the black security guard was a hoot baby! So you can't say that this film wasn't fun. What was also fantastic was the ending! I thought I was being very clever in sussing out who the killer was but it took me completely by surprise! "Urban Legends: Final Cut" is a wannabee "Scream" for a more miniature audience (i.e. 12+) it tries to be clever and sometimes it is but it is fun throughout and never dull. Just don't expect an out-of-this-world slasher because you simply aren't going to get it. If you're not expecting much then give it a try. I really enjoyed it.

"Those who can't do, teach"

[SamJamie · 6/10 · 22 April 2021]

A student filmmaker's thesis project encounters production problems when the actors and crew of her film start getting killed by a monstrous force.

Jennifer Morrison stars as Amy Mayfield, a student at a prestigious film school, unsure about what her thesis film is going to be. But after a conversation with security guard Reese Wilson about her experience with a series of murders that had happened on the campus she had previously worked in, she is inspired to make a film about a serial killer murdering in the fashion of urban legends.

I rewatched this on Blu-ray in the new collector's edition trilogy, although I have seen the film in the past. The film is carried by Morrison's gratifying performance, alongside Loretta Davis bringing comic relief to the film. Where the film succeeds is in its classiness as a horror picture, and director John Ottman has proven that he can successfully cross over from being, not only a gifted composer but also a respectable filmmaker. The film embraces the horror genre wholeheartedly and giving us a nail-biting, heart-jolting experience. Where I found the film fell short is the fact it's very keen on keeping the film (mostly) bloodless and a lot of the deaths happen off-screen or cut away just as it happens, although I think the film would've benefitted from more gore and brutality. Which is not something I would normally say. The end of the film wraps up reminiscent of an episode of "Scooby-Doo" with a nice nod to the original courtesy of Rebecca Gayheart. It's a fun watch.

On the Same Level as the Orginal

[MissCzarChasm · 5/10 · 25 November 2001]

Urban Legends: Final Cut starts off on the right note just like the original. It doesn't have horror classic written all over it like the first one did when it began but it still starts off above average. However just like the orignal once the film begins to progress it slowly turns into another crappy slasher film.

The premise uses the whole movie within a movie tie in that is quite frankly getting a bit tired. Our new heroine is trying to win the prestigious Hitchcock Award for her new film which is about a serial killer who kills his victims based on Urban Legends. however once murders begin to happen on the set it becomes much harder to seperate fact from fiction.

What i Liked:

The heroine in this film is far more engaging than the one from the first film. She gives an honest performance and despite a tepid script she holds her own.

Very interesting to see Joey...no i mean Joseph Lawrence in this film. I joked about him being in it when i first heard about it but he was actually kinda good. In fact i wish he could've been in it more because he provides some pretty funny moments in the film.

i liked how it wasn't just a slasher film. During certain moments it played like a thriller and for at least the majority of the film the whodunit aspect is quite engaging.

i liked the use of seperating fact from fiction. That was a bit interesting. The scene where thry begin to watch Amy's reel and the killer switches it to the death he filmed was pretty intense.

What i didn't Like:

Where in the hell were the urban legend deaths. We got one and that was it. The one they has was pretty good but the film is called urban legend you would tihnk they would utilize that.

The last half of the film is even more ludicrious than the one in the first film. i found my self dumbfounded that they actually were allowed to produce the last half of this film. what a disappointed.

You can tell that we're running out of costumes for the killer to wear. The fencing mask and black apparel might seem frightening to some but all i kept thinking was the killer looks like a giant micro-phone.

The acting, with the exception of two people, is so painfully bad. My two year old brother could even act circles around these people.

This might not say much but at least this sequelis better than something like I Still Know What you did Last Summer. It barely sinks below the level of the original and i guess that says something. It's no film masterpiece but i tihnk fans of the first film may enjoy it.

5/10

good sequel

[eiffel1988221443-2 · 24 February 2002]

starring: Jennifer Morrison, Loretta Devine, Joseph Lawrence, Matthew Davis, Anson Mount, Jessica Cauffiel, Eva Mendes, and Jacinda Barrett.

plot: A killer in a fencing mask is killing off students at a prestigious film school, staring with actress, Lisa (Jacinda Barrett). After a popular director named Travis Stark (Matthew Davis) is found shot, apparently from suicide, his twin brother Trevor (still, Matthew Davis) sneaks into campus and teams up with writer Amy (Jennifer Morrison) to try and catch the killer as more bodies begin to drop.

review: This is a very fun sequel. I love the cast, its got Loretta Devine from the original UL, Joseph Lawrence from Do You Wanna Know A Secret?, Jessica Cauffiel from Valentine, and Jacinda Barrett from Campfire Tales. This has great gore, great acting, good directing, and good writing. But the killer's motive stinks!

9/10.

Uninspired sequel

[Libretio · 4/10 · 28 February 2005]

URBAN LEGENDS: FINAL CUT

Aspect ratio: 2.39:1

Sound formats: Dolby Digital / DTS / SDDS

Several film students at an isolated university campus are targeted by a serial killer who patterns his/her crimes after various urban legends.

John Ottman's unnecessary sequel is a disastrous jumble of humor and horror which isn't nearly as funny or frightening as the filmmakers might have hoped, and the visual references to various classic movies (most notably the VERTIGO-inspired climax) seem entirely superfluous. Most of the murders are routine, except for a grisly decapitation inspired by a similar sequence in Dario Argento's INFERNO (1980), but the rest of the movie adheres strictly to formula, as a masked killer strives to frame weak-willed heroine Jennifer Morrison for a series of brutal crimes. Only two of the characters from the original URBAN LEGEND (1998) have been retained: Loretta Devine as the campus security guard whose aspirations toward COFFY-style bravery are finally realized during a climactic confrontation with the killer, when he/she makes the mistake of trying to punch her out (Devine retaliates with the best line of dialogue in the entire movie!), and Rebecca Gayheart in an unbilled cameo which should raise a smile amongst devotees of the original film.

The supporting cast is handsome but interchangeable, including Matthew Davis (TIGERLAND) as Morrison's potential love interest, Jessica Cauffiel (VALENTINE) as a dizzy would-be actress whose final sequence resembles one of the more famous set-pieces from PEEPING TOM (1959), Eva Mendes (ONCE UPON A TIME IN Mexico) as a statuesque lesbian beauty whose fondness for Morrison lands her in a whole heap of trouble, and Hart Bochner (APARTMENT ZERO, SUPERGIRL) as an unlikely college professor. Production values are polished, but the movie amounts to little more than an uninspired rehash, and represents an inauspicious debut for former composer/editor Ottman (THE USUAL SUSPECTS). Also starring Joseph Lawrence, Anson Mount and Marco Hofschneider.

An average slasher with some nice touches

[bob the moo · 21 December 2004]

Amy is in her second year of her film studies course at Alpine University and is still wondering about what her student film should be about. She decides to make a short horror film where a killer offs his victims in the style of urban myths. Despite the fact that a major Hollywood had been done on this subject less than two years before, her teachers give her the go ahead, compare her to Hitchcock and her friends are all enthusiastic. However as she attempts to shoot her various scenes, somebody is really killing people in that style and hiding their bodies; but can Amy stay alive long enough to convince other people that it's really happening? Given that the first film just gave up on its connections to urban myths I suppose I should at least praise this film for having a script that works out how to keep the material at least semi-related to the title/concept. However that is pretty much the only praise I will give to it because it is just a standard slasher movie – they all have a hook (a gimmick or, in the case of "I know What You Did etc", literally a hook), sexy girls, buff boys, red herrings and lots of gore. So if that is all you want then this average film should just about do you. The plot isn't much cop and it is pretty much a case of counting the cast members alive to work out how long is left, but it is passable for this sort of film. Of course it is only OK if you ignore what it could have done. It could have said so much and taken a sly look at violence in movies; for example the bit where they watch a film of a girl getting killed and enjoy it; that could have been a clever question to the audience but it didn't do anything of the sort. Of course what I did like were some clever in-jokes and confused film realities that served to provide another level to distract me from the poor main – this is occasionally subtle but also works when it is blunt (ie Gayheart's cameo).

Some of the stuff is actually quite thrilling and the film has a good atmosphere considering it is just a slasher movie. It does have some good ideas as well and I did thing the Mexican standoff at the end was a nice touch. The cast are par for the course at best. Morrison is a typically bland blonde and didn't do anything special with her lead role – she isn't awful but she is nothing special. The rest of the cast just go through the motions, acting suspicious, scared or sexy as required – the sight of Anderson terrified me but happily he had little time, however it is simply cruel to cast Eva Mendes as a flirtatious lesbian but then only give her a small amount of screen time! Overall this is a standard slasher movie but it works better than the original film because it actually sticks to the concept as well as having some nice self-awareness and film within a film sort of stuff that is distracting from what is really a red-herring laden, twisty plot that could have come from any slasher film. The cast are pretty average but some of it is quite exciting if you get into it and, while it is an average film in a generally poor genre, it is not a bad film.

Good Sequel

[cwillis_m · 8/10 · 11 May 2002]

I liked the original "Urban Legend" and I liked this one to. It has some suspense, and pretty much does what it's supposed to do. Another thing that I liked about this was that it didn't bring back the killer from the first film. It showed some originality by setting a "sequel" in a different location and dealing with, mainly, a different cast. My rating for both "Urban Legend" and "Urban Legends: Final Cut": 8/10

"Yeah I heard that one. It supposedly happened at Pendleton. It's just an urban Legend"

[Clintborari · 7/10 · 2 January 2022]

The opening sequence of Urban Legend's final cut is a far cry from the first film. It begins a little cliché and begins to turn goofy, real quickly. Luckily enough it is meant to be filmed this way, otherwise, my first impressions were leaning heavily towards a very negative, comedy vibe.

Urban Legend Final Cut is a solid development compared to the first film. Its story makes a lot more sense, and the pieces come together nicely by the end of the story.

The acting was also a huge improvement. I remember Jennifer Morission from House, so it was great to think that this was one of her first Hollywood feature films.

Watching this movie as a young teenager, I can still recall the first murder scene of the kidney scene with the bathtub of ice. And how it haunted me for years. Watching it as an adult it is still extremely sadistic, and twisted and I can see why it had such a negative, and tormenting effect on me as a child.

However, it is successful in trying to show something brutally new and creative. It makes you gasp, and cringe, and is right on the edge with its blood, and gore without pushing the boundaries too far.

Seeing Brenda at the end of the film was a nice Easter Egg for fans of the first, and I enjoy it when sequels bring back old cast members because it makes you feel some nostalgia. Not to mention you can already relate to the characters, which adds layers of depth to the story.

Urban Legend Final Cut is a movie that has its moments and makes them count such as the haunted tunnel ride, and of course that ruthless first murder scene.

However, that's as brutal as this film gets, and it does have a lot more cheesy moments than the first installment.

Overall I must say even though it walks the same path as the Scream franchise. This is a great addition to the slasher genre, and this is a unique movie to have in your horror collection to revisit in many years.

7/10.

This cheese is not for everybody. But for me, it's the perfect kind of cheese.

[nightwishouge · 6/10 · 17 March 2021]

I came of age as a horror fan in the era of Scream knockoffs, so I have a real affection for the '90s slasher movie, even though I understand that by and large they were not very good. Urban Legends: Final Cut (yes, there are plural legends in the title this time; go big or go home) is not really an exception in that it's not good but in the best way.

Since the original film exploited the college campus milieu, the sequel develops this one step further by settings its story at a film school. And not just any film school, but a wannabe filmmaker's wet dream of film school. I studied film at a liberal arts college and I'll go ahead and tell you that you don't get access to realistic airplane interiors worthy of a mid-budget Hollywood film. Student films are shot in dorm rooms, city alleys, or (if you're lucky) your dad's office building after hours. Also, so far as I know, there's no student award so prestigious it guarantees you a successful career in the industry; I mean, even directors of Oscar-nominated shorts are lucky to get a project funded a decade later.

Anyway, the screenwriters take the opportunity to satirize liberal arts students, and do so with little imagination. Basically there's an acting student who is bad at acting and everybody else is just horny. If they wanted to poke fun at the pretentiousness of bearded dudes in their early 20s they would have had no shortage of material, but the characters in Final Cut are the same as any you'll find in a movie of this type, except every so often one of them quotes Fellini or something. Again, if you want verisimilitude, just have a bunch of stoners cut together unrelated images and justify it as an "experimental" film. I can't tell you how many "experimental" films I sat through in class. But everybody at the unnamed prestigious art school wants to make horror movies, apparently, with three-act structures and everything.

Final Cut is a sloppy movie. None of it really makes sense, character motivations least of all. And be prepared for fake-outs galore--it was only a dream, it was only a movie, it was only a friend sneaking up and jumping at you. As with the first movie, the killer's plans only come off due to luck. At one point a victim successfully calls 911 on their cell phone but the dispatcher immediately dismisses her as a prankster. If you grew up on Fear Street books, this kind of stupidity is catnip.

Final Notes (or Cuts, if you will): -The best part of the movie is the epilogue going into the credits. I wish we had gotten a sequel just to see how this relationship played out. -As with all '90s slashers, the production is so slick none of the violence really winds up being all that upsetting. The only legitimately creepy moment is in the relation of an urban legend, about a carnival's all-too-real "haunted tunnel" ride. -I give the filmmakers props for exploring the horror potential of a fencing mask to hide the killer's identity. Writing my own slasher novel in the late '90s, I myself settled on a motorcycle helmet.

A cut above the first.

[Mr_Censored · 6/10 · 6 March 2009]

"Urban Legends: Final Cut" is about as good or as bad as you'd expect it to be. A sequel to 1998's teen-slasher flick, "Urban Legend," your enjoyment of this film is hinged solely on how you view the original. Personally, I felt the first movie was kind of flat and dull. Some interesting elements, but overall, not the best of the late 90's slasher craze. Enter "Final Cut." This film, on the other hand, is a solid little slasher with a similar mindset to that of the 80's slasher era. It hardly has the smarmy, self-referential winks to the camera that it's peers in "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" had and despite some flaws, is a fun way to burn a couple of hours.

Directed by John Ottman – who is primarily known for his work as a composer – and featuring a surprisingly extensive cast that includes Hart Bochner, Eva Mendes, Anthony Anderson and Joseph "Whoa!" Lawrence, this legend revolves around a film school where students are competing for a prestigious award. The Hitchcock award, to be exact. When innocent Amy Mayfield (Jennifer Morrison) decides to make a movie loosely based on the events of the first film, her crew finds themselves slowly being picked off one by one by a killer sporting perhaps some of the most ridiculous garbs yet: a fencing mask and a black rubber slicker. As in the first, he uses a few classic urban legends to accommodate his dirty deeds, but like most villains in sequels, he gets lazy and some of his kills are just straight-forward and messy.

Surprisingly grisly and gory (especially in the case of the first victim, who had no relevance to the rest of the film to begin with), "Final Cut" is more cheap fun than anything. Although Ottman puts on a good show, his references to Hitchcock himself hardly mean that there is any genuine suspense to be found here. Instead, like the movies it subtly pays homage to – such as "Friday The 13th" and "My Bloody Valentine" – this little sequel is simply a fun, down and dirty little romp that forgets it's a sequel and goes for the gusto. It's not an amazing film by any stretch of the imagination, but far less pretentious than other films of it's era, and certainly a mind-numbing good time for genre fans who aren't afraid to slum it a little bit with fare such as this. Fun to sit down with a beer and a pizza, nothing worth taking too seriously, and certainly better than the first flick.

Can't really say I liked it a whole bunch

[remember_the_daze · 10/10 · 19 October 2002]

Urban Legends Final Cut was so much better the first time around. It didn't scare me at all. But the more times you see it, the more times you get sick of it. The movie is basically unoriginal and boring. The action scenes are very dull and too complicated. By the end it gets too complicated, you wonder how the killer even killed the people. I thought who the killer was, was just pain dull. Don't rent this one unless you REALLY want to see it. And thats a really. My take: 5/10.

My MPAA rating: R for violence/gore, sexual content and language.

Entertaining enough

[TheMarwood · 5/10 · 27 May 2014]

Music composer John Ottman and editor for Bryan Singer films, tries his hand at directing and does a reasonable job with this entertaining derivative meta slasher. The slashings and goings on take place at the most prestigious and unrealistic film school imaginable and a fencing masked killer is wiping out one film student after another. The whole film is exceptionally dumb and doesn't really have anything to do with urban legends, with the exception of a tacked on waking up in a bathtub missing a kidney scene, but Jennifer Morrison is cute and does a good job with this material. None of the deaths are memorable, but the film has a cheesy playful side that knows it's B material and Ottman runs with it.

Misunderstood...

[benjaminconvey · 6/10 · 3 December 2000]

A film that can generate the most fiendish criticisms of all time, such as "pure crap" and "worst film ever made" etc etc, yet still manage to actually entertain some people, not because it is "so bad it's good" but because it is actually quite good must be hiding something from most of its audience.

Basically, I think very few people "get" this film.

In years to come this will be remembered as quite a well done little slasher flick, and will garner the kind of cult status that films like April Fool's Day and Prom Night achieved.

Worthy sequel highlighted by Jennifer Morrison

[Wuchakk · 6/10 · 14 March 2014]

Released in 2000, "Urban Legends: Final Cut" details the events of a university in the NE USA where a mad killer starts murdering students of the film school. Jennifer Morrison plays the main protagonist who teams up with a student played by Matthew Davis to solve the murders. Loretta Devine returns as Reese, the security guard at the university. Other students are played by Jessica Cauffiel, Eva Mendes, Anthony Anderson, Michael Bacall, Marco Hofschneider, Joey Lawrence and Anson Mount. Hart Bochner is on hand as a professor.

While this is the sequel to 1998's "Urban Legend," Reese is the only character that returns (with another surprise re-appearance). Like the first film, this one takes place at a NE university and involves a killer who imitates various urban legends. The big difference is the focus on a group of film school students and their endeavors competing for a coveted film award that would open doors for future Hollywood success. This is the only movie I've seen that deals with film school and I found it interesting and even informative. Whereas this angle is original and the cast is good, the story's only fairly engaging. It's rarely horrifying and sometimes downright cartoony, although thankfully not as bad as the first film in this regard. The slasher's costume this time isn't a hooded parka, but rather a fencer's mask and hooded cloak (rolling my eyes).

The cast is highlighted by the attractive Jennifer Morrison, who's just as good as Alicia Witt in the first movie and arguably better. Jessica Cauffiel is another highlight, but her role's too short. Unfortunately, Eva Mendes' obnoxious lesbian character detracts (Eva is fine but her character, as written, is unattractive, although she becomes less obnoxious as the story progresses). Almost the entire film takes place on an isolated university campus, shot at Trent University in Peterborough, Canada, NE of Toronto, which is where some scenes in the first film where shot. The exception is a long carnival sequence in the second act shot at a Toronto amusement park.

I've watched "Urban Legends: Final Cut" three times now and my appreciation has increased with each viewing. While the climax is cartoonish and overlong, like the first movie, the picture's worthwhile for the Scooby Doo-ish elements and the film school angle, plus the quality cast, particularly Jennifer Morrison and Marco Hofschneider.

The film runs 97 minutes.

GRADE: B- (6.5/10)

Awful!

[Maciste_Brother · 1/10 · 19 November 2003]

I saw URBAN LEGENDS: FINAL CUT without seeing the first one and after watching ULFC, I don't want to see the first one. This film was bad. Schlocky, lazy, uninspired filmmaking. There's a scene at the end when the girls walk up a tower while they're being pursued by the killer. The scene is an almost exact copy of the last scene in FINAL EXAM, a HALLOWEEN rip-off made in 1981. And no, the director or writer surely didn't want this scene to be a "homage" of sorts to FINAL EXAM. No one saw FINAL EXAM. So if URBAN LEGENDS: FINAL CUT needed to rip-off a scene from FINAL EXAM, which was a rip-off of HALLOWEEN, well, imagine how BAD this movie is!!!!

Superior Sequel

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 7/10 · 4 December 2000]

I was perhaps a little too hard on the first when I reviewed it. When compared to the 'I know' movies it seems much better but this sequel rocks.

Although not completely different from all the other teen (?) slasher flicks out there Urban Legend 2 seems to be fresher than I had expected. I was pleasantly surprised.

The whole execution of the plot and the action seems to be a great deal more light-hearted and realistic. The photography and the setting looks very good on the big screen and the lead heroine is easy on the eye. She's way more talented and attractive than other scream queens. Not that I want to typecast her.

The identity of the bad guy was a mystery all the way thru for me and the way John Ottman makes us point the finger at a number of different characters was done whole lot better and way more subtler than Wes Craven. And none of the characters were annoying or irritating as they normally are in this sub-genre.

The humor was also spot-on. There wasn't much I didn't laugh at that I was supposed to and it didn't spoil the intense atmosphere. A certain joke in the mine was good enough for me annoy people with my loud laughing.

They way the film was self-aware and in-jokey without becoming a parody was WAY more convincing and pleasing than any of the Scream movies. And the film students who refer to other movies and movie making was the kind of gimmick Scream 2 and Scream 3 could have benefited from if it were done properly.

The presence of Joey Laurence just made a good movie even better. If you liked or hated the first I seriously do recommend this sequel to you as it way superior. The only gripe would be the lack of Chris Young's original score.

Too many scary filmmakers making scary movies that make fun of scary movies.

[jasonw-5 · 5/10 · 22 September 2000]

As a former film student the setting for the film had some appeal. Film students after the coveted Hitchcock Award strive to make the film that will secure them a spot in Hollywood, just like the honored alumni before them. Unfortunately the power of greed has someone taking out the competition.

It begins with an obvious film-within-a-film cliché to introduce us to all the principal characters/victims of the film. The cast, a slew of nobodies, lacks any true depth and continually stumbles through forced 21st dialogue. The only recognizable face, Joey Lawrence of Blossom fame, has matured in looks but not so much in talent. In fact, the most entertaining parts of the film are when the killer `urbanizes' his victims making the viewer happy to see them go.

The entire story is weak and too many standard horror movie conventions are tossed into the mix. Bumps in the dark, shadows in the background and masked characters that appear out of nowhere are tired repeats of films in our past. As expected, every character is given a reason to be the killer until the very next scene when they are exonerated because another character seems more deserving.

With many veiled references to Alfred Hitchcock's films, the filmmakers may have thought they were honoring the great director but in reality the idea is so poorly done that they only come across as cheap rip-offs. Stair climbing in a tower ala Vertigo and a weak wheelchair scene ala Rear Window are two that come to mind.

The whole scary movie genre was given life by Scream and now it ought to be put out of its misery with one swift swing of the ax.

2 1/2 out of 5

I liked it better than the first one...

[Lando_Hass · 8/10 · 21 June 2002]

I liked Urban Legends 2 batter than the first one despite the fact that the plot is almost meaningless.Urban Legends 2 takes a more different approach,now its just like a basic slasher film.The acting in this film was very good,it has gotten better than the first one's acting.The plot seems like its alot different from the first film's,from what I can remember,this film only contains one kill that represented aa old Urban Legend story.The killer in this movie looks alot better,this time it has a black trench coat with a cool mask on.Urban Legends 2 gives a high level of entertainment.Unlike the first film,this installment doesnt have the inventive kills,now the killer kills one of his victims with a flash light.I saw this movie in like the year 2000 or so,so its been a long time.Like I said,the acting has improved in this one,the characters actually have some life in them,but still,that girl thats the main character is still not hot.Despite its many flaws,Urban Legends 2 is a great horror movie.8 out of 10.

*** out of ****

[clay-8 · 7/10 · 24 September 2000]

Many reviewers have failed to mention that this time, the killer does not seem to have a weapon of choice. He just uses whatever's around. I liked Urban Legends because John Ottman, the director, seems to take the material more seriously. For instance, the scene where the killer sneaks up behind the German-French whatever cinematographer, we're wondering how that's possible for the guy not to notice, but then Amy looks at a video tape and we see how. IT's brilliant.

Ottman and the screenwriters don't really expect us to believe what we've seen before, so they actually make most of these attacks believable and surprisingly unexpected. Of course, the only flaw in the film is the killer's identity. The motive was there, but I pretty much knew it was them from watching the trailer to the movie. Too bad I was right.

The good things about this film are definitely the performances. Jennifer Morrison is surprisingly likeable as Amy Mayfield and definitely a strong and interesting character. At the end, i was expecting a switcharoo with one of the characters' actual identity, but he turns out to be who he says he is. And the last scene in the movie is absolutely brilliant.

The script is above par, the performances are good, but the costume for the killer is off. I felt like the killer would be saying to his victims, "slow down, i can't breathe in this thing." It seems so restricting of movement, and the killer seems so detached from the movie considering he wasn't involved in the opening attack. And the deaths aren't too interesting either.

All in all, UL2 is just as fun as UL, but is actually more clever and has many more plot twists than its predecessor, and the heroine is actually stronger than Natalie Simon, the hero from the first. SHe was too winy, but not Amy. This is above average, and I may see it again.

Worth watching for horror fans.

[cLoNe · 10/10 · 14 January 2001]

Horror movie fans will enjoy this movie. It's not great, but it has some really nice moments in it. One of the very first murder scenes is spooky and disturbing, but after that the movie just falls apart. There's suspense, but no real pay off for the suspense. It's a little snack for horror movies fans, nothing more.

Better than it should be

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 8/10 · 18 March 2017]

Attempting to finish film school, a director doing her film about a serial killer killing his victims on urban legends starts to realize that a serial killer is running around behind the scenes killing off the crew, and must stop the madman before killing off everyone on the film.

This here was a pretty surprising entry. One of the things it does well is that it really features a lot of suspenseful work at times as this makes a hard time of determining if what's being seen is real or just being shot for the movie. It plays the movie-within-a- movie trick to nice effect, since it features enough to make hard to distinguish one from the other including it's wonderful opening sequence that takes a while before realizing after the fact it's been faked, a sequence where the assembled cast watch the dailies only for a strange cut-shot to play where one of the cast is viciously stalked and killed is screened where all but one thinking it to be shot for the film but the other positive that it's real and a later scene where a murder done during the recording of a scream- test loud enough to drown out the victim's own being great scenes. Even going away from that formula, there's some rather fun stalking here from the bathroom chase featuring the woman trying to escape from the killer out into the alleyway or a thrilling chase through the recording studio and out into the surrounding countryside and pool while an attack at a carnival ride hidden by the darkness and fog comes off rather nice as well. The final confrontation in the movie-set graveyard setting is just fun, being creepy, exciting and all-around a blast with the true revelation and the different twists featured throughout make for a nice time here. The last big feature here is a really nice and healthy mix amongst the kills, which along with the mask worn are the film's rather good parts. This one here only has a few flaws to it. The main one here is that the main explanation for the killing has a lot of ways for how to interpret it, and it feels just too clumsy and unrealistic to be considered as believable. The fact that the violence is toned down from anything that it should have, since, for all the creativity displayed in the kills, it isn't very bloody and with a couple of kills that could've been in here. These are the same thing that really should've fixed by taking more of those and making them more bloody. It would've taken out a mild flaw in the film rather simply. The last flaw in here is the film's maddening ability to switch between the film shoot and the real world. It's fun at times, but there's also the fact that the film tries to be clever with changing around the two and it gets a little harder to defend the longer they go on. These here are the film's flaws.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Brief Nudity and a sex scene.

An enjoyable film.

[jp_91 · 8/10 · 9 September 2020]

"Urban Legends: Final Cut" is an enjoyable sequel, not that good as the original but entertaining. The script is thrilling, the cinematography is cool and performances are great, but something is missing making of this a weak film. An enjoyable film but not amazing.

Not as good as the first,but very close!!

[movies2u · 7/10 · 14 May 2001]

I went and saw Urban Legends: Final Cut in the theater and it was actually scary! I myself think it's not as good as the first one, but it isn't that bad. It was pretty gory, but I thought it was okay. If you enjoy slasher movies, you should like this movie! I enjoyed most of it and if I graded it, I'd give it a B+.

Better than boring

[Brian B-2 · 6/10 · 1 February 2004]

I had the plot figured out within 10 minutes. The fine attractive cast, most of whom stayed true to their roles, combined with a flash of wit and the token hints of homage to the traditions to hold my interest. Loretta Devine was more than fine. Jennifer Morrison as Amy was promising.

Not Scream caliber, but worth watching.