Urban Legends: Bloody Mary (2005 Video) User Reviews

Predictable and Forgettable

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 12 October 2006]

Samantha Owens (Mara) is the editor of the high school newspaper and was blacklisted with her two friends, Gina (Haley McCormick) and Mindy (Olesya Rulin), by the football players after an article about them, so they do not go to a high school party. Samantha tells to the other girls an urban legend told by her mother: in 1969, in Salt Lake City, the two girlfriends of Mary Banner (Lilith Fields) are drugged by their dates in a prom, but she understands the situation and runs from her date, who kills her and hide her body in a trunk in the basement of the school. Like the Candyman, Samantha speaks "Bloody Mary" three times, evoking the evil spirit of Mary. Along the night, the three girls are drugged and kidnapped in a prank of the players, but Samantha has visions and premonitions about Mary. When her school mates are killed, Mary visits Grace Taylor (Tina Lifford), one of the girls abused in 1969, and finds that the victims are the descendants of the trio that killed Mary and harmed her friends, and that Mary spirit is seeking for revenge.

I bought this DVD full of good expectations, based on the name of director Mary Lambert, since "Pet Sematary" is one of my favorite horror movies ever. Unfortunately, the predictable and forgettable story of "Urban Legends: Bloody Mary" is very bad and full of clichés. Mary crawling from the bottom of the bed is a rip-off of Samara in "The Ring". It seems that there is only some care with the gore deaths, but the same does not happen with the characters. For example, Samantha's mother Pam (Nancy Everhard), who told the story of Mary to Samantha, vanishes and Samantha and David never ask for additional information about Mary to her. David is stupidly killed and Samantha in the end of the story with Grace does not miss or even mention him. The death of Heather Thompson, attacked by spiders, is the best moment of this disappointing flick. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Lendas Urbanas 3: A Vingança de Mary" ("Urban Legends 3: Mary's Revenge")

Nice Effort But Not Good Enough

[Clay-Pigeon · 2/10 · 10 August 2005]

The "Urban Legend" franchise returned with this straight-to-DVD installment but this time a supernatural spin was added to the series. While it's a decent idea, unfortunately, it didn't work. The main problem was that you never really got the sense that anything supernatural was going on to begin with. In the "Final Destination" films all the deaths were made to look like freak accidents yet you always knew that they weren't just accidents but that something supernatural was at work. It was the complete opposite in this movie. Despite constant reminders that the ghoulish Mary might be lurking about, most of the deaths still seemed like they really were just freak accidents. As if they weren't the result of something eerie but instead the result of extreme stupidity on the characters' part. It didn't help that the majority of the victims were thin stereotypes (dumb jocks and their air-headed girlfriends). Basically, I never felt like Mary was much of a threat.

Storywise, the film left a lot to be desired. For one, there's no relation between this film and the previous two UL films which was disappointing. Even "Final Cut", which had a new story and a new set of characters was still somehow connected to the original "Urban Legend". Also, the script for "Bloody Mary" felt disjointed at times. It's like they were more concerned with getting from Point A to Point B without much consideration to story. For example, a subplot early in the film where the jocks suspect a character of seeking revenge because of a prank just went nowhere and was forgotten after a few minutes. And then there are a bunch of seemingly important characters introduced during the first half of the film only to be forgotten during the second half, as if they never existed. On the acting side, the cast was barely okay. In the grand tradition of B-films, the heroine (Kate Mara) was the only one who showed any signs of promise with the rest of the cast displaying community theater performances. Especially Ed Marinaro who apparently never learned to act after his buff body and good looks faded away.

This movie was an obvious attempt at trying to revive the UL films by adding elements from such thrillers as "The Ring" and "The Grudge". But taking ideas from other films shouldn't come as a surprise for this series since the first two "Urban Legends" were ripoffs of "Scream" and "Scream 2" (what's next? An Urban Legend set in a hostel?). That wasn't entirely a bad thing since out of the dozens of "Scream" ripoffs, the UL films were the only good ones. They were fun and they added their own unique spin. Sadly, the same can't be said for "Bloody Mary" which does nothing fun or unique with the premise. And it certainly never comes close to being eerie or creepy like "The Ring" or "The Grudge" for the reasons mentioned above, the supernatural element wasn't established well enough and Mary is nowhere near as scary or even interesting as Samara or Kayako. She comes across more like a angry Goth girl with bad make-up. The film could have worked if they had a director who could have made Mary's scenes more chilling and atmospheric but instead they're just dull, uneventful and predictable.

One of the film's biggest offenses is that it completely betrays the title. The film has nothing to do with the actual legend of Bloody Mary or what she supposedly does when summoned. Rather than base the film on true Bloody Mary legends they come up with a lame story of their own involving a prom from 1969.

I didn't hate the movie like I thought I would but I also didn't enjoy it as much as I should have. I will say that "Bloody Mary" is at least worth checking out for the spider scene alone. That was the film's one true highlight.

Not Necessarily Bad - Not Great Either.

[drownsoda90 · 5/10 · 15 August 2006]

Mary Lambert, who brought us "Pet Sematary" and "Pet Sematary II" brings us this unrelated sequel into the "Urban Legend" series. The movie starts out on prom night, years ago. A prank-gone-wrong takes place in the attic of a high school involving a girl named Mary. The guys responsible for the prank assume her dead, and lock her body in a trunk. Cut to present day. A group of teenage girls are spending the night, having a slumber party, telling urban legends to pass the time, all leading up to the infamous "Bloody Mary" legend. On their third and final bloody Mary chant, the girls end up getting kidnapped by some jocks who are performing a revenge prank mainly on a girl named Samantha. They all return safely, a little shaken and confused after the bizarre event. But our main character, Samantha, begins having visions after the prank, mainly of Bloody Mary - and people start to die off. Is it all a joke, or is Bloody Mary back to take revenge? It's up to Samantha to uncover Mary's origins and stop the vengeful spirit.

When I heard about this sequel, I was thinking "Okay, okay - this might be decent". And for the most part, it was. I saw the DVD at a local retail store and decided to buy it because I was curious. This film has nothing to do with the other two films at all, this one is much more supernatural rather than a slasher mystery. The acting was decent, not perfect but it passed. I enjoyed Lambert's "Pet Sematary" and I (unlike most people) enjoyed the sequel as well. The script for this film is predictable, the audience pretty much knows what actions the characters will take before they actually do it. The camera-work/cinematography was alright for a straight-to-video release, and the special effects were just okay, they unfortunately come off as a little bit corny in some of the sequences (especially the sequence that took place between Mary and the teenage boy at the motel). But hey, I wasn't expecting this movie to be perfect. The spider scene was actually pretty creepy looking, if not a little cheesy too. The deaths were quite creative and original, I'll give it that.

To sum things up, "Urban Legends: Bloody Mary" is a mediocre but semi-fun horror sequel. It's not great, it's really not bad. It's just somewhere right in the middle. I suppose it could've been worse. If you enjoy supernatural revenge movies (along the lines of "Pet Sematary"), or if you like Lambert's previous work, you may want to check this out. It's flawed and predictable, but overall entertaining. There's no need to see the other two films though, because this one has nothing to do with them. 5/10.

Lame

[rtcnz · 1/10 · 20 July 2008]

This film has the POTENTIAL to be as great as the other two. It has pretty good characters, a pretty intriguing mystery, with this whole "past coming back to haunt" thread. BUT the ending is devastatingly lame.

I watched the "making of", and the director seems a few bricks short of a wall. She explains the film, and why it is such a brilliant, clever film. But the gaping hole in her logic is that she is WRONG. It is NOT clever, it is utterly ludicrous.

And there are too many stereotypes, from the jocks to the girls having pillow fights in their underwear, to the "Foxy Brown" / "power to the people" character.

not good

[disdressed12 · 1/10 · 2 August 2007]

while i really enjoyed "Urban Legend" and "Urban Legends:Final Cut" i can't say the same for this one.i found it boring,pointless,and annoying.the character of "Bloody Mary" is about as scary a "Tickle me Elmo" from Sesame Street.not only that,but this thing was predictable from the get go.the first 2 were not.at least i didn't think so.this movie does have a twist of sorts,and the only reason it may be unpredictable is that it is so preposterous that no one for a minute would believe it actually happens.there's no way things could have ended up the way they did.but in this movie,they do.the characters themselves are just silly caricatures.and lets not forget the ending.illogical and unsatisfying.i'd say the acting was bad,but i don't see how it could have been anything else in this movie.overall,this movie is awful.1/10

Good straight-to-video horror film, even better than other straight-to-video horror movies

[ghostface-1 · 7/10 · 26 August 2005]

I saw URBAN LEGENDS: BLOODY MARY last weekend and I thought that it was a entertaining movie that was even better than other straight-to-video horror movies that always turns out to be very but very awful, but this one shows that you can do a good straight-to-video horror movie if you have a good script.

The deaths were awesome and very scarier, i think the best was the Spiders scene.

And the acting was very good.

Kate Mara was a very good lead, I think she has future and more to show.

Overall, I give this 7,5 out of 10 stars.

Thing again before watching this.

[mohdameerbukhqari · 1/10 · 5 February 2022]

If you think this is a good as the first two, you'd be mistaken. The movie was cheaply-made, horrible acting, predictable storyline. Don't even consider this if ur a fan of the first two cause you'll be greatly disappointed.

Good Stuff

[bennyfitzy · 8/10 · 20 July 2005]

I didn't really know what to think of this movie before seeing it after loving the first and hating the second... but I watched it with an open mind and was pleasantly surprised.

It starts off very unsatisfying. The acting is terrible and the situations that some of the characters are put into are completely stupid and you'll find yourself screaming at the TV screen. But as the movie progresses, some of the deaths become quite interesting and one in particular makes your skin crawl. When you look back at some of the stupid situations and deaths, you actually quite enjoy laughing at them and wonder if they were put there for that purpose (but they probably weren't). The main character, Samantha, is very annoying sometimes as is her brother, but towards the end they become somewhat likable and you don't really want them to die as much as you did in the beginning.

The direction in the movie is sometimes really good but other times quite terrible. Some of the camera angles used are... interesting but also very distracting and the atmosphere in areas such as the graveyard and the school basement is all wrong. The soundtrack is too quiet and doesn't provide any scares at all so it doesn't really feel like a horror movie.

Apart from all the negatives, the movie was enjoyable and good to watch with some friends. I'm sure it will inspire other filmmakers to use the bloody Mary legend in their projects and maybe breath new life into the story. 8/10

A Good Sequel, But Hopefully The Last

[Horror_Fan01 · 7/10 · 25 February 2007]

My expectations concerning Urban Legends: Bloody Mary were mostly met. Considering how deceiving sequels usually are, I must say that director Mary Lambert, who's also responsible for the excellent Pet Sematary and Pet Sematary 2, did a great job again. This second addition to the franchise is quite refreshing since it introduces a supernatural threat. Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II did pretty much the same thing with the slasher Prom Night. This kind of twist may discourage some but I think innovation is better than stagnation. Once dared by friends at a younger age, I myself have tested the Bloody Mary myth. Therefore, when came the time for the movie to build tension as "Bloody Mary" gets pronounced for the third time in a row, I felt nothing. There wasn't even a mirror involved, even though every version of the story I've heard does. xecution-wise, I guess you cannot beat Candyman. Indeed, the flick focuses more on its loyalty towards the first two movies. As it was the case with Urban Legend and Urban Legends, this movie is about kids becoming urban legends themselves through death. This time around though, it seems Mary's ghost is after them. Therefore, most of the murders are being committed by an invisible entity, Final Destination style. All of them must have looked really good on paper. Unfortunately, the execution lacks subtlety. Budget restraints are this movie's biggest issue and it shows through most visual effects. The "no name" actors featured here give the movie an authentic feel. Kate Mara and Robert Vito play two teen aged heroes and they are actually not two times older than their respective characters, a rarity in horror movies. Rebecca Gayheart doesn't make an appearance this time and the same applies to Loretta Devine. Somehow, the need was felt to replace her with a similar character. Tina Lifford plays a purposely stereotyped and omniscient "pothead". She's handled her scenes nicely and made me laugh.

Overall:

Urban Legends: Bloody Mary might just be the best outcome possible in a franchise that got repetitive right at part two. It combines two sub genres, slasher and ghost story, while holding strong links with the original.

Why man why????

[necroscope24 · 1/10 · 31 August 2005]

Horrible, horrible, irredeemable piece of tripe. I don't understand why this piece of junk wasn't just shelved after being made? I mean surely to god someone had to realize it was crap. K check it, some girl and her friends get drugged, girl runs away, guy hits girl, girl bounces head off of desk and dies. 30 years later, same story, nobody dies, but then the ppl that kidnap them start dying stupid urban legend themed deaths. What makes this movie so bad? lets do the list: Acting: I've seen better porno. Effects: The only movie with worse CGI that comes to mind as of late is cursed. Direction: This is Uwe Boll style, no joke. Storyline: Rehashed bits of different movies. I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be another sequel, they mention the events of part 1 at one point and then leave it at that. All I know is this is an unforgivable pile of trash. Scary movies are popular right now, but this kind of junk is taking measures to ensure that doesn't last long.

Connection lost

[kosmasp · 4/10 · 5 October 2021]

If you thought the second Urban Legend had little to do with the original ... wait til you see this here. The (Urban?) Legend of Bloody Mary is very well known in America. Through Horror movies I reckon it is very well known in the horror community around the world.

That being said, this direct to video "sequel" has a really commendable core story. A me too way before the me too movement. But is it enough to just rain praise on it? You'll be the ultimate judge for yourself. But really badly aged CGI and some odd story choices probably will not work in favor of the movie for most people.

Still it is nice to see some good acting in here, even if the choices and moral high ground it takes (excusing murder and death) are not always for the ... well best. Especially if you consider the very predictable (character) twist and the behavior that person displays ... completely ridiculous. Shame because some of the ideas for deaths are not really bad ... with make up effects even making up for the shoddy cgi (maybe)

lower B-horror

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 6 May 2018]

Samantha Owens (Kate Mara) have her two girlfriends for a sleepover. They are interrupted by Sam's brother David. They are all outcasts after Sam published a school news story denouncing the football players. The girls recount a story about the murder of Mary Banner in 1969. She and two other girls were drugged by the football players. Sam also talk about the urban legend of Bloody Mary. Next day, the girls are gone and David accuses the football players of foul play. Sam and her friends reappear later that afternoon disheveled and suffering from the after-effects of a drugging. Soon, the jocks and the captain's girlfriend Heather Thompson are showing up dead in unusual circumstances. Sam and David track down one of the girls from the 1969 incident, Grace Taylor.

The biggest name here is Kate Mara. It's odd that Sam's two friends aren't actually main characters. It doesn't help that they are limited actors. David isn't much better but at least, he's functional. Quite frankly, his role is unnecessary and Kate Mara should have been the only protagonist. The story should follow Sam and her two friends from the drugging onwards. The only good kill is the spiders and the CGI is cheap anyways. It's still creepy good. The other kills are either boring or silly or both. There are other issues and this never had a chance to be better than a B-horror.

Beyond terrible

[veronicamiller-01141 · 1/10 · 21 April 2023]

My dog can act better. The acting is beyond terrible. This is a supernatural film and absolutely nothing like the first two films. There is no mystery, no plot twist, just ghosts. I can't believe how much worse it was than the first two films. The CGC is extremely bad for even the mid 2000s. It really appears this film had absolutely no budget, but even with a poor budget you could hire a proper writer, maybe someone who has seen the first two films. I struggled to get through this movie and I've watched some really bad films. Just absolutely nothing in this film makes sense. If you like the Urban Legends movies, skip this one.

Low expectations = decent film

[trelaina · 6/10 · 11 February 2007]

I liked the original Urban Legends, with the exception of the revelation at the end, which failed to impress. I have tried twice to get through the sequel (The Final Cut) and failed both times. Upon reading the description of the third, I decided to give it a shot.

I liked it. Compared to even some big budget theatrical releases it was a decent horror movie. There were elements of Asian horror in it, and being a huge Asian horror fan I appreciated that.

I didn't feel it held very close to the original Bloody Mary legend, however (the one that my big cousin told me while on vacation at the beach one night...and made me keep from getting up to go to the bathroom all night for fearing of passing a mirror). That said, the legend was portrayed creatively...a decent story.

It's worth watching...but it's best to go in not expecting to be impressed.

Locked in a Box

[tedg · 3 August 2005]

These days the game in horror is a horrible business. Pity the poor filmmaker: she has to have enough formula to give the viewer something to rely on. After all, in a horror film, most of the work is done by the audience. We willingly supply all the imaginative components that thrill us. All the movie does is provide cues based on, derived from milestones in the genre.

But at the same time, that beleaguered filmmaker has to be novel enough to engage so far as the story and the metaphysical logic behind it. Usually, that is a matter of just mixing existing elements in a slightly new way and that's what we have here.

It is part ghost story, after the manner of recent much better films. It is part traditional slasher where an unknown human seems to be always in the right place to exact revenge (usually revenge, here a cover-up). And it is part that twist on the ghost story that kicked off the series: the notion that urban legends have a power of their own to invade the world and become real — the spectre that just thinking of hearing a story will have it land on you.

That novel notion wasn't fully exploited, but it is an intelligent a device as the movie within the movie of "The Ring."

And we have it here, dimly.

These three elements are mixed together with a bit more success than you would guess. It is still weak. But then, it has an appealing redheaded heroine.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen.

[Sam_Movie_Buff · 1/10 · 12 February 2008]

God. I don't know where to begin with this one. "Urban Legends: Bloody Mary" has to be one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. Definitely a top 10 contender. Here we have the third instalment of the Urban Legend franchise, this time changing it up (yeah, such a smart idea). Instead of the UL usual stalk and slash story's, this time they're brining a supernatural aspect. To be more specific, Bloody Mary. Thrilled? I think not. When the movie ended, I was kind of lost for words. I was a big fan of the original. With it's smart script, great setting, talented cast and more than enough scares, it was an instant classic. The second addition "Urban Legend: Final Cut" was nowhere near up to the standards of the first, but it was entertaining enough and a decent sequel. This however is catastrophic. This was only made for the sake of having a trilogy.

The movie has so many flaws and plot holes, it's just too hard to name them all. I would also suffer a severe head pain actually trying to go through the movie again - it sounds terrifying just thinking about it - but for all the wrong reasons. If I had to pick one thing that stood out the worst, it would have to be the story. Bloody Mary?, come on, give me a break. Seriously. The third Urban Legend should have been a slasher, fright fest. Going back to the true, original style of the first. Though, I know it would have never measured up to it's first, I would have probably respected it a lot more. The story is just lazy. It lacks any real spark. It's like they read one of the most boring takes on the several Bloody Mary stories, and turned it into a film.

The second flaw would have to be, yep, you guessed it, the terrific acting. Man was it bad. Every single "actor" was bad. When I say everyone - I mean everyone! Not one of these Z listers has a decent shred of good acting abilities in them. This made the film appear cheap and unprofessional. All I wanna know is, who did the horrific casting job? They should be fired! All in all this film was more than below average. More so in fact that it doesn't even deserve 1 star. It's a terrible piece of film and should be avoided at all costs!

This movie was complete utter mess, from the start

[atinder · 3/10 · 14 July 2009]

They should have watch supernatural first that bloody marry was fantastic

it was just Horrible, The movie didn't make it sense at all

The plot: On Homecoming night, Samantha (Mara), Gina (McCormick), and Mindy (Rulin) are having a slumber party at Sam's house due to being black-listed by the sexy football players. Since the dance and game are out of the question, the trio stays up and entertains themselves with Urban Legends..all leading up to BLOODY MARY. With nothing better to do and a whole night to waste, Sam chants "Bloody Mary." Her friends laugh... "Bloody Mary." More laughter. On the third and final "Bloody Mary," the friends are kidnapped by three jocks and return soon thereafter, shaken but well. Sam begins having hallucinations and soon bodies turn up - is it all a high school prank taken to grisly extremes or is it Bloody Mary, who's youth was taken far too early?

Worst think about this is that they don't even use a mirror REALLY Then marry pop up anyway not scary not creepy.

This is the only one good part in the movie - That part is when spiders come out girl face was really good it is bit over the top scene but the Rest of the movie is garbage 3/10 just for that scene

The Revenge of Mary

[Fernando-Rodrigues · 3/10 · 22 February 2021]

Weak movie in every sense and full of clichés. Get away from it.

Good supernatural film!

[jp_91 · 6/10 · 9 September 2020]

"Urban Legends: Bloody Mary" is an enjoyable supernatural entry in "Urban Legend" sequels. The script about Bloody Mary is entertaining and the thrilling scenes are well done. The cinematography and music score are decent. A funny direct-to-video movie.

Watchable, but Has Nothing To Do With The Others

[michellegriffin-04989 · 5/10 · 27 August 2020]

It's Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II without the humor or style as interpreted by the SyFy Channel. This isn't always a bad thing. Some moments really land and some are laughable like the big with all the CGI spiders.

Not as Good as its Predecessors

[tiffanytallent1981 · 5/10 · 15 October 2021]

I just finished watching Urban Legend (1998), Urban Legends: Final Cut (2000), & finally this one. It's a guilty pleasure to rewatch the first two every October. I am disappointed in UL: Bloody Mary though. The opening scene was a great set up and piqued my anticipation. And the plot is interesting, although most of the murders are very similar to other movies. The biggest drawback for me was the acting, especially from Sam, the main character. She basically has the same facial expressions during every scene. It's like she's a blank canvas at times. And her voice is so monotone. The other actors aren't great either. None of them have that wow factor that takes over the screen.

Some of the character's decisions didn't make since either. Like when Sam & her brother suspect who might be killed next, they go find him. I'm thinking ok great, they're going to warn him of what's going on. Nope. They let him drive away without telling him he might be the next to die. They didn't even act worried on his behalf. Or when the last guy dies at the end by suffocating. The killer used a thin plastic bag over the guy's head. All he had to do was poke a hole in it to breathe. Instead, he kept trying to pull the killer's arms away. There were also numerous times that the police should've been called to help. Either no one called or they waited a crazy long time beforehand.

Overall, this third installment is missing something that the first two had. I definitely like the characters better in the other movies. And there was some comedic relief that Bloody Mary lacked. It's worth a watch just for some of the murder scenes and how scary Mary is. She looks like a B rated version of the girl from the Exorcism movies, which is still great Halloween fun.

Inconsistent horror flick

[jordondave-28085 · 4/10 · 13 July 2023]

(2005) Urban Legends: Bloody Mary HORROR

Straight-to-rental third movie of the series that has nothing to do with the other two, which looks like nothing but a poor carbon copy of "Ju-On" or "The Grudge". Story starts with the year of 1969 involving three teenage jocks using the date rape drug on three different girls upon going to a prom dance, except that one of the girls, who happens to be Mary didn't take her drink and upon running away with one of them chasing her to bring her back. He eventually catches up with her and accidentally kills her by punching her with his fist on the head onto a hard table before landing to the ground and decides to dispose her body to a trunk so no one wouldn't even know about it. Jump to many years later, showcasing three teenage girls who accidentally wake up the Nancy ghoulish spirit, with some of those same students turning 30 years older and right off the get-go viewers should be able to find out the culprit who tried to conceal what this film calls a urban legend whose trying to prevent her son-in-law and daughter from exposing! Stupid, lame, clice and for the narrow minded, like the "Mary" girl never had any parents or friends. Police are never involved and are absent nor were Mary's parents.

Incoherent gibberish

[Mr_Zoo_Look · 2/10 · 3 July 2023]

The first 2 were enjoyable and followed a logical consistency based on killings being done in the style of urban legends. In those films, the legends used were intertwined with the motives for the killings.

That isn't the case here. In this third instalment, it seems like the script had already been finished, and then some studio executive decided to turn it into a Urban Legend film to capitalise on the franchise success. In this film, the killings are still based on urban legends, but are completely inconsequential to the overall plot. It didn't matter if that one character gets the urban legendesque spider laying eggs in her face, because she might as well have died by being stabbed to death generically, and it would have the same build up beforehand anyway. And there was certainly nothing in the film afterwards that relied on it either.

The end result is a muddled disappointing end to a franchise, short of a reboot. Just don't waste your time on this unless you want to forget the first two are supposed to be related. And even then, as a standalone film, it's formulaic and predictable.

Definitely one to avoid.

for teenagers

[Kirpianuscus · 20 October 2018]

A horror as many others. An urban legend as pretext for a chain of deaths, return of a terrible reality, fear, chill, thrill and other states inspired by the genre. Having a precise, obvious purpoise, it is bizarre to say if it is a good or a bad movie. It is just...ordinary horror. Teenagers, a dark character and the story who you know so well.

Needed a bigger budget and more time for filming

[sousier · 6/10 · 9 May 2023]

I thought that this thirst entry into the Urban Legend franchise actually had a lot of potential. The story is pretty good, it has a decent mystery and the urban legends that were used for the deaths are great. I think the biggest issues is not only the lower budget but the smaller amount of time for filming. I think that if the studio has given the filmmakers enough money and time to properly make this film, it would've at the very least been better than the second one. I mean, even In its current form, it's still more entertaining than that one. But a bigger budget for effect and longer filming for the actors would've made this so much better.