Vickie B. (vickie) from GAYS MILLS, WI Reviewed on 4/23/2010...
1 of 1 member(s) found this review helpful.
Dawn M. from YELM, WA Reviewed on 12/8/2009...
Bought from blockbuster
1 of 1 member(s) found this review helpful.
They kill the legend, and give you poor actors to boot!
Eddie Lancekick | Pacific Northwest | 08/19/2006
(2 out of 5 stars)
"The first two movies (I know what you did last summer) (I still know what you did last summer) were fun. We had the mysterious doomsday appeal of an urban legend bogeyman donned in a raincoat and carrying a hook, a stellar cast of late teen heartthrobs in their prime, and some great overall cinematic appeal in locale and mood setting. The movies were paced well and tried to pile on some great background history into the legend instead of just having us watch some big guy running around cutting up teenagers.
With the third installment of this series (aptly, or stupidly, or for the fact they ran out of creative things to say) "I'll always know what you did last summer"; we lose a lot of steam. Relatively unknown actors, extremely over the top chase scenes that defy logic and fearful reactions to the point of predictable notions are rampant in this film. The mystery behind the legend, and the whole saga that helped build up the first two films is gone. In its place, we have some kids quickly scanning through old newspaper articles in a couple of scenes, and the rest is left with us watching them in their stupid mind games, huffy rants, and jealous streaks that of course distract them in time for the raincoat donned slasher to attack. The worst of the film? Well that is easy, and it again takes a huge "slash" at the legend/storyline: The raincoat killer is in fact supernatural. Uh, did I miss something in the first two "summer" flicks? Are we reading a lil too much Stephen King here?
The movie: I'm not going to spend an hour trying to describe this movie in detail. All I can say is, if you liked the first two, I doubt you will enjoy this at all, and if you didn't like the first two, then don't bother at all. This movie belongs in the cheapo teen slasher/B-grade horror bin that you find in the back corner of your video rental store. You know, the ones you can rent for five dollars for a month, and if you don't return it, they are thankful.
There is an amusement park in full swing and some high school seniors are ready to start their life outside the small confines of a remote Colorado town. Okay, where is the originality? I just saw "Final destination 3" and that one has a roller coaster of death in it. Lost Boys was from the 80's and in that one they never could get enough of the carnival rides. Aren't we beating the carnival ride scenes like a dead horse? Too many cliché’s already, but I will continue.
So they are at the carnival, and these friends are on the Ferris wheel (I'm so sick of the carnival rides by now, didn't we see this in "Fear" starring Reese Witherspoon and Mark Wahlberg?) and one tells of the legend of the "Fisherman". Of course it’s brushed off that it isn't true by the others. Suddenly, after getting off the ride, a figure in a dark hooded raincoat and hood start chasing the teens. One gets cut badly on the arm but manages to escape with his friends. Another goes to the roof of the building where his friends watch in terror from below as the fisherman approaches him. Suddenly the kid rids his skateboard down a "rail" and jumps off a good 20 feet from the ground. The friends then go to a parking lot where suddenly the hooded fisherman approaches them, only to start laughing. Yep, its just a buddy, its just a stunt...but where is the skateboarder?
They realize in horror that the prank has gone awry. Somebody moved the mattresses that the skateboarder was supposed to fall on, and instead the kid is IMPALED on the smokestack of a farm tractor. Let the legend die, and the ridiculousness begin.
The movie tries to execute a lot of "whodunit" in trying to figure out who the fisherman is, or who in fact seems to be killing them off one by one. The fact is, by this time we really don't care. The actors are not convincing and don't really portray their characters with any conviction. Its a typical low budget film that tries to ride the coattails of the first two movies of this series, but it cannot build up enough steam to excite us, or bond together a well done script about the legend itself to intrigue us.
Its not terrible, but it sure isn't what it used to be. Take it for what its worth. If you want to turn your brain off for two hours and watch 17 year olds get chased by a guy in a raincoat, by all means, be my guest.
Good Points: I did like the way the cameras were shot in this film. Various angles and just the overall placement of the camera at times did add some intelligence to this otherwise boring slasher flick. The soundtrack is actually really good and has some great atmospheric and suspenseful music on it as well, coupled with some great modern day alternative rock tracks to taste."
Chris Kennison | Jefferson City, Mo United States | 08/29/2006
(1 out of 5 stars)
"Lets be honest. I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER were less than average horror movies. Throw backs to the original killer teenager one after the other format. STORY? Simplistic at best. The selling point? LOVE HEWITT. GELLAR.
Quite simply, these movies prove that all you need is a hot popular girl... maybe two... and who cares how good of a story you have to tell.
So, along comes I'LL ALWAYS KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER. Same simplistic plot. Guy with hook knows you know what you did and wants you to know that what you did is gonna get you hooked. Except... theres no LOVE HEWITT. There's no GELLAR. There's not even a MOESHA... so why watch?
So, if you want to watch 5 more teens get skewered and you don't care about your precious time being wasted, then go for it.
Production value took a hit. Star power took a hit. Script is the same or worse. Movie straight to video for good reason."
I know about the urban legend you started last summer....
Daniel W. Kelly | Long Island, NY United States | 08/16/2006
(3 out of 5 stars)
"Well, the third movie basically uses the same exact plot mechanism as the original movie--4 kids, 2 boys, 2 girls--do something bad on july 4th...then a year later, have all stopped talking to each other, but have to come together when they realize the 'urban legend' about the fisherman may have come true.
The biggest problem with this entry in the series is it is SLOW. it's only an hour and a half but it really drags--even between murders. There are a couple of quite inventive hook moments and some typical fun gore, and to bring the series into the new millennium, there are plenty of short quick "The Ring" edits, as well as a very Ring-like tree that keeps appearing for some odd reason.
Unfortunately, the ending of the film, which attempts to be a shocking twist, since you've been trying to guess all along who it is, pretty much blows the entire movie, putting the series into desperation mode. Luckily, the suspense moments leading up to the outcome are sort of fun.
Still, this is no top notch slasher, and as a sequel, it's simply a rehash. Worth having to complete your "I Know What You Did" series, though."
I'll Always Know (I Kinda Hate This Movie)
Jason Bales | Missouri | 11/14/2006
(2 out of 5 stars)
"For those that don't know, I mark any plot points I'm about to give away with #s so look for those.
Here's another series I have a deep love for. Can you call it a series if there were only two films? Eh, details. Who needs em? Luckily this film took....some in mind. Unfortunately it manipulated some of the details to match the story they unfortunately wanted to tell.
For the good, the cast actually holds up pretty well. Not too much 'B' horror talent here like I was expecting. No distractions in this aspect. And yes, it's the same movie redone over again. Lots of characters and many red herrings spread throughout the cast.
My main problem with the movie was, well the movie as well as it's resolution and let's not forget the camera work! The movie fell apart for me right away when it was based on a loose reasoning that's given away on the back of the dvd box. See they play a prank and one of their friends ends up dead. How much trouble can you get into for that? I'm guessing it's sort of like shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater or something. Is there much jailtime involved in that? Just enough to ruin the hopes and dreams of some graduating high school students I suppose.
Anyway, despite this weak to me ideal I found myself getting into the movie thanks to some willing suspension of disbelief. I got caught up in who might be doing the murdering and chasing. However the murdering and chasing ended up fairly weak in the film as well. Something the other movies did was give you chills without any murdering taking place. Such as in the first film ###when Helen woke up with her hair sliced. Or the second film when Julie was locked in the tanning bed. Neither character was hurt in any way but there's still a sense of fear that errupts when you realize someone can get that close to them or any other member of the cast at any time! There's only one real occurence of such in this film when the punk girl's guitar gets damaged.###
Another thing lets talk about: ADD camera. You know when the camera goes back and forth or there's quick cuts so the killer is far away and then closer and closer all of a sudden. It's happening more and more in horror films and it bugs me. It really gets in the way of the action for me and takes away that sense of danger. If I can't SEE how close the killer or their weapon of mass murdering really is I don't know how much to fear for the characters being chased. I can understand using such camera work in scenes of drug use to create that sense of disorientation those scenes need. But when you're showing me a chase, show me the friggin' chase okay? Not quick zooms and choppy blocks of it!
And last but not least was the tonal change. The drastic "reimagining" of the whole franchise. Now this will pretty much give away the ending so SKIP THIS PARAGRAPH IF YOU DON"T WANT TO KNOW THE END OKAY? I've done my civil duty, it's your own fault after this if you continue to read the rest of this paragraph. #####The first two films were realisic in that I could see a man going crazy and killing the people who tried to kill him. This movie chucked that idea and made the killer something supernatural. Think Urban Legend 3 but even worse! Although i suppose there WAS vodoo in the second film so there are at least prior hints of the supernatural in the series. But still, to me it's a completely uneccesary change! What, it's no longer scary to have a REAL person be a killer anymore?#####
Even with all the faults I found in this movie, I got some entertainment out of the few moments of tense action and the mystery of trying to figure out which red herring wasn't one. There's only a little here, but it's enough to keep you mildly interested. I'd say people who weren't fans of the franchise would enjoy it more since this isn't as much a continuation of the series as much as it's a pretty well done bastardation of it."
This movie conjures up so many adjectives for sucking. I could not believe what I was looking at. This has to be one of the absolute worst things I have ever watched. The acting is terrible, the story is thread-bare, the lighting is horrendous, and I could not find one single redeeming quality in the entire mess. This looks like some average, everyday person took a camcorder, got their friends together, and said "hey, let's shoot a movie!". The sets appear to be places that the "film makers" found on the days the businesses were closed and they just snuck in and started filming at any hour of the day that they could get there. Nobody needs to bother with this. Pure junk."