An American Werewolf in Paris

I saw this on a date and the movie was slightly better than the relationship, which I rate a 28.

The opening bungee jump is great & this raises the stakes from the first film midway through giving the hero a werewolf he needs to kill before he can kill himself. But dear god the young male characters here are so ridiculous. Unlike Landis' leads, these guys only exist in movies. What's really annoying is all the plotholes. Here's important info I got from wikipedia's plot, not the movie: Delpy is the daughter of the original's leads; eating the heart cures you, as does a shot of adrenalin.

Werewolf in Paris doesn't have no redeeming qualities but they are few and far between. Though I will say that I think this movie is often overlooked for some of its so bad its good content because genuinely it is a very entertaining watch. It's a shame that it absolutely drags the name of its predecessor through the mud.

"Comedy Horror" fails on both acounts, which is a shame as the main cast are very likable, and you want it to be a good film. The main problem with this dissappointing turkey is that it tries to generate its comedy from caracatures of French Police lifted straight out the Pink Panther, or from dead people who suddenly develop a fantastic sense of humour. Neither are even mildly amusing. The film descends into a lot of running about and the temptation to turn it off after an hour is VERY strong

Not surprisingly as good as the London werewolf, but this is still a pretty funny movie. There were several laugh out loud moments with this. It tried to keep in the same vein as the original, but because there had to be a happy ending, is where this movie falls flat on its face. Tom Everett Scott is very likable in this movie as well as Julie Delpy. Horrible CGI effects which also hurts this movie. Glad to hear a Suicide Machines song though.

only watch when you have nothing else to do.

Eh. Not as good as the original, but I actually enjoyed it for the most part.

Why they ever made this movie... I'll never know. It just wasn't any good. It's too bad In Paris sounds better than In London.

Not half as fun as its predecessor, slippy scenario, undistinguished performances. Can pass as a night movie on tv just like I watched it. Behold the Delpy nudity scene.

I don't know what to say. It's bad. Is it so bad that it's good? I'm not sure cause I honestly don't know how much of this mess was intended to be bad. All of it? None of it? I will say it was better - no, not better. let's say more entertaining - than I expected. But it also felt like one of those garbage comedies like American Pie that I pretty much hate, so that wasn't great. Yeah, I would never recommend it to anyone, but I guess there are situations when one might think this was ok.

Starts reasonably well with an easy-to-take frat bros trio, and Delpy ideally enigmatic as the wolf in sheep’s clothing; falls apart when she is inexplicably written out of the film, leaving Scott to shamble around awkwardly through scenes too close to Landis’ original for comfort. Decent CGI work on the wolves, and a nice use of Paris as the locale can’t counter an overplotted and confusing screenplay, especially as to the nature of the wolves and how they pass on the curse.

ye i liked it more than london, maybe cuz i pretended it was a sequel to before sunrise lool. but gotta rewatch both

No

Funny at parts.

Better than I expected, but honestly just some fun horror trash with some interesting ideas and ok CGI. Not bad but nothing I would rush to see. Horror Buffs and open minded fans of the original will like it for what it is I think.

There was no way to make a decent sequel. Especially not with Tom Everett Scott (why include a prissy middle name like Everett if you are going to shorten Thomas to Tom...)

a decent sequel to the classic, but doesnt quite live up to it. The werewolves are CGI and I am a fan of the technology but it only works in certain shots. Sometimes, they look creep and beautiful and other times just plain phony

A sequel that just wasn't needed. Pretty crap.

Not a bad sequel (sans the Statue of Liberty ending, sigh) this one has been unduly bashed while the original is unnecessarily praised. Whatever your take, it's not a bad way to spend a rainy afternoon.

Why? There was no need for any kind of sequel.

I'd rather watch the original with French subtitles.

og hvad så?

Predictable and not as good as An American Werewolf in London.

Good, but London is much better.

good movie

Not a bad followup to the original, but certainly not as good, it's watchable but not as timeless as the first.

There isn't much for dull moments in this wise cracking romance. One of the sex scenes kinda heats up, i only fail to be amused by the too long chase scene through the tunnels. A few of the effects seem weak, otherwise, the picture is easily above average.

Even the lovely Julie Delpy couldn't save this poor excuse for entertainment.

Not a patch on ...London

Good God, this is bad.

not so good, but i like the werewolves.

Great love story cum horror story and funny.

weak sequel has it's moments

Alright

Terrible. See the original...

I

PFFT! Rubbish. But still passes the time.

Dumb in every which way - a totally inferior sequel.

It's apparently pretty hard to make a decent Werewolf movie, and this one suceeds where most fail.

Interesting werewolf effects, but other than that, this movie is absurd, confusing, and just plain bad. Total crap!

A damn shame.

Could have been so much better.

Bleah. No connection at all to _London_, and grossly inferior

The broken crutch of CG really held this one back. There's a good movie in there apart from the werewolf scenes, but this is a fucking werewolf movie.

HAIR....AAARGH

Meh. Cute, not good.