Urban Legends: Final Cut (2000) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
224 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Mediocre Sequel To A Decent Slasher Movie.
drownnnsoda15 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.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This was one very bad movie. Period. (Spoilers!)
Magnus Kallas6 June 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Where to start? It is hard to describe how bad this sequel is. The original Urban Legends was okay- not great, just entertaining. But Urban Legends: Final Cut is just plain stupid.

I don't want to spoil it for you, but only the first killing is related to a famous and spooky urban legend. Other killings are very unoriginal and lame (killing with knife, electricity and so on). There are many suspects, everyone has their own reason for killing. Or at least they all look suspicious. BUT the true killer is shown only a few minutes in the movie- he is a mad professor with idiotic reasons for killing. Now when I think about it, the whole story can be filmed in 5 minutes. The characters aren't related and the events aren't related. A girl shoots a movie, her friends are killed, a twin brother shows up and the killer is beated.

This movie made me very angry. Angry, because I just can't imagine how the directors of this crap even managed to get their job.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Campus fun
asda-man17 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.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
OH why...WHY!?
scenicns15 June 2001
I have to ask myself why did I even rent this... an ex-girlfriend recommended it so maybe it was all some sort of revenge...

Actually I really liked scream 3 so I was a bit hopeful in watching this but my hopes were mangled much like a fragile monarch butterfly caught in a lawnmower. The story was just horrible; it made no sense just a stream of unconnected gore scenes that don't build tension or suspense. The Characters aren't even amusing stereotypes, and not that the actors had much to work with in the first place.

The central problem with movies like this...without good characters the movie drags, the gore scenes become meaningless and we don't care who lives and who dies.

The stolen kidney death scene was nice and brutal, and the campus where it was filmed was really cool, that's about it on the good points.
19 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible and an Idiotic Movie *Minor Spoiler*
x_pac25 October 2000
Warning: Spoilers
It's been awhile since I have seen a truly horrible movie, well, there was Mission To Mars, but that doesn't even compare to Urban Legends: Final Cut! I love watching horror movies, but I knew this wasn't going to be a "horror" movie, but rather a "slasher flick", and there is a difference between the two. I saw the trailers and TV spots for the film and they looked decent, so I decided to pay the 6 bucks and watch it, well actually 12 since my girlfriend was with me.

While watching the movie, I was wondering if it was 8:00 p.m. in a movie theater watching a slasher flick, or if it was Noon in my house watching a Soap Opera...The premise of the one guy getting his head blown off and his twin brother comes back secretly......come on, these screenwriters are not even trying!!! Why not show the guy get his head blown off? Why the twin brother? Why make a sequel? Why even call it Urban Legends?!

I have to admit, watching the girl in the bath tub full of ice was a good "Urban Legend killing", but then afterwards all of the killings have NOTHING to do with urban legends. Did they decide to have the sequel with the characters just making a movie ABOUT urban legends, but not have the actual movie about urban legends? I would have rather watched the movie that the film student characters were making rather than Urban Legends: Final Cut! This is just another victim of sequels being rushed. And anyone who rates this over a 3 must not be watching very many movies.....Even my girlfriend, whose taste in movies are not wonderful, thought this movie was horrible!
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A cut above the first.
Mr_Censored6 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.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Yes! Finally some quality cinema from the teen slasher genre! You see, it seems that someone has taken their love of scary movies one step too – HEY!!
Anonymous_Maxine2 April 2001
Warning: Spoilers
(spoilers) In a time when teenage slasher mystery thrillers are in tremendous overabundance, the sequel to the fairly entertaining Urban Legend is fortunately not a complete failure. I watched Urban Legends: Final Cut with very low expectations, which were the result of having heard that the movie was terrible, as well as my growing belief that a quality film in this genre, especially a sequel, will probably never be created again. The magic of the movies can only go so far. However, I was surprised to find that this particular sequel did have its redeeming values, despite the fact that it has the same old Scooby Doo ending, with the killer finally revealing himself and basically saying that he would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky kids.

The film starts off on the set of a cheesy movie, which seems to take place during a drunken college party on an AIRPLANE (hence, `cheesy' movie). Luckily, this is revealed to be a movie within a movie, so it didn't really take away from the film as a whole, but Urban Legends: Final Cut definitely had its share of stupidity. The security guard, for example, who we remember from the first film, sure didn't seem to have learned anything from her past experiences. Not only do we find her dancing to Pam Grier films while HORROR movies are being made (the perfect setting for a murder to take place) but she also does she not believe the girl when she tells her that she saw a murder.

And don't even get me started on the killer. Until the killer is revealed at the end, he is exactly the same as the now-boring killers in countless other rip-off films – everything from I Know What You Did Last Summer and I Still Know What You Did Two Summers Ago to all of the Scream films, all of which `borrowed' this idea from John Carpenter's horror classic, Halloween. Seeing how Halloween was released about 23 years ago and has been ripped off in record numbers, I think that it's about time to come up with some different kind of villain. 007 movies always have these cool bad guys, but the teen thriller genre always recycles the now boring ‘guy in the mask' routine.

I didn't hate Urban Legends: Final Cut because there really were a few scenes in the film that actually worked. For example, the scene when all of the students were watching the rushes and they saw the blonde girl's murder was actually pretty effective, in my opinion. Also, the scene with the bathtub full of ice worked pretty well, despite its lack of originality. But despite the unoriginal bathtub, the removed kidney was also pretty good, and this even evokes a painful reaction from the audience as the killer yanks her back in through the window by grabbing onto the freshly sewn wound through which the kidney was removed. OUCH.

There was a lot of cheesy stuff in this movie, besides the tired inclusion of the mysterious killer. Much of the garbage is dumbly thrown into the dialogue in a number of wildly idiotic and clichéd lines – `This is my baby, baby.' `I won't let anything happen to you. I'll be there.' But the story was actually pretty good, at least some of it was. The twin brother for example, keeps the audience guessing more than the killer does, because by this point, anything else will command more interest than the old who's-the-killer mystery. It turns out that he was telling the truth, but for much of the film after his introduction, it is never really certain whether the twin was really a twin, or if he was the same guy, in which case he would probably be the killer.

The end of the film is punctuated by a very welcome cameo from Rebecca Gayheart, who should have played a substantial role in this film, given the way that the original film ended. This obviously wasn't done because everyone would know right away who the killer was, but there seems to be a rough transition between the two films because of this. All in all, Urban Legends: Final Cut is worth the time, but it is still not as good as the original, which was also not even that great. But don't be put off by low expectations, it's not THAT bad.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good Sequel
cwillis_m11 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
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Misunderstood...
benjaminconvey3 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.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Entertaining enough
TheMarwood27 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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Worthy sequel highlighted by Jennifer Morrison
Wuchakk14 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)
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Well, I like it!
hnt_dnl23 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
A lot of people seem to hate this flick URBAN LEGENDS:FINAL CUT, but I don't. It's an interesting, solid sequel to the original URBAN LEGEND, a nifty whodunit/slasher/horror flick w/ the twist of the killer dispatching his victims based on urban legends. Interestingly, this 'sequel' really has no connection to the first except for the re-appearance of one of the characters from the original who survived the killings. This might be where this sequel partially screws up. There is a contingent that believes the original flick was really just an urban legend wrapped within an urban legend as the ending might imply. By having one of the characters from the first one in this one, it makes it seem as though the stuff in the first one really did happen making it just a standard horror flick.

In any event, FINAL CUT is very watchable IMHO. The main thing it has going for it is the tip of the hat to Alfred Hitchcock in it's tone, presentation, and references. The film is set at a film institute where students aspire to be filmmakers (directors, writers, actors, editors, camera operators, etc.) and the prize they are all trying to win is the aptly named 'Hitchcock Award'. The front-running student is Travis Stark (played by Matthew Davis), but upon getting a grade of C on his final project, he apparently commits suicide thinking his career as a filmmaker will never get off the ground.

The lead character is Amy Mayfield (fresh, young Jennifer Morrison), whose father was a famous filmmaker. Amy has a lot to live up to and feels the weight of her dad's fame. She is a very likable, identifiable character which I found refreshing. She really keeps you involved. Similar to the first film, all these killings are occurring, but only Amy believes they are happening.

EVERYONE else seems to have a logical explanation for it, as in the first one. But this sequel, to me, does good job of combining those Hitchcock elements of involving the audience in the story as well as the fear of the unknown; there's actually a scene in the film where a bunch of students are watching film of a girl die, not realizing that she was really being murdered; this scene is really good. Then there are the direct homages to Hitchcock w/ scenes reminiscent of some of his most famous films (THE BIRDS, VERTIGO, PSYCHO, etc.).

I also really like Amy's film crew and group of friends, who are very funny and engaging. They include Graham (Joey Lawrence), Vanessa (Eva Mendes), Toby (Anson Mount), Stan (Anthony Anderson), Sandra (Jessica Cauffiel), and Simon (Marco Hoffschneider). They all seem like a tight-knit group and the acting in this film is much better than in many such type films.

Not the greatest horror flick, but not even close to the worst. I recommend it.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Too many scary filmmakers making scary movies that make fun of scary movies.
jasonw-522 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
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful!
Maciste_Brother19 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!!!!
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not Bad
norules10320 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I don't understand how people think this was bad! Sure, number one was better, but this one wasn't terrible! Sure, an urban legends movie about making an urban legends movie is a little weird, but I enjoyed it to a certain amount. And you have to love the opening scene! Its Tara Reid all over again. I had to watch her die again and again!

But if you don't like number two, make sure you've seen number one first. It's much better. And if you want to make fun of Urban Legends, make fun of number three. The numbers really do indicate how good or bad they are, 1 being the best.

7/10. Not terrible.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hit and miss
Lady-of-Rohan28 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Haven't I suffered enough watching these stupid horror films? When will it end?! My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me? Are you satisfied that my sanity is running low on gas due to poisoning pop-culture?

Anyways...

Meet Amy Mayfield; a pretty intelligent film-student at university. She's struggling to complete a thesis project that is based on urban legends. Years ago, an urban legend of the campus said that students were being killed off so that someone could win the "Hitchcock prize", a extremely prestigious reward that basically guarantees the winner of directing in Hollywood. From what she can guess, Amy has a good shot at receiving it. When her film crew begins to die from "accidents" and her friend Travis takes his life when he gets a terrible grade on his film project, Amy is on the hunt for the killer. However, Travis' identical twin brother Trevor, (oh dear lord) tells her that he diddn't take his life. He was murdered. It's now up to Amy and well, only Amy to find out who the killer is before she becomes an urban legend too.

OK first off. Trevor is a HORRIBLE body guard. In the film, he told Amy that he wouldn't let anything happen to her. But whenever poor Amy gets into trouble like being chased through a theme park ride, or finding her friends horribly mutilated and electrocuted, or being locked up in a closet with decaying bodys, Trevor's excuse is "Sorry". Sorry? For crying out loud, Trevor! If I was Amy, I'd give him the biggest slap on the face he'd ever have in his life.

Second: The acting. Okay, okay, I know I'm being harsh here for a horror film but the acting was flat out God-awful. There were times when I thought it was a joke, especially the final fight scenes. Never mind university projects. The acting looks like it came from a High School project.

What bugs me the most is that only one of the students dies from an urban legend that I've heard of and believe me, I've heard them all. She dies from a nasty decapitation after she wakes up in a tub of ice and realizes one of her kidney is missing. Judging from the movie this actress was in, I'm surprised it wasn't her brain.

Urban Legends is a classic hit-and-miss film. There are many jumps and mysteries, but not a single surprise.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Uninspired sequel
Libretio28 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.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Worth watching for horror fans.
cLoNe14 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.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Final Cut comes with the good and BAD!
Tiago-1016 October 2000
This film was hard to except. I understood what the film makers were trying to do with it, but ULFC came up lacking. It lacked in a good story line background, and in cheesy acting mostly done by on character who was just too annoying. (hint never let a bad actress play a bad actress in a movie). That being said I do have one good thing to say about it. It does not hold anything back. We see much more gore than in the first. Cinematography was excellent, sometimes it mimicked other films at times, but It was all in good fun. If you liked UL, see this. And for those who don't want the end spoiled don't read the next statement.

Just the fact that Rebecca Gayheart has a cameo at the end is reason enough to see the film.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Sequel to Urban Legend where another killer is killing off college students.
chrisbrown645312 July 2001
What was John Ottman thinking when he made this film? Did he actually believe this would be a good movie? This is nothing but your stereotypical slasher film (AGAIN), where another masked killer is off killing college students. I'm tired of these kinds of films. It's the same thing all the time, either with high school students or college students. Hollywood needs to come up with some original stuff for a change.

Anyway back to the movie. It starts off on a set of a film in the making and the cast gets introduced into the picture. The killing really doesn't start 'till about 15 or so minutes into the film. The plot itself is so stupid because the only reason they can explain why the person is killing people off is because of some Hitchcock award. What the heck? It's not like if I don't win some award that I'm gonna start killing people off.

Another thing that kinda makes no sense is that there's only one cop in the whole college campus. I mean are we to believe that this is some super cop that needs no partner? A modern day superman? I would think that after the first two deaths or so that they'd get enough sense to bring in another officer, but nooooooo. So many plot holes, so little time to bash them.

Also, what's with all these stupid masks that's been in these slasher films recently? First we get a ghostface (the best by far), then an oversized raincoat, then a giant snowjacket, and then there's this fencing mask. I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of right now. I mean if a killer really wanted to conceal his identity that he'd kill the people off then get the heck out of the city, but no he chooses to hang around until someone figures him out. I'd like to see one slasher where the guy wears some sort of wicked facepaint instead of a stupid jacket or a ridicules mask.

Well anyway, the only thing really bad about this film is what's the most important of all, and that's the plot. It was just too overdone and predictable. There weren't even any good scares. I wouldn't be surprised if they made another sequel to this though. Maybe this time the killer will be someone's half brother or great uncle or maybe even the neighborhood kid who constantly stairs out the window.

Geez.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Worthy sequel
Woodyanders13 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
A film school is beset by a series of killings patterned after urban legends. It's up to aspiring filmmaker student Amy Mayfield (an excellent and appealing performance by Jennifer Morrison) to figure out what's going on before it's too late.

Director John Ottman relates the absorbing story at a brisk pace, stages the murder set pieces with skill and flair, delivers a satisfying serving of splatter, and generates a good deal of spooky atmosphere. The smart script by Scott Derrickson and Paul Harris Beckman offers several cool red herrings and affectionate homages to various 80's slasher flicks. The capable acting by the sturdy cast keeps this movie buzzing: Matthew Davis as nice guy Travis and his loyal twin brother Trevor, Hart Bochner as the friendly Professor Solomon, Joey Lawrence as the smarmy Graham Manning, Anson Mount as the arrogant and abusive Toby, Eva Mendes as brash lesbian Vanessa Valdeon, Jessica Cauffiel as ditsy actress Sandra, Anthony Anderson as the happy-go-lucky Stan, Michael Bacall as the jocular Dirk, and Marco Hofschneider as charming cinematographer Simon. Loretta Devine makes a welcome return from the original as sassy security guard Reese. Brian Pearson's glossy widescreen cinematography provides a neat polished look. Ottman's spirited shuddery score hits the shivery spot. A fun follow-up.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
back to childhood
amillionmovies13 May 2016
I remember seeing this movie as a kid. That kidney scene f*ked me up. Totally forgot about it (except for remembering the kidney scene every once in a while but never knew the name of the movie so I never paid it much mind). Now I'm an adult and remembered the bathtub scene a few days ago so decided to google "girl wakes up in bathtub of ice movie) and voila I found it.

The bathtub scene still makes me hold my stomach and squint not because it's all that scary but I guess it still makes me feel like how I felt as a kid watching it. It made me feel the nostalgia I felt re-watching Final Destination as an adult as apposed to as a kid (still creeps me the f*k out.)

I know this movie isn't highly rated but seeing it first as a six year old and now seeing it again makes it hold a special place in my heart.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Eh.
Much like the first film, 'Urban Legends 2', is also one of those films that you appreciate more for the idea than the execution. There wasn't anything new in this sequel, there were murders based on urban legends and it was your usual mystery. Though the acting was not too bad, the actual writing and over complications are a perfect example of too many cooks spoiling the broth, with the cooks being all the stupid twists written in.

There was nothing memorable about it, and I watched it in a completely idle mind, not taking it even remotely seriously. It was probably not the worst murder mystery ever taken, but definitely not amongst the best. The only thing that makes this flick watchable is Loretta, playing the lovable, kick-ass campus security guard.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great movie
raulfaust9 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"Urban Legends: Final Cut" is much similar to the first movie of the franchise, but in here we don't see that lazy plot holes. We can see some clichés of course, but they don't spoil the movie's quality as they did in the first one. The acting is good, the scenes aren't predictable (at least for me) and I doubt anyone knew who was the killer until it was revealed. Moreover, the action wasn't that exhausting never-ending scenes that makes the audience sleep, they were quickly and terminus leaving the spectator satisfied instead of bored. Bottoms up for Eva Mendes for being so sexy and bottoms up for Loretta Devine for being so funny as an incompetent police officer.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It's really not that bad
bh_tafe37 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
While I won't dispute for a second that Urban Legends: Final Cut is a poor man's version of the first film, it's nowhere near as bad as some seem to think it is.

I'll start on the poor man's comment and work my way through. In place of Joshua Jackson we have Joey Lawrence. In place of Freddy Krueger himself Robert Englund we have Hart Bochner, who played that cocaine sniffing conductor of immense enmity Ellis in Die Hard. In place of Tara Reid we have a then unknown (but undeniably attractive) Eva Mendes (playing a lesbian of course). And in place of Alicia Witt we have Jennifer Morrison (who has played a Doctor on House since 2005). A decade later that's a good trade, but it wasn't in 2000 when this was made. And in place of a University campus, we have a film school.

The story: film student Amy Mayfield goes to one of her lecturers with a great idea for a film: she wants to make a movie based on Urban Legends. No sooner has she started filming than everyone involved in the movie starts to get killed off. Adding to Amy's anxiety is the appearance of Travis Stark, twin brother of the recently deceased Trevor Stark, who is determined to prove that his brother didn't kill himself? Could the solution to both their problems be linked? Will they need to jump into bed together to find the answer? All these questions are answered by film's end. Sadly, for most of the audience, all these questions are answered before they've really been asked.

The acting: isn't horrendous. THat's about all I can say. Mendes and Davis (who plays the Trevor/ Travis twin) are awkward in some scenes. Bochner and Morrison are actually pretty decent. Everyone else does what they are paid to do. On a side note, I never want to see Jessica Caulfiell in a movie again. Her worst scenes in this come in the first few minutes where she is purposely putting in a poor performance, but her voice and mannerisms. My goodness.

The kills: the kills aren't bad to be honest. The kills and their reveals are a big strength of the movie and the main reason I think it's a little under rated. The resolution is nice, but most of what comes after hurts much of what came before.

Overall: i'd say this is an average movie. Not good, not terrible. Enjoyable if in the right mood and certainly not offensive. Can't see where all the negativity comes from really.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed