Mirror Mirror 2: Raven Dance

Well, I rented this after seeing part 1, which I LOVE. When I saw this I liked it. It is a little slow and starts out cheesy but it gets better. It has a good storyline, some awesome and original kills ("church window" kill=most original kill I HAVE EVER SEEN!) Not too much blood, however, but still some awesome scenes. Special effects, of course, are not the greatest but fairly good. It is good for it's budget. This also dishes out another brilliant ending. The acting is decent. I have seen better acting though I have seen A LOT WORSE. (Can you say AX EM?) So I recommend this if you liked the first, it is an enjoyable film, IMO. 7/10

There where the original "Mirror Mirror" was a surprisingly fun and atypical early 90s slasher/demonic horror movie, the sequel very much is an unsurprisingly weak and typically annoying mid-90s horror sequel. Gone is the light-hearted atmosphere of the original, and all the likable characters and gory set-pieces with it.

What's even more frustrating, but sadly also typical for 90s horror, is that "Raven Dance" nevertheless holds a massive lot of potential, but the untalented director Jimmy Lifton (whoever he is...) does nothing with it. The convent/orphanage setting is terrific, for instance, but there only seem to be two nuns living there and all the orphans are on vacation. What?! The wicked older stepsister plots to mentally break the lead girl, and pump her full of drugs, but she already falls apart herself when she sees the wrinkles in her own face. The film stars none other than B-movie queen Veronica Cartwright as a hysterical blind nun, but the director keeps her locked up in a dark room pretty much the entire time. The "innocent" 9-year-old can supposedly defeat the evil forces, but he's played by such a dreadfully annoying and untalented kid that you wish for him to die in the most excruciatingly painful way imaginable. And - worst of all - whenever the script becomes senseless or heads towards a dead end (and this happens frequently, believe me) Lifton's solution is to insert endlessly long footage of lead actress Tracy Wells dancing in her room.

The impressive, for such a lousy flick at least, star-power is totally wasted. Next to Cartwright, "Raven Dance" also stars a young Mark Ruffalo (I still don't know whether he's supposed to be good or evil) and the always-deranged Roddy McDowall (can somebody explain to me what happened to his character, by the way). William Sanderson also briefly appears, but as a different and totally unrelated character than he depicted in the original "Mirror Mirror"; - that's how consistent this movie is. I only just found out today there also exists a "Mirror Mirror 3", and even a "Mirror Mirror 4", but I think I'll politely pass on those.

The sequel to the (fondly remembered, in some quarters) 1990 horror flick "Mirror Mirror" could give you cause to wonder if the producers of it made a Faustian bargain of their own with the haunted mirror in the movie. It's like they asked for above-par cinematography and actors, but didn't realise that granting this wish would also put their screenplay through a paper-shredder.

The original "Mirror Mirror" didn't seem to know what to do with the whole "haunted mirror grants dark powers that help you get revenge" premise, so instead it fell back on a few generic horror movie death scenes where pipes sprung leaks and killed naked 20-something high school students. The sequel, on the other hand, more completely embraces its concept, showing people conversing with the mirror as if there were someone on the other side.

This doesn't help much, though. The movie is too disjointed, with weird flourishes of dancing and ravens that do nothing but signal to the viewer that they can stop paying attention because nothing important is going to happen for the next few moments. It feels like the director reaching beyond their grasp. Like they are trying to achieve something transcendent and haunting with the ballet and the raven.

They fail, dismally.

The plot is something to do with a young ballerina and her violinist brother who lose their parents in an accident and are sent to stay with a bunch of nuns. Their much older stepsister(played by Sally Kellerman from MASH) is out to get their inheritance, aided by an evil doctor played by Roddy McDowall. An oily drifter played by a young Mark Ruffalo is there to save the day, however.

William Sanderson (of Blade Runner and Deadwood) is the only actor from the first movie who returns, and he seems to be playing a different character here. I wasn't really sure who his character was, or what he was doing in the movie - but then his inclusion didn't make much sense in the first movie, either.

Unlike the original movie, there is no nudity (or sex) in "Mirror Mirror 2", and I can hardly remember any violence. There was one thing I hadn't seen before, however: a knight depicted in stain-glass windows comes to life. I don't think I have ever seen stained-glass animated before.

The demon that lives in the mirror again shows up at the end of the movie, and we get a better look at him. He's pretty unimpressive looking.

This sequel doesn't have a whole lot to recommend it, frankly. Does anyone watch horror movies for their cinematography or music? Do you?

Very tepid horror movie, if you can even call it that. A tale about a mirror which is supposed to be evil but it does little more than emit weird sounds and drip some blood from time to time. There is scarcely any acting, and the only good thing I can think about the movie is that the dance scenes and the music were pretty cool, although far from good. I have never seen the first movie, Mirror Mirror, but it can't be worse than this one.

The first film, released in 1990, was no great peak of horror, nor storytelling or film-making generally, but it was suitably well made and enjoyable. It also felt a lot like something that could've been easily mistaken for a Charles Band production with the somewhat middling nature of most facets, from basic production values and music to the way that dialogue, scenes, and characters were written. And, well, then one sits to watch the sequel. Let me speak plainly: this immediately comes off as substantially weaker, an inferior revisit of a less than stellar product. There are some recognizable names and faces involved, and we know what they're capable of, but between what was very apparently a modest budget and the seemingly unpracticed skills of some chief figures the end result is tiresomely flimsy right from the start. 'Raven dance' is just sadly just not very good.

While Jimmy Lifton produced the predecessor, this was his first work as a director, and to be frank, it shows. The direction readily comes off as scattered and inconsistent (but mostly just meager). In turn the acting is highly variable in its quality (but mostly just unconvincing); in fairness, I wonder about the skills of some of the actors in the first place. The plot at large feels very forced (and sometimes almost downright incohesive), and the scene writing shares all these mentioned qualities while also often seeming unfinished - part of an idea, but not fully conjured. It goes without saying that all this applies to the dialogue, too, and as an aside, please note a content warning for substantial, ugly ableist language. The pacing was lax in 1990; in 1994 it's rather slothful. 'Mirror mirror II' relies a lot more on post-production effects, and as these evidently received the least portion of those resources available to the feature, they do not come off well.

This was only Mark Ruffalo's first full-length film, but in all honesty even in a supporting part he acts circles around all his co-stars, especially (but definitely not limited to) Veronica Cartwright and Lois Nettleton. To whatever extent Lifton's direction can be faulted for the bad performances, the cast obviously share some responsibility, too. I guess the art direction is easy on the eyes, and the choreography; of all things the cinematography is unexpectedly strong. The costume design, hair, and makeup are nice. But then, Lifton's music is mostly even more bland here than it was the first time around, with only bits and pieces of real flavor. While there may be some good ideas in the screenplay Lifton concocted with Virginia Perfili, they are very few, and quite meek in the first place. And I must repeat that by and large the writing is just feeble, and though I'll grant some allowances based on Lifton's inexperience as a director, there's no getting around how flimsy his work is in that capacity.

The more the plot advances, the more deeply questionable and unbelievable that it is. A moment at the start of the third act, precipitating the remainder and specifically "mirroring" a similar instance from the first movie, is terribly contrived for the fact that there's no build-up to it. It's not even firmly, plausibly established why Marlee and Jeffrey are at the "Catholic orphanage" in the first place when literally no one else is. I guess we're just intended to take all this at face value, but I have a very hard time doing that. And for whatever violence, blood, gore, and otherwise horror the previous title may have offered, it's worth observing that there's just simply less of it in this followup. My expectations were mixed to low when I sat to watch, and still I'm rather confounded by how astonishingly unsteady, languid, and limp this picture is. It doesn't make a good impression at the outset, and it only ever gets worse; I'd say the ending is at least appreciable, except it's unabashedly imitative. Whatever it is you're looking for in 'Mirror mirror II,' I really just don't think you're going to find it, and there are far, far better ways to spend your time.