Mirror Mirror 2: Raven Dance

Most films are only as good as the screenplay or adaptation from where they originate. Although the cast of this film is experienced, with most receiving an award of some kind in their careers, one would never know that from the performances of this lot! There is one exception however, young Ms. Tracy Wells does indeed show that she has developed beyond the childhood actress she was at one time.

Moreover, Tracy is able to really show off her skills in some rather compromising scenes. She is wonderful in a seduction scene where, while being possessed, she is able to (convincingly) go through a sequence of erotic dreams. And again, and even more prominent, she is able to showcase her dancing talent, relentlessly, that earned her high praises as well as the Pepsi gig with Michael "Jacko" Jackson. In fact, the high point of this film is the breathtaking camera work that moves with Tracy from one side of the room to the other. The dance sequence alone rushed this critic enough to sit through an otherwise butt-numbing movie.

I liked the old VHS box more than the movie. It has one of those shifting-picture covers; a woman sits in front of a mirror in her underwear, turns and screams at a raven breaking through the glass of the mirror. The mirror does look like the one in the movie; the woman doesn't.

In a prologue, a woman is in a room with nuns, and a mirror covered by a sheet. The mirror distresses her, and she wants it to be destroyed with a knife. One of the nuns scoffs, uncovers it, and loses her sight.

Years later, a young woman dancer and her retarded violinist brother are staying at the same place. A metal/punk band is rehearsing there for some reason, and all get charred during a lightning storm after they bring the mirror out of a closet and uncover it. There are a pair of legs hanging from the ceiling in this room, which can be seen in several scenes in the movie, and I don't know why.

The siblings' parents have died, and they're staying at this nunnery or orphanage where there are no other children. The girl's much older stepsister arrives with her doctor and they try to manipulate her health and mental health in ways that will result in the stepsister obtaining the inheritance (she'd been left out entirely). They hire a janitor (of the nunnery? or elsewhere?) or outsider artist to help them, but he doesn't do much. He's played by William Sanderson, who was in the first movie, but he's playing a different character here.

The dancer falls in love with the mirror, and the brother seems to like it initially, then doesn't. Mostly he whines a lot. A young man named Christian seems to appear and disappear, and he seems to be related to the mirror in some way.

There are some short scenes where some toys are animated that are nicely done, and there's a scene where the dancer's vision is blurred and her bed seems to be undulating that was neat, if brief. I don't know if this was done with a camera or post-production effect, or if they made the bed movie. One of the death scenes copies one of the more memorable scenes from Young Sherlock Holmes (1985).

As others have said, there are dancing scenes in the movie, and there is a raven who keeps showing up to attack people or cause them to have accidents, but there isn't a "raven dance" whatever that might be. Oddly, the title of the movie is Raven Dance. It's the video box cover that is Mirror Mirror 2: "Raven Dance." The end credits say something like "Raven Dance from the tales of Mirror, Mirror."

The ending is really stupid, almost of the "it was all a dream" variety with a slight twist. There's a scene after the last of the credits have rolled of three monks in a room standing by a slanted table covered with candles. One of the monks face cannot be seen at all (the others, only barely), and his right hand seems to be skeletal while his left seems to be fine (one of the characters in the movie does lose a hand...). They seem to be talking backwards. It's only a few seconds long. I have no idea how it connects with the rest of the movie!

I may watch parts three and four sometime, if only to see how they compare.

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.

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

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.