Monique Parent is an attractive woman but even attractive women can't hide a bad film with zero thrills and unerotic sex scenes. Parent has done much more steamier work than this pathetic excuse for a horror film. View at your own risk.
Add a Review
-
dexterslade3 January 2001
-
justinwilliams37130 March 2006There is nothing redeeming about this film. First one was OK. The second one was great purely for the presence of Roddy McDowell. The leading lady has a good figure but that is only interesting for the first minute or two. It is poor, poor, poor. I have seen better school plays. Although made in the mid nineties, the film quality is reminiscent of the early eighties B movies. The dialogue is as cheesy as it comes and the acting, oh dear. With regards to this film someone has definitely lost the plot. There isn't one. Really, stay clear if you can, but if you are willing to sit through it just to complete the series, then disengage your brain.
-
"Mirror, Mirror III: The Voyeur" follows an artist with a ghostly woman/ lover stalking him after he relocates to a mansion where a mysterious antique mirror is housed. She randomly appears to him and they have sex in front of the mirror, which bleeds whenever she kills someone. A subplot detailing her death at the hands of a drug dealer is intermixed.
That's the best I have at describing the plot of the film, and even that may be totally off-base. The truth is, there is not much of a decipherable plot to this film, and I say that completely ingenuously. There really is no "story" to "Mirror, Mirror III"; it is more like a series of badly-shot "shock" images peppered within a Cinemax soft-core porno—no story, no intrigue, no subtlety. I don't really know what it was about, except that the majority of it was made up of tacky sex scenes and bad dialogue.
The editing and special effects are horrendously sloppy; for example, there is a long, drawn-out opening montage featuring FX-enhanced images of a car speeding through Los Angeles that attempt to thrust a backstory at the audience before the exposition has even begun (there isn't any exposition after all I suppose, so it ultimately makes no difference). At moments, the filmmakers seem to attempting to channel David Lynch, but the result is embarrassingly bad. Billy Drago spends most of his time on screen moping around a bedroom when he's not having sex with Monique Parent on the bed while curtains flap around them in the wind. The only honest-to-God reason I finished the film was because Mark Ruffalo (who was also in an unconnected role in the previous sequel) was infectiously adorable in it, as well as the only actor to turn in a somewhat solid performance.
Overall, "Mirror, Mirror III: The Voyeur" is an unequivocally bad film—like, really bad—and I rarely say that about a movie. It is some of the laziest filmmaking I've ever seen, and also a disgrace to the original "Mirror, Mirror," which, although no masterpiece, was a decent horror movie. Even the prior installment, which was bad for other reasons, was ten times more watchable than this. Literally one of the most dumbfounding experiences I've had watching a movie. Monique Parent spends virtually the entire film naked, so there's that, and Ruffalo also shows his body off at the end, serving as proof that he's always looked great. Other than that, there is no reason to watch this film—intellectually, visually, or otherwise. 2/10. -
whammy66613 February 2005Wow, I bought the Mirror, Mirror boxed set. Part 1 is a classic. Part 2 is good. And I had not seen 3. I heard it was bad but wowwwwwwwww. It is bad. This is one of the worst films I have seen in my life. It looks like a 2 year old made it. No, a 2 year old could of done better. I am amazed by this crap. The acting sucks. The directing sucks. The special effects suck. The quality of the film sucks. I cannot say one good thing about this film except Jimmy Lifton's score is still around and that is good music. I cannot think of another positive thing about this film. UGh all it is is these 2 people having sex for an hour and a half then some people die. The mirror does look the same as in the other films but that does not matter. Nothing on Earth can save this miserable piece of crap. 1/10
-
mt8228821 May 2021This movie has some good naked bewbs. And Mark Ruffalo and Billy Drago.
-
merklekranz16 June 2010"Mirror Mirror 3 " confirms that Billy Drago should stick with the typecast psycho villains he usually plays. His whispering acting technique is totally lost in this excruciatingly boring film. Watching the paint dry on artist Drago's canvases would prove more interesting than this mess. It's something about a mirror, an old house, and a drug dealer's wife brought back from the dead. When the plot synopsis on the back of the DVD box takes up only six lines, you know things are going to be rough. Other than Billy Drago, there is nothing here of interest, except a few unexciting sex scenes with a couple of really bad actresses. Avoid at all costs. - MERK
-
betterthanyouall18 June 2005Okay, I have just finished watching this movie, and it is pure, unadulterated crap. But that is beside the point. It would be great if they had more of the soft core porn feel if THERE WERE MORE THAN TWO FEMALES IN THE MOVIE. Seriously. The blonde woman rarely does get in the spirit of the pornographic nature of this film. She gets naked twice. The other girl does it quite a bit. In flashbacks. OF THE SAME DAMN SCENE. This one doesn't suffer from SWIRLY CAM OF DOOM syndrome like Raven Dance did. But still.
My main problem, however, is the blood is so ridiculously watered down. The classic "blood drips down the mirror" thing that happened in the first two was ridiculous. The water...err blood...didn't even drip down realistically, nor in impressive amounts like the first two (it also hurt that no female was getting near orgasmic seeing it, just some creepy middle aged man who keeps having sex with the same girl over and over and over-acting), seriously, I'd rather watch THE KNIGHT FROM THE STAINED GLASS WINDOW IN RAVEN DANCE star in a buddy cop comedy with Air Bud than watch this film again.
All I can say is why David Naughtan? Why? -
Groverdox1 February 2018The third movie in the "Mirror Mirror" series marked the point where the franchise abandoned horror for soft-core porn. The movie has very little, if any, violence, and the demon that lived in the mirror in the previous two films never shows up. Instead we're treated to Billy Drago having sex almost continuously throughout the hour-and-a-half run-time.
Is there anyone out there - anyone at all - who wants to see that? With his long, angular face and pleading eyes, Drago looks like a drug addled vampire. The IMDB description calls him a "young man", but he was already grey and pot-bellied in this movie.
Perhaps they meant Ruffalo, who they probably should have cast as the lead - though one appearance in this series should have been enough for him. He does get one sex scene, which is a relief because it makes a break from seeing half-naked Billy Drago with his beady eyes and barely-there face pecking away at whatever soft-core actress was in this.
Drago's weird appearance makes him a more convincing demon than the ones that appeared in the first two "Mirror Mirror" flicks. But the question of why the filmmakers thought we'd want to watch him on the job is perhaps better left unanswered.
The plot of this entry in the series is something to do with an artist who may or may not move into a house with the haunted mirror the whole series of movies revolves around. Looking into the mirror, or being in the same room with it, apparently triggers flashbacks or visions of Hispanic drug dealers in some completely neutered would-be action movie sequences that don't generate anything but boredom. A lady who is killed by the drug dealers comes through the mirror and has sex with Drago.
This set-up is repeated at least a few times and then the movie ends.
I have reservations about even calling "Mirror Mirror 3" a movie. It feels more like the directors' (there are two, perhaps because the main one didn't know how to turn the camera on) audition tape for "The Red Shoe Diaries". This is not an audition they would have passed. -
I_Ailurophile22 September 2023A seventeen-minute prologue, which we are informed took place two months prior, in a second sequel to a second-rate horror film? Sure, why not. Two recognizable stars, one up-and-comer (now more famous than the others), and a relative of an even more famous actor? You bet! Lovingly shot but empty and nevertheless prolific love scenes, acting that is almost uniformly either limp or overdone, dubious sequencing and editing, and dialogue, scene writing, and direction that one could be forgiven for thinking came from the mind of Tommy Wiseau? Check! It really seems from the start that scribe Steve Tymon was straining to summon workable story ideas when all he actually had to do was focus on an evil mirror. Two credited directors were both equally unable to shape this into a cohesive, meaningful, or baseline interesting form, nevermind a tantalizing or exciting one. The music here is even more bland and milquetoast than it was in either of the previous films. I'm supposing it was producer Jimmy Lifton, the common link of these titles, that decided 'Mirror mirror III: The voyeur' was a good idea. Producer Jimmy Lifton, however, was deeply mistaken.
The 1990 progenitor was no peak of horror, nor storytelling or film-making, but it was overall pretty well done and enjoyable. The first sequel, 'Raven dance,' was marked by direly weak writing, direction, and acting, a desperately inferior follow-up to a less than stellar product, but at least it had a cute cat. One tends to assume diminishing returns in movie series, horror above all, and we've seen that trend time and again. This series, however, went from "hey, this is pretty decent" to "by the gods, this is awful" to "bafflingly dull, languid, and useless." In fact, it's readily apparent that this 1995 dud was intended to be and built as an erotic thriller first and foremost, a few hairs shy of softcore, with the genre element mostly represented in the mere presence of a ghost who in life dabbled in magic doodads. It's not until we're almost two-thirds through the length that the mirror even really comes into play, and as it does we're treated to another sore spot in this production, which was absolutely bottom-dollar visual effects. Action sequences are pretty much downright senseless. A more concrete horror aspect does show up in the last third, but it is very thin and insufficient.
The most interesting and clever 'The voyeur' gets is arguably in a short, throwaway scene in which Mark Ruffalo's character is preparing a sandwich, and with the space of a couple minutes the scene makes small references to this picture's predecessors. Those facets of the story centering David Naughton or Richard Cansino's characters are all but completely superfluous. When the horror does show up more firmly n the last stretch it gives a surprising tiny boost to the proceedings, but it's not nearly enough all on its own to count for much in the grand scheme of things. There's some nice lighting, perhaps, and art direction, and practical effects. But what else about this feature comes off well? I'm hard-pressed to name anything. I had low expectations and still I'm flummoxed by how terribly meek this is. That the last act is marginally stronger than the preceding length saves this from the extreme bottom of the barrel, but for as flaccid as the presentation is in almost every single way, the distinction is almost totally meaningless. Whatever it is that you think you might get out of 'Mirror Mirror III,' I regret to inform that you are gravely mistaken, and I urge all potential viewers to more wisely spend their time elsewhere.