$2.50 Reviews: I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer (2006)

Next Review: Rock Star


$2.50 Reviews:

I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer

image

I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer comes to us for absolutely no reason at all. It was released in 2006, almost a decade after I Still Know What You Did Last Summer graced our screens. Its predecessor wasn't exactly a big hit with audiences and critics, and the series up until this point was not all that memorable. I enjoyed both previous titles, but I seem to be in the minority. This film comes out as a largely unrelated installment, one whose title is meant just to hopefully milk the cash-cow one last time.

Two of these characters are NEVER SEEN FROM AGAIN!
Two of these characters are NEVER SEEN FROM AGAIN!

But the franchise was more or less dead. Sure, the previous two films made money, but if you leave any series for too long, they get forgotten. When a series doesn't have much going for it anyway, attaching an almost entirely unrelated film to it won't help its case. Release this new film direct-to-DVD, with almost no advertising or promotion, and your attempted cash grab will fail to bring in the money. The quality of the film is irrelevant at this point, because nobody will want to see your movie.

So we were given I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer a movie made just to make money. Did it get any? I'm really not sure. Did it deserve to make any? Not really. It's a poorly made film that's more or less a remake or re-imagining of the original, scattered with uninspired deaths, weak characters and a plot twist at the end that makes me want to disregard it as a part of the I Know franchise. In fact, that's probably the best way to look at it: A bad film unrelated to anything else that already exists.

The plot of I'll Always Know... starts out similarly to the first film. There are some teenagers, they mess around, someone gets killed, they decide not to say anything about it to anyone, and then one of them receives a message that freaks them all out. The message is sent anonymously, and reads: "I know what you did last summer." Apparently the all-caps letter from the first film was too angry in tone for them to copy it directly. Or something. If you're essentially remaking the first movie, why not copy as much as you can?

They look puzzled.
They look puzzled.

The person who sent this message is someone who we've learned to call "The Fisherman". In the first two films, his goal was to kill the teenagers as part of a revenge plot. Here, it's set-up that he's punishing them for keeping this secret. Does he not have anything better to do? Anyway, a large portion of plot is spent trying to figure out who's behind the slicker and galoshes. Is it a copycat, or the real thing back from the grave? It ultimately doesn't matter, except that they butcher the character, which makes me dislike this movie even more.

What I liked about the first film was the fact that enough effort was put into the characters so that we cared that their lives were in peril. Love Hewitt's Julie Jones may not have been the best acted or well-spoken character in the world, but at least we didn't want to see her die. The characters in this film all have personalities too -- it's just too bad that they're all carbon copies of the first film's characters. They're almost identical, but they don't get the development, leaving us feeling cold when the fisherman shows up. And since, as is almost a tradition in slasher films, they're annoying, there's a good chance you'll want to see them dead before the film concludes.

Speaking of the deaths, (this is a slasher film, after all), none of them are interesting. This series has never been known for incredibly clever death scenes, but this is the worst it has gotten. The fisherman has a hook. He uses that hook to slash to impale people. That's about the extent of the death scenes, save for the final death of the movie that we don't even get to see thanks to the camera being placed so that we don't see that the character getting ripped to shreds is actually a dummy. (They let us see it earlier when someone gets hit by a car and is clearly not a real person, but I digress).

I'm done with real pictures.
I'm done with real pictures.

The best way to look at this movie is as if it was the first film in a new series, and that any connections were simply "paying homage" to the first two films. The only real connection comes in the form of a scrapbook containing newspaper clippings that detail the events of the previous films. The characters look at this for almost no reason, except maybe to excite fans by mentioning much better movies. But how many fans of this series are there, and more importantly, how many care? Perhaps the most important question is: "Would they want to have their movies referenced in something as cheap and terrible as this?" I'll tell you that I didn't.

We were given I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer in an attempt to cash-in on an already dead franchise. The result is a sloppy, boring and pointless film that ruins the villain from the previous films. There's nothing here that is any good, nor is there any reason to watch this movie. The best thing you can do is mentally remove it from the series' continuity and just hope that nothing like it is ever made again.

_________________________________________________________________________________

If you are a fan of my reviews, and want to boost my ego receive notifications when new reviews are posted, or find an old review, please join/visit this user group.

I have to ask, why review this older movie? We all know it's bad, right?

People could read a billion 'already made reviews' about this and post as much without ever seeing the movie.

So again, what's the point?

Sorry if I come across as crude, but I am seriously curious.

You need to put more of a personal touch into the review if you want it to stand out.

I recommend attempting a ore obscure movie and having a unique insight into it rather than offering the same old stuff.

You make bland statements n this review that have no merit other than: this happened, I didn't like it, the first movie was kinda good..

You need to be more personal and explain things in a way that reflects you as a reviewer instead of just: this sucks, that sucks, I liked this one thing, but I won't explain any of my reasoning.

That's just my critic to try and help you get better, I'm sure I'm not a majority in what I perceive. Just tryin ta help ya.

EDIT: You're right, you are doing it all great. Your amount of personality has shined through in spades, and you have become a completely unique entity based off this review, and your 'many' others.

The realization came to me when you said:

-'This happens to be one of the ones where I didn't insert my opinion as much.'-

That makes it a lot better? I guess I sit corrected on this one.

Sober Thal:
I have to ask, why review this older movie? We all know it's bad, right?

People could read a billion already made reviews about this and post as much without ever seeing the movie.

So again, what's the point?

Sorry if I come across as crude, but I am seriously curious.

A) It's kind of what I do. If you haven't noticed, the vast majority of my reviews are of older movies.
B) I just reviewed the last two I Know What You Did... films, and wanted to finish the series.
C) Since I liked the previous two films, which is against both audience and critical consensus, there was sufficient reason to give the third film a chance.
D) There actually aren't a lot of reviews about this movie. Rotten Tomatoes has 6 critic reviews, which is hardly "a billion already made".

So yeah, that's pretty much why.

Marter:

Sober Thal:
I have to ask, why review this older movie? We all know it's bad, right?

People could read a billion already made reviews about this and post as much without ever seeing the movie.

So again, what's the point?

Sorry if I come across as crude, but I am seriously curious.

A) It's kind of what I do. If you haven't noticed, the vast majority of my reviews are of older movies.
B) I just reviewed the last two I Know What You Did... films, and wanted to finish the series.
C) Since I liked the previous two films, which is against both audience and critical consensus, there was sufficient reason to give the third film a chance.
D) There actually aren't a lot of reviews about this movie. Rotten Tomatoes has 6 critic reviews, which is hardly "a billion already made".

So yeah, that's pretty much why.

Edited my first post as you were typing your response...

Bump (no more free bumps)

Sober Thal:
You need to put more of a personal touch into the review if you want it to stand out.

I recommend attempting a ore obscure movie and having a unique insight into it rather than offering the same old stuff.

You make bland statements n this review that have no merit other than: this happened, I didn't like it, the first movie was kinda good..

You need to be more personal and explain things in a way that reflects you as a reviewer instead of just: this sucks, that sucks, I liked this one thing, but I won't explain any of my reasoning.

That's just my critic to try and help you get better, I'm sure I'm not a majority in what I perceive. Just tryin ta help ya.

What you're suggesting I do is something that a couple of people have brought up before. But then there are often people who will jump in and say that not always heavily stating my personal opinion if why they like reading these.

It comes down to not being able to please everybody. I've written some that are more heavily opinion laden, while others I've tried to stay as objective as possible. This happens to be one of the ones where I didn't insert my opinion as much.

I get what you're saying, because I've had people tell me it before. But I like to think that I generally have a good mix, with some reviews falling on one side of the spectrum or the other.

And in terms of standing out, I think that the sheer volume of reviews that I write does that for me.

As I re-read this one, I do think I included enough personal opinion in, but if you feel I didn't, then that's your opinion. You do have a point, although to what extent you'd prefer personal opinion to dominate isn't something that I can tell.

Regardless, thanks for your input.

I like your kind of reviews, they´re fairly objective and don´t spoil the movie, if I was ever to watch them. Stay that way :)

Steambroom:
I like your kind of reviews, they´re fairly objective and don´t spoil the movie, if I was ever to watch them. Stay that way :)

Very seconded. Marter, I've said it before, but I really like your review style.

TheAceTheOne:

Steambroom:
I like your kind of reviews, they´re fairly objective and don´t spoil the movie, if I was ever to watch them. Stay that way :)

Very seconded. Marter, I've said it before, but I really like your review style.

Thirded. I think it should say something that yours are the only user reviews I read on this site (although it could just be saying that I'm too lazy to find others I like reading).

So, it's a bad sequel to a movie franchise that already wasn't to my taste? Yeah, I think I'll give this one a miss.

But anyway, concerning the criticism you've got in this thread, I think your reviews are pretty good from what I've read. It's a lot better written than most of the stuff in this part of the forum.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked