People are voting emotionally.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Form the opening bungee jump this tries to be an adrenalin charged version of the first film, but it just falls flat in so many ways The central romance is unconvincing, the story just has too many daft elements, and this just misses the simplicity of the original, and tries to be more "interesting" by being more complex, but just ends up a mess

There have been few films that I have really wanted to see a follow-up to, but A W in L was one. It combined terror with humour and at the end of the film - great sadness. A real masterpiece with great music and photography. This follow-up was frankly garbage and I was ready to switch off within 20 mins of the start.

I gave this movie a rating of 1 which by IMDb standards means Awful. This movie is not 'awful' in the least, however it IS a remake, and I HATE remakes... Don't get me wrong, there are some movies, where the remake is better than the original, The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatcher (the first remake), but those movies had a great story. Well ahead of their time, but at the time they were originally made, the special effects technology was no where near what the story needed, to make them truly shine.An American Werewolf in London was phenomenal when it was made. It stood special effects companies on their heads, and made them change their approaches to several movies since. Because of this it will stand as a classic, that should have NEVER been "remade" ever. An American Werewolf in Paris, is a farce, and should be stricken for the annuls of history. Which is too bad, as I really like Tom Everett Scott, and this movie kinda ruined his career.I mean he worked with Tom Hanks on The Wonders, and then......... too bad. I know why he took the role, it wasn't his fault, that the movie should never have been made.

I only wish there was a 0/10 option. It is difficult to comprehend just how bad this movie was. Not merely bad as a sequel to a classic - just plain bad.The actors have zero charisma. Tom Everett Scott has thankfully faded into obscurity and Julie Delpy...well, she must have improved as she has forged a successful career in European art-house romantic dramas.The transformation scenes are just...just so bad. Again, not even comparing them to Rick Bakers masterpiece, just to any werewolf movie. The Wolfman (1941) had a better transformation.The CGI werewolves look about half as scary as Sully in Monsters Inc.The plot and screenplay is lazy. It takes about half of the ideas from the original and redoes them - badly. The rest of the plot was, I would have to guess, written by someone who really hated his job.The comedy - the only stuff that works is the idea lifted from 'London' - namely the victims haunting the werewolf.The scares - um, someone forgot to add them into the movie. The scariest thing is that this abomination saw the light of day.Sequel elements - The love interest is the daughter of David and Alex from the first movie (Alex played in this movie by someone other than Jenny Agutter).In trying to steer others away from this garbage, I feel I have balanced out all of the bad things I have ever done in my 36 years.In closing, I would rather get a prostate exam from Freddy Krueger than have to sit through this steaming pile ever again.