Leprechaun Origins Review

Going into this, I wasn't entirely sure if this movie was considered to be a prequel, a reboot, or a remake, but one thing is for certain; this is not something that I would recommend anyone to watch unless they're a hardcore horror fan. Well, to be more specific, a hardcore fan of the monster movie sub genre. Speaking on the Leprechaun franchise, I can easily understand why a studio might've been tempted to revisit this property for nostalgia triggering potential (the fun, campy 90's comedic horror elements) especially for its celebrated lead performance by Warwick Davis who iconically played the titular monster. However, like any other horror remake or reboot over the past decade, there's an immediate challenge that comes when a new movie is announced that's likely to recast beloved roles or change certain things to fit a new vision. That challenge being the amount of skepticism from die hard fans of the franchise regarding alterations being made to something that they love. 

Warwick Davis as the iconic leprechaun

Dylan Mark Postl as the new iteration

As for me, I didn't mind seeing a new actor behind the leprechaun character as I found it kind of interesting to see how anyone could possibly breathe new life into such a highly animated and bizarre horror icon. However, there was literally no reason to cast one of their stars (Dylan Mark Postl who ironically played a wild, crazy Leprechaun within the WWE Studios brand) for the starring role of the movie considering the creative approach that they took. There is absolutely no performance whatsoever given with this incarnation of the character being that it's depicted more so as a grotesque, feral creature as opposed to the traditionally sinister and behaviorally vibrant trickster of the franchise. Picture in your mind a much smaller version of the cave dwelling creatures from 2006's The Descent and you essentially have the new direction taken with this iteration. There is no fun, quippy dialogue or screen stealing performance given to this fantastical monster resulting in a comparatively dull aesthetic.

We're basically just handed over this hideously crafted (referring to the terribly applied prosthetics work) and highly uninteresting looking monster to be supposedly scared of or entertained by with a tiny drop of desperately inserted contextual lore. Actually, let's talk about that glimmer of mythology being dropped in here because that's really the only point where the movie actually feels like it's trying to do something engaging for the audience. Now for me, when it comes to monster movies in general, I usually find myself mostly fascinated by the mystery and story behind the creature itself eagerly absorbing all of the background info being given as it sometimes adds more intrigue to the horror or action segments taking place. In the case of Leprechaun Origins, we're given this semi-intriguing concept of the leprechaun not being able to pass these ancient stones set up in the opening. Also the idea of the town using sacrifices (the hikers that we follow along in this case) for the leprechaun to leave them alone did add an extra layer to the setting which was positively unexpected for me.

The shining light in this origin story entry (or rather a very dim light) is the Irish father/son duo played by Gary Chalk and Teach Grant. Honestly, the more I think about it, I would have rather seen a movie surrounding just them surviving the leprechaun attack instead of the characters that we're actually given due to their sense of history of protecting this town from the monster. As for the main cast that we're forced to follow along with on this dreadful ride, there is absolutely nothing worth celebrating within the performances or character development surrounding this core ensemble. Just like many other traditional creature features or slasher films, every character is most likely expendable and is simply there as a prop to get annihilated by the special FX department. If there was any potential to give us some interesting lead to at least root for despite the terrible movie that they're thrown into, it's completely absent here unfortunately.

Now, getting into the main reason why anyone would even remotely consider watching this movie, let's talk about how this new leprechaun delivers. Well, not holding anything back in this statement, it is arguably the worst rendition of this creature that I've ever seen in any medium of storytelling. First off, the prosthetics work and actual movement of the creature is so terrible to the degree that they continuously blur out or cut away from it (don't you dare say that it's for artistic or stylistic effect). The thermal imaging visual style that is shown when the creature's perspective is displayed is annoying and unnecessary feeling at times as well as the occasional growling sounds that it makes. The overall appearance is nowhere close to being the least bit scary or visually striking (even the original franchise put the effort in to make him creepy).

Everything in relation to this creature is beyond generic and unimaginative which begs the question, "Who in their right mind green lit any of this?". Was this movie made solely to keep the rights to the property much like the terrible Hellraiser Revelations was? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that's the case considering the quality that we're given here. Guys, Leprechaun Origins fails on so many levels that it's pretty amazing this movie even got released by a studio taking on a relatively recognizable license. It fails significantly as a reboot by completely dumbing down the iconic character's celebrated personality (which in retrospect makes me realize how much plastering Dylan Mark Postl's name on this movie feels like borderline false advertisement). It also offers up hardly anything refreshing that's worth exploring which again begs the glaring question, "Who on Earth thought this was a good idea?"

Bonus Content

1. Monster Similarities Reference

Creature from 2014's Leprechaun Origins

Creature from 2006's "The Descent"

Rating: 3/10