Wolfhound

I've just seen this glorious epic at a Kiev cinema and am amazed at how Russian cinema can release such a superb fantasy film. This is an adaptation of the first Volkodav fantasy novel by Maria Semyonova that draws on a wide range of Slavic mythology.

Alexander Bukharov is well cast as the hero, the "wolfhound" fighting the evil "wolf", with a strong supporting cast that relies on impact more than the hairstyles, tooth-whitener and revealing loincloths of Hollywood. This is not a sentimental film, but accepts the violence and closeness-to-nature of tribal life, reminiscent of the Dark Ages. The film's stark, realistic feel reminded me of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, that emotionally draws many parallels.

Bukharov would be an ideal King Arthur or King Alfred - it's a pity that his nationality will probably write off any Hollywood offers. The obvious comparison is to Lord of the Rings, but the movie manages to keep originality in many plot strands, effects and characterization's.

Its landscapes are relatively muted, having been filmed in Slovakia rather than New Zealand, but its effects and monsters are winners over Hollywood, by maintaining suspense and keeping many nasties just out of vision. By having the main effects based on primal forces of nature, rather than a new-generation iteration of Predator or Alien, it avoids the typical clichés that most fantasy films suffer from.

I hope this gets a wide release in Europe and the USA - it certainly deserves it.

It's true, I started with low expectations. I also rated this higher because I don't see many Russian movies. But let's face it, it was better than Eragon, Narnia and Terabithia put together. With a lower budget, it is comparable to Lord of the Rings.

Of course, the plot is not terribly original, but it's not a cheap copy of something else, either. Even from the start you know this is a heroic fantasy and the film fully delivers both in action and special effects and background story. It also suffers from the Russian book worm: a lot of characters, sometimes you don't know who is who, since they all look dirty and long haired. The men too :) The sound is not really professional, the music seems added on the film with no real consideration of what is going on.

However, it was really enjoyable. If you take Conan, you add a bit of Lord of the Rings and a little of the Sergiu Nicolaescu movies, you get an American-Romanian Wolfhound :) The ending is a bit pathetic, but the lead character is truly well played. The other actors are mediocre at best. And no, the bat does not turn into an eagle, it's just bad CGI.

please don't compare it to Lord of the Rings. i see many of the commentators here do it, but its totally wrong. LOTR put the limit too high for any fantasy movie, its the gold standard now in the industry, and hardly any movie can reach its heights, i hope this doesn't mean that people will stop making this kind of movies. but they shouldn't create crap either. I didn't like Volkodav very much and i was irritated many times while i watched it. The dialog is so simplistic, the story is...i would say the writers made it along the way while shooting the movie - what ever something happens each of the main characters just calls for the help of some god that we never know the story of their relationship with. Naturally the gods always help our heroes. I haven't read the book and maybe if i had many of the gaps would've been filled, but LOTR did fine filling any gaps for the people who haven't read the books...Ooops - I compared Volkodav with LOTR...:)

the movie is not badly made, has some nice effects and thats basically it...

Not surprisingly, the new wave of Russian directors & films kick some asses, for sure. For the ones who haven't seen "Admiral", "Mongol" or "The 9th Company", "Wolfhound" might be quite a nice surprise. This movie is very well made, full of high tension fighting scenes and quite a nice plot (slightly touched by clichés like LOTR or Conan, of course). No, it's not Peter Jackson, no Hollywood sky-high budgeted movie: it'a a nice movie from Russia. I think we'll hear about Mr. Ledbedev (the director) quite soon. Anyway, this is only the first book from the four ones on the subject,right? What it's more interesting is that, even the leading lady-actress starred in "The Bourne Supremacy", the rest of the cast is quite new to us. And they don't disappoint, if you just don't make the big mistake to compare them to the Hollywood stars, living in a different system with different rules. Before 1989, living in Romania, I was intoxicated with Russian movies (the war ones, quite good, the classics - exceptional, but some of them were really crap), maybe more than other people behind the Iron Curtain. Now, it's good to see there is a new fresh breath in the Russian movie-making.

I admit that I rented this movie initially because I wanted to watch something 'bad'. Sometimes I do that as it's a fun mix to be able to find something to make fun of. 'Wolfhound' sounded like it would be an entertaining joke - some low budget tragedy of a movie with a bunch of men running around with swords.

However, while it wasn't the most amazing film I'd ever seen, there was very little to make fun of as I was shocked to find I actually enjoyed watching it. (Yes, the fight scenes are hokey at times, but the way it's done you kind of start to transcend the action on screen and imagine more than there is. It's hard to explain, but things are constantly moving even if it doesn't make the greatest sense.) I can understand how anyone would feel this is derivative. It didn't add too many new and original ideas, and yet there was enough interesting to keep the somewhat generic plot from becoming tedious. Wolfhound's bat is an obvious gem, but there's enough other things to wonder about the various characters (the details that are glossed over sometimes) to keep you wondering despite the somewhat plain meta-story.

Lush, interesting scenery also pops up from time to time, giving it hints of Lord of the Rings, and yet it's somehow nice not having over-exaggerated scenes.

The clincher, though, is that there was something altogether too real about the movie. More than once I found the world 'believable' thanks to subtle special effects and a kind of grittiness that makes the characters, while not altogether perfect, human. Once I was done, I was crying out in appreciation that the movie didn't drift into the usual Hollywood marketing, overacting, or other posturing drudgery. (The bat didn't talk, dance, and sing and inspire a line of breakfast cereal! Rapture!) It felt fresh and real, something altogether missing from most of the blockbuster movies I've seen recently (and thankfully devoid of the usual overpaid action-movie actors trying to upstage each other!) It may not become a favorite of mine, but it was a breath of fresh air. A movie instead of a sales pitch for a series. And I'm quite thankful for that. I hope the cast all the success in the future... hopefully without letting it go to their heads.

Also, next time maybe they can light their sets better or afford better cameras. :)