La maldición de la luna

I got this movie out of the bargain bin for a laugh, and honestly a laugh is all you can get out of this.

The plot in a nutshell: American family re-locate to Ireland, man gets fusty over a hairy mutt and with the added extra of cheap Sinclair Spectrum style morphing the dog changes into a woman, he gets bedazzled by her baps and ignores his family to go off for a romp with her. All is well (unless by this point the cheesy porn music doesn't make you want to pull your ears off)until this hairy geezer shows up, with may I say equally bad acting, he wants to romp with the American's wife, but she is having none of it, in the end you get to see more Spectrum special effects, a woman changing into a robotic style bird with horrendous flapping wings and more crap music. There are more bad mistakes in this film that makes it more funny than making you want to get anything aroused by the woman's gyrating and boobs fwapping all over the place.

For instance, she is supposed to be Irish and not have any luxuaries, yet when she does take her clothes off and actually speaks you can see she has very distinct tan lines and she has a strong American accent.

All in all this film was fun for a laugh and making this review, I recycled the box for another DVD and the disc itself has ended up a rather artistic drinks coaster.

Oh boy.

From the moment 'Wolfhound' begins it's so inescapably ham-handed that it feels very much like a picture made for TV. The writing and the direction are both just as bluntly, strenuously forced, forthright, and frank. So it is, too, with the music, and the acting; whether this is owing to the cast's capabilities, or a reflection of guidance from the directors, is up for debate.

I appreciate that the movie was filmed on location in Ireland. I think the concept of the narrative, while hardly unfamiliar, holds promise, and the lore that is the basis of the plot is enticing. But value in the screenplay is thwarted by its unseemly bent toward salaciousness and the unmistakably artless directness of the filmmakers. Moreover, the story as it is written is weak and specious, with connections between scenes that are often less than credible. There's almost no consideration at all for continuity; day and night come and go within juxtaposed concurrent scenes.

In fairness, of course - hey, to each their own. 'Wolfhound' makes no apologies for what it is, and adopts no pretense otherwise. This is clearly intended for audiences seeking minor titillation in the suggested eroticism, and that's fine. I should have known what I was getting into when I sat to watch. Yet with that in mind, too, I think even viewers actively seeking out titles like this would be hard-pressed to deny the deficiencies that abound.

Consider: Most shots featuring canines have the appearance of having been filmed on a rudimentary cell phone camera. This especially goes for an early fleeting scene of action, when exceptionally blurry and indistinct camerawork suggests that for lack of trained animals or meaningful ability to capture these instances as desired, actors simply roughhoused with the animals, and this is passed off as a genuine struggle. We also get a single shot of what is absolutely a puppet standing in for a real dog. Meanwhile, nudity and sexuality is so tawdrily direct (there's that word again) as to be bereft of real sensuality. Sex scenes aren't invigorating - they're equally ham-fisted, awkward, and unconvincing.

There are a few good ideas here. I think the transformation effects are marginally better compared to some other films out there. Sparing instances of swell delivery and nuance of expression portend finesse of performance that the cast at best broadly has difficulty achieving.

But plot and earnest entertainment is at most a secondary concern of all involved. What genuine worth this could have had is rendered almost entirely inert by poor, careless execution. I can't really imagine recommending 'Wolfhound' to anyone. I should have known better, and maybe if someone comes across these words before clicking "play," I can at least impart the appropriate forewarning.

'Wolfhound' is not a werewolf movie, per se, but it's not so terribly bad otherwise. It is filmed rather well for it's budget, IMHO. Yes there are transformations, but not into wolves...into dogs, particularly Irish Wolfhounds, thus the title. I actually thought the acting was rather good for such a production, especially the various sorts of 'local' people and most certainly Jennifer Courtney, playing the wife of the man who brings his family to Ireland to where his familial roots are. So, yes there is mystery, but not really any horror, so to label this a horror movie is a just a bit of a stretch. More of a fantasy. And keep in mind that not everyone who is a shapeshifter turns into a dog, some are birds, some foxes, etc. I should note that the animals who are in the film actually are filmed well enough to convey that they ARE acting, which, for animals, can be a bit rare. However, a good portion of the film is spent showing the '95 Playmate Of The Year, Julie Cialini. She is the main shapeshifter who entices our leading man. Yes, her physique is what is obviously on display here. Was this created as a vehicle for her? Hope not. Poor thing, she really can't act. Especially for a character who's supposed to have lived in this Irish village all her life, she sounds like an cheerleader from the U.S., you know, somewhere in the mid-west. Overall, if you are interested in werewolf movies, this is not one. See only if you a) don't mind soft porn b) are interested in fantasy-mysteries involving concepts such as shapeshifting.

For the money they had, the "special effects" scenes aren't as bad as you'd expect them to be. And the once Penthouse Girl of the Year is not bad either (for the eye that is). And if you are spoiled by Twilight, this definitely is not for teens (in America that is). As it seems I also watched the unrated version (do wonder what they cut though ... can't be violence, so it must be some of the nudity).

The movie does not have a big story, the acting is mediocre at best, the editing tries to be fancy and if you actually think there are not enough supernatural movies out there (check the TV show, although I haven't seen it, I'm sure it more than worth it, plus will give you enough hours to enjoy), then maybe you will find this intriguing. Or you like the really beautiful woman (who's also on the cover) ... Nothing wrong with that. Other than that, stay clear of this

I have never seen a more annoying bunch of actors in one movie.

Lucky guy, talk about license to cheat with hot chick. "just trying to save your life oh wife of mine". Acting was bad and they wasted what could have been a good plot. What was with Miss Julie's accent? Too valley girl American which was a shame because everyone had an authentic accent. The wife was annoying too with her constant chattering and over-acting. The man was trying too hard to be intense he just appeared to be a morose loser.

No eerie effects or mystery just all out soft porn. Sadly, this wasn't even titillating. Got the VCD as a freebie buy 3 get 1 free. Still felt like money burned though! They should have paid me to get this off their hands.