Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaAn American writer, and his family, move into his late parent's derelict house in a remote village in rural Ireland. However, the village is riddled with mysterious secrets, seduction and in... Ler tudoAn American writer, and his family, move into his late parent's derelict house in a remote village in rural Ireland. However, the village is riddled with mysterious secrets, seduction and intrigue.An American writer, and his family, move into his late parent's derelict house in a remote village in rural Ireland. However, the village is riddled with mysterious secrets, seduction and intrigue.
- Direção
- Roteirista
- Artistas
Regina Russell Banali
- Fantasy Woman
- (não creditado)
Julie K. Smith
- Fantasy Woman
- (não creditado)
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 didn't fast forward through this movie like I do with many others. For me there just aren't enough supernatural movies out there, so I didn't find renting this one to be a waste of money or time. Folklore, shape shifting, and yes, sex. It wasn't a smooth movie but it was entertaining and intriguing in its own way. I think some of the actors deserve credit for playing a good part. One of the youngest actresses, who played the young daughter Sally, added depth to the movie with her believability as an open-minded, non-judgmental child. It wasn't a great effects movie like Underworld, but like reading a good Sci-Fi story, it can draw a person into a different world for awhile. I enjoyed the setting as well, rural Ireland, (though I'm not certain if it was shot there). It followed a man's quest to know himself, but the plot lacked a lot of depth in that regard. So for those who like the idea of shape shifting, you might find it a worthwhile movie, but due to the sex scenes I definitely recommend it only for adults.
I try to be positive when watching a movie. I usually don't bring many expectations to the table. Generally, I can find something worthwhile in any movie I watch, even when the movie sucks ass. However, except for the ample cleavage, this movie totally sucks in every department.
The acting is very amateurish all around, the writing is poverty-row (at best), the cinematography is quite poor in a lot of places (lots of out of focus shots), and the "special effects" are laughable. Plus, this movie has a couple of the worst child actors I've ever seen! Damn!!!! I wanted to smack them every time they appeared on screen.
I walked into this with an open mind, but for all my efforts, I just ended up getting robbed of money and 80 minutes of my life that I'll never get back!
The acting is very amateurish all around, the writing is poverty-row (at best), the cinematography is quite poor in a lot of places (lots of out of focus shots), and the "special effects" are laughable. Plus, this movie has a couple of the worst child actors I've ever seen! Damn!!!! I wanted to smack them every time they appeared on screen.
I walked into this with an open mind, but for all my efforts, I just ended up getting robbed of money and 80 minutes of my life that I'll never get back!
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesRegina Russell Banali and Julie K. Smith (uncredited in the film) came directly from the set of Jim Wynorski's film Bad Bizness (2003) to film a scene, their hair still styled from shooting scenes earlier that day.
- Erros de gravaçãoWhen the dad gets out of bed, he's wearing a sleeveless white T-shirt and undershorts. As he walks into the kitchen moments later, he wears jeans and no shirt. When he walks outside, he wears a jacket over a shirt.
- Versões alternativasThe unrated version contains an extra 6 minutes of nudity
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Tempo de duração1 hora 20 minutos
- Cor
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente