What you would probably expect, little else.
I saw this movie at the Ligonier screening a few weeks back, and I just wanted to comment on the film. First, I believe the filmmaker's hearts were in the right place, and overall, the movie is entertaining for what it is.
Having said that, the film definitely has its flaws. First,the acting. I understand that working on a small budget won't yield Pacino-like results, but the acting was unnecessarily hammy. I'm not sure if they were directed to be so over-the-top, but it took away from the film, I think. Second, the story. The first 40 minutes or so set up a film that would probably require at least another 50 to properly end, but this ended at a little more than an hour. The ending was too abrupt, and quite frankly, confusing. But that's only my humble opinion. And third, the use of Ron Chaney. Now I've met him several times at conventions, and he's a super-nice guy, but unfortunately, the acting gene wasn't passed down. I think his performance GREATLY took away from the film, and really he was only there for name recognition, so that was unfortunate. Lastly, the monsters. They all made the briefest of appearances, and I think calling the film "House of the Wolf Man" definitely wrote a check the movie didn't cash. Although I thought the makeup for the Wolf Man and the Monster were very well-done.
I really hate to say anything negative about this film, I wanted so bad to like it (including driving 5 hours to the premier). But I want to be honest. Again as a classic monster fan, I truly appreciate the effort of the filmmakers. I just wish that they would've put a little more thought into making a good product, and not so much effort trying to be a period horror film. The horror movies from the 20's to 60's are all great to me, but lately they are mostly terrible. I think a modern, well-done "HotWM" would've sufficed.
Having said that, the film definitely has its flaws. First,the acting. I understand that working on a small budget won't yield Pacino-like results, but the acting was unnecessarily hammy. I'm not sure if they were directed to be so over-the-top, but it took away from the film, I think. Second, the story. The first 40 minutes or so set up a film that would probably require at least another 50 to properly end, but this ended at a little more than an hour. The ending was too abrupt, and quite frankly, confusing. But that's only my humble opinion. And third, the use of Ron Chaney. Now I've met him several times at conventions, and he's a super-nice guy, but unfortunately, the acting gene wasn't passed down. I think his performance GREATLY took away from the film, and really he was only there for name recognition, so that was unfortunate. Lastly, the monsters. They all made the briefest of appearances, and I think calling the film "House of the Wolf Man" definitely wrote a check the movie didn't cash. Although I thought the makeup for the Wolf Man and the Monster were very well-done.
I really hate to say anything negative about this film, I wanted so bad to like it (including driving 5 hours to the premier). But I want to be honest. Again as a classic monster fan, I truly appreciate the effort of the filmmakers. I just wish that they would've put a little more thought into making a good product, and not so much effort trying to be a period horror film. The horror movies from the 20's to 60's are all great to me, but lately they are mostly terrible. I think a modern, well-done "HotWM" would've sufficed.
- zombie381
- Nov 6, 2009