Wolfhound, l'ultime guerrier

For start let me say that I am aware that this was adaptation of Mariya Semyonova's book which btw I haven't read, but I have read a lot of other fantasy/adventure books including many of Conan's adventures and I must say that this movie reminds me most of him (with some name changes and some addition of strength to main character).

Volkodav visually looks very appealing and CGI was done well and not on expense of storyline (like most of Hollywood flicks this days). Although story was somewhat predictable and not very original it was nevertheless enjoyable experience.

It was also refreshing seeing some of Slavic Mythology adapted to widescreen (and to be honest it would be nice to see some of ancient folk tales adapted into movies - it could be even commercially very profitable accompanied with adequate marketing)

yes, its old fashioned and riddled with clichés yet I found it much more satisfactory then last Conan (2011) movie.

My Rating 7,5/10

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.

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.

The quote on the DVD cover for Russian fantasy/adventure flick Wolfhound describes this as 'Conan the Barbarian meets Lord of the Rings', and that is definitely what the film aspires to be, boasting a story that is remarkably similar to the Schwarzenneggar movie, and with director Nikolay Lebedev clearly attempting to emulate the epic grandeur of Peter Jackson's Tolkien trilogy in his more elaborate set-pieces.

However, despite some fun moments and excellent production values—plenty of rubles having clearly been spent on state-of-the-art CGI and brilliant set design—Wolfhound cannot match either film in terms of sheer entertainment value. It falls way short of Conan, its barbarian lacking Arnie's physical presence, and its narrative lacking the scope of the epic Middle-Earth movies, with Lebedev's chaotic direction and editing sapping potentially impressive scenes of excitement (the 'rousing' finalé is a noisy, confusing whirlwind of in-your-face effects).

If you're an avid fan of the sword and fantasy genre, then I recommend checking the film out—it's got enough fun stuff in it to make it worth a go (Wolfhound's trained bat is particularly good); it is certainly no worse than a lot of the CGI-laden tosh that comes out of Hollywood. Just don't expect to be blown away—give it a week and you'll have forgotten all about it.

5.5 out of 10 rounded up to 6 for IMDb.

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...