A boy is trying to find out about his family history and stumbles upon a town of lycans.A boy is trying to find out about his family history and stumbles upon a town of lycans.A boy is trying to find out about his family history and stumbles upon a town of lycans.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Yes it's not Underworld or whatever great Production from the past decades but it's a decend Werewolf Movie that didn't waste my time.
A popular teenager in the Northeast (Lucas Till) discovers that he's a werewolf and escapes to the road after a tragedy at home. Upon getting a tip from Lemmy (John Pyper-Ferguson), he ends up in Lupine Ridge where he obtains a job at a farm and develops a relationship with a young bar owner (Merritt Patterson), which offends the wolfish town leader (Jason Momoa). Stephen McHattie plays the friendly farmer who takes the boy under his wings.
The creatively titled "Wolves" (2014) is a quality werewolf flick that's reminiscent of the Marvel comic book Werewolf by Night. (Even the werewolves resemble Don Perlin's versions a little). It has elements of The Howling franchise, but with better production values than the sequels, as well as a dash of "Twilight" (2008) and "The Messengers" (2007). (I hate mentioning "Twilight" because it will automatically turn off loads of people, but I mean the good aspects of that infamous movie).
"Wolves" has the right choices for the main cast, enough gore, some decent action, beautiful women, notable songs and exquisite Ontario locations with great nighttime sylvan ambiance. Yes, it's thoroughly comic booky, but it's well made for what it is and delivers the goods. I saw the theatrical version, but I heard the unrated version is a vast improvement with additional exposition.
The film runs 1 hour, 31 minutes and was shot in Ontario in the greater Toronto area.
GRADE: B+
The creatively titled "Wolves" (2014) is a quality werewolf flick that's reminiscent of the Marvel comic book Werewolf by Night. (Even the werewolves resemble Don Perlin's versions a little). It has elements of The Howling franchise, but with better production values than the sequels, as well as a dash of "Twilight" (2008) and "The Messengers" (2007). (I hate mentioning "Twilight" because it will automatically turn off loads of people, but I mean the good aspects of that infamous movie).
"Wolves" has the right choices for the main cast, enough gore, some decent action, beautiful women, notable songs and exquisite Ontario locations with great nighttime sylvan ambiance. Yes, it's thoroughly comic booky, but it's well made for what it is and delivers the goods. I saw the theatrical version, but I heard the unrated version is a vast improvement with additional exposition.
The film runs 1 hour, 31 minutes and was shot in Ontario in the greater Toronto area.
GRADE: B+
You know what your getting from this, which is basically a teen wolf movie. As stated the acting isn't going to win an Oscar, but it decent enough for the budget and script given. The wolves are by far the best part. They are well made and aren't low budget at all, very good FX department. I would say you want a werewolf movie for the sake of that kind of movie then check this out. Jason plays his character well for this movie, not overly scary but you sure wont love him either. I would like to see a sequel to this that explain the history of the main blood lines and goes into that more. They can recast for that with no issues plot wise, which makes it an excellent jumping off point.
I have to say that much of what has come out over the past 15 years has been lacking in one way or another, but particularly in originality. Additionally, stories always seem to fall short as a majority of the focus is on CGI effects and the sexual appeal to teen hormones.
I thought that this film did a fair job at being original in its plot and story. And though the story was not the greatest, it was different and it was entertaining. Nothing here was over done. As with anything, there was room for improvement, but I liked it just the same.
As for effects, the costumes and makeup were very well done. The stunts were reasonable and plausible for this type of film. Again, not over done.
I would be willing to see a sequel should the producers get the impulse to try again.
If you like werewolves, you might enjoy this film. Being a budget flick, the cost is low enough to own the DVD and not feel a pinch when you're done watching.
I thought that this film did a fair job at being original in its plot and story. And though the story was not the greatest, it was different and it was entertaining. Nothing here was over done. As with anything, there was room for improvement, but I liked it just the same.
As for effects, the costumes and makeup were very well done. The stunts were reasonable and plausible for this type of film. Again, not over done.
I would be willing to see a sequel should the producers get the impulse to try again.
If you like werewolves, you might enjoy this film. Being a budget flick, the cost is low enough to own the DVD and not feel a pinch when you're done watching.
Had kind of a Teen Wolf meets The Lost Boys kind of thing going on.
I liked the fact that there was no CGI used it was all special effects and makeup, which was a nice break from todays excessive use of CGI. It's kind of what had me sold on it to be honest, the effort put into the costumes. You can see by the pictures they put a lot into the work on the wolves.
I think Angelica and Cayden looked pretty sweet as wolves, They looked about as real as a human/wolf could look, certainly looked better than Jack Nicholson's Wolf.
Yeah the acting wasn't spectacular, but really, when it comes to these kind of lower budget films.. It definitely isn't Underworld in that aspect but still it was a good little weekend special.
I liked the fact that there was no CGI used it was all special effects and makeup, which was a nice break from todays excessive use of CGI. It's kind of what had me sold on it to be honest, the effort put into the costumes. You can see by the pictures they put a lot into the work on the wolves.
I think Angelica and Cayden looked pretty sweet as wolves, They looked about as real as a human/wolf could look, certainly looked better than Jack Nicholson's Wolf.
Yeah the acting wasn't spectacular, but really, when it comes to these kind of lower budget films.. It definitely isn't Underworld in that aspect but still it was a good little weekend special.
Did you know
- TriviaDirector and writer David Hayter came up with the idea of the film after turning down similar projects. His script was originally titled "Slaughter's Road."
- GoofsWhen Cayden gets hit in mid air playing football he hits the ground and fumbles the ball. You can see the ball bouncing off in the background. When the camera switches angles you can now see Cayden has the football in his hands.
- Quotes
Cayden Richards: Wolves don't terrorize towns, or kidnap innocents, or brutalize women!
- Alternate versionsAmazon Prime severely edits this film from its original 'R' rating to remove foul language and a nude scene.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Wolves: Behind the Scenes (2014)
- SoundtracksA-OK
Written by Matt Riddle, Trever Keith
Performed by Face to Face
Published by EMI Blackwood Music Inc. (BMI) / EMI Blackwood Music (Canada) Inc. (SOCAN)
Courtesy of Universal Music Canada
All rights reserved. Used by permission.
- How long is Wolves?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $18,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $12,139
- Gross worldwide
- $491,154
- Runtime
- 1h 31m(91 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content