Wolfman 2

Magandang pelikula!

Good day! ‎📲 Earn daily income using just your smartphone & Whats App no pay ments, no hidden charges. ‎👉 Join @dominusupdates on Tele gram for the link, guide & more free updates! ‎

One of the best werewolf movies I've seen in a long time outside of The Wolfman (2010). This is GOOD werewolf film! Well worth watching! I did not find this movie to be a cheap, quick-to-make-money flick like I expected it to be. The visual effects are good and it has an interesting story to follow. The acting is quite good as well. It's got a Gothic feel to the movie which I adore - that really drew me closer into the film! I was highly entertained by this film and will watch it again one day. Rating: 9.5/10

Interesting and entertaining werewolf motion picture, better than what the general video consumers say, with a fine introduction "a la Hammer", which evokes Guy Endore's "The Werewolf of Paris", and gives a new twist to the old tale of the man-wolf monster. Partially damaged by a too melodramatic plot point that triggers the final act (not the revelation of the werewolf's identity, but of those behind its evolution), by actors who deliver their English lines with a slangy American diction that clash with the European tale and locations, and a very bad performance by Ed Quinn, the plot was handled with a firm hand and a fine visual sense by director Louis Morneau, balancing the development of the horror story and the action scenes. Maybe the special effects reveal the small budget of a B film (according to standards --it must be said-- exclusive to massive productions in which a significant part of the money is spent in expensive stimulants), but in general the production values are considerable high. Apart from all this, producers should start reflecting on what they have turned the werewolf film into... Now the creature simply looks like a big, bad wolf that possesses great strength, and it has been deprived of its essential monstrosity: the mixture of man and animal features in a body beyond description. From the Lon Chaney Jr. Creature, it did not develop in that direction, but evolved into a four-legged thing with big teeth.

Universal Studios has a long history with the werewolf, from the very first werewolf film (Werewolf of London) and the highly regarded Wolfman of Lon Chaney fame to the recent (and rather underrated) remake of the latter. Now Universal has added a new beast to the pack with Werewolf: The Beast Among Us. Expectations were low on this viewer's part going into the film, but ultimately I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, there are some weaknesses. This is clearly a low-budget production, the main character is a walking anachronism (he seems to think he's playing in a Western), and overall the movie has the look and feel of a Syfy flick, with all that implies. But nonetheless, the movie is a success. The setting is well-realized with lots of Gothic atmosphere, and while most of the action revolves around a team of mercenary werewolf hunters the heart of the story resides with a pair of young lovers who find their lives turned upside down by the werewolf which is preying upon their fellow townspeople. The town proves to harbor more than its fair share of skeletons in the closet, some of which prove to be very deadly. Special effects may not be cutting edge, but they are pretty effective, and the werewolf itself fairly convincing and malevolent-looking. The script is rather more ambitious than it may first appear, and in true Universal fashion even manages to turn the climax into a homage to classic "monster mash" films from the studio's glorious past. Werewolf: The Beast Among Us may not be a new classic, but it's no turkey, either. Thanks to a story that manages to include a few neat twists while still holding to the conventions of its genre, backed up by decent production design and special effects, Universal's newest werewolf packs a surprisingly mean bite.

This film begins promisingly enough with a werewolf wreaking havoc, but after that it kind of loses its way. Fast forward a quarter of a century and another - or perhaps the same - creature is decimating a small town in nowheresville Europe, or perhaps it is USA, whatever, this is an extremely powerful creature, not your run-of-the-mill "eras lupus", but happily a regular band of werewolf hunters happens to be passing through. There is a fair amount of gore in this film, and a confusing dream sequence, but much of the action occurs in the dark, there is though a surprising twist or three towards the end. If you can understand the last one, best write your own review.

Judging by the title, I was expecting more Syfy channel toss.... How wrong I was. Though the pacing is a little slow in the first half, everything else really makes up for it. It's actually well acted with a good cast - including Stephen Rea; he's always fun (and for some reason seems to be in quite a few of these kind of films!). There isn't a huge amount of character development, but I don't suspect that's what people watch werewolf films for anyways, eh. The characters were interesting enough. The wolf itself has a very good design. Everything seems to be CGI nowadays so really I was expecting that (it was relatively well done too), but I was very pleasantly surprised by a fair few wolfie scenes using practical effects! ALWAYS better. Plenty of gore - without being over the top, lots of enjoyable action sequences (particularly during the second half), lets you have some 'whodunnit' guessing and with a nice twist near the end. All round, a really good were-movie! I'm sticking this one well in my Top 10 Werewolf Films list :)

"Just so you know that's no ordinary werewolf were dealing with out there." A small village is being terrorized nightly by a savage werewolf. When a hunting party is formed the village hopes that the town will be able to finally rest. One by one the villagers are attacked and turned in to vicious beasts the villagers begin to wonder if it is someone among them causing the problems. I will admit that this was better then I was expecting it to be but this movie is still something that should have been on the scy/fy channel. The film quality and acting are a step above the scy/fy standards but it still has the feel of a movie like that. The best way to describe this is as a slightly more scary version of the Amanda Seyfried "Red Riding Hood", it's almost a direct remake in my opinion. This is a movie that many people may really like, movies like this usually have cult like fans, but for me this was just something I had a hard time getting into. Overall, a scy/fy channel-like version of Seyfried's "Red Riding Hood". Not awful but nothing to rush out and see. I give it a C+.

I read the other reviews and decided to watch the movie. Cliché characters and obvious movie sets. The movie seemed like it was mostly written using a story software program that filled everything in. As a frame of reference for my mindset. Ginger Snaps was OK and as far as I'm willing to go with the entertainment industry. A better movie is Cursed 2005. This movie seemed to have more money than Ginger Snaps; sadly it didn't have anything else. For example, a good story, or even at least mediocre casting or directing A better investment of your time would be either a good movie you have already seen or watch a blank screen for the length of the this movie.

Don't know why some reviewers trash this movie...it's very entertaining... Far better than crap like Red Riding Hood, and, when compared with Underworld, it has some scenes that were better thought... It has a taste of that old action movies, in the 80's...the "commando"type of movies, where everyone had a different ability...and weapon... Here we have a wurdalek, that throws silver knifes, faster than the devil scratches his butt, a strong man, that uses silver teeth to fight against the werewolves...another big guy with a gaitlin gun...the story is good, the acting is pretty decent,some scenes are great...for me, this deserves an 8...that's my opinion...