Wolfen
|
Our Price: $38.98 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $10.47 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of Wolfen
Movie Review: A Good Film That Could Have Been Great If It Had Not Got Sidetracked With Agendas
Summary: 3 Stars
The Wolfen is produced, shot, and acted well, and it's based on an excellent, intense novel - so why is it only good but not great? Don't get me wrong, it is worth seeing, if you're a fan of mystery/creepy films, wolves, or Albert Finney, who does a great job as usual. The film starts out well with a creepy slaying of the ultra rich Van Der Veer couple and their bodyguard in a park in Manhattan. They are killed in seconds, and for no immediately apparent reason, as they were not robbed. Most of the killing is seen through a creepy killer's POV, as it were. So in comes grizzled, world-weary detective Wilson (Finney) to try to solve a crime where there's no clear murder weapon, method, or motive. He is later joined by Rebecca Neff, a psychologist who focuses in terrorism, to see if some environmental activists were responsible, since they really hated Mr. Van Der Veer. But they begin to realize there is some inhuman, unknown, ferocious group of creatures living right in the big city. Meanwhile the story pace is interrupted every once in a while to focus on a group of Native American buds, led by Edward James Olmos, who may have some involvement with what's going on.
If it seems like the Native American stuff with Olmos fits oddly with the pace and plot of the movie in the first half (like Olmos running completely naked on the beach at night and howling at the moon - I didn't need to see that), that's because none of it was in the book. The book's plot is much more straightforward than the film version, and usually with book-to-film translations, it's the opposite. But instead of streamlining the story like most movie versions would do, this one mainly alters the focus of the story and the director Michael Wadleigh throws in a lot of ecological messages and native American mumbo jumbo mythology (not their real mythology) which appear at odd moments and sidetrack the main story.
"The Howling" was another werewolf movie the same year that took a book idea and made a film version that uses the basic story as a vehicle for other issues. In The Howling film, modern psychology takes a beating, and so does the whole werewolf movie genre in general (although that part is more of a tribute). But The Howling film mostly works better than Wolfen, because it has a better pace and better effects. However, both films have endings that didn't work to me. And both films' endings are completely contrary to their respective novels. This comes from trying to tell the same story as a book but giving the characters different motivations and giving a different context to what's happening. This works for a while, but in almost all films that try to do this, no matter how accurate they may be early on, the movie story will eventually stray from the book until you reach an ending that's very different. Why? Well, in any story that's well-plotted, things happen for a certain reason, and characters do things because of certain motivations and causes and effects. If you change those motivations, reasons, and causes, but yet try to tell the same story, eventually it will diverge from the original story, because the characters wouldn't DO all the same things if the situation around them was different. This was my main complaint with the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula. Here, the way Albert Finney gets the Wolfen to stop their rampage at the very end is almost laughably contrary to the novel. If he'd tried the same stunt in the novel, they'd have ripped him to shreds.
But here the creatures are more like regular wolves and less like the "wolfen" as described in the book. In the movie, there's no mention of their opposable thumb-like claws, which allow them to open doors, windows, climb balconies, etc. Or the fact that they're much larger and somewhat different shaped than regular wolves, including more advanced faces. But then I guess that would have been hard to do at the time with the effects as they had. I also felt they showed the wolfen way too much at the end, taking away a lot of their mystique. Although another theory I've heard is that the wolf creatures were less scary in the film version on PURPOSE, so that the viewer would feel more sympathetic to them at the end. After all, there is that end shot of several of the Wolfen running happily in the snow. In the book, the author does spend a lot of time inside the minds of the Wolfen, explaining the whole story from their point of view as well, so there are some moments of sympathy, but most of the perspective given there serves to show what the Wolfen are like, what they're capable of, and just how intelligent and dangerous they are as adversaries.
The movie starts out scary, but ultimately ends up being preachy, trying to leave the viewer with a conviction that man is responsible for the behavior of (fictional) creatures like this. The book, on the other hand, is more about two humans realizing what it's like to be hunted like an animal. It is actually more the book's theme of this that seems to have inspired some of the ideas in "Predator." That movie clearly got its "infrared Predator-vision" shot ideas from similar shots in this film.
Abert Finney as Wilson I liked, and Diane Venora was all right as Becky Neff, although her character here is slightly different than who she was in the novel. The coroner, Gregory Hines, is a nice addition to the film. Edward James Olmos and his Native American buds are okay, but in the end they're mostly there to preach. The character in the film I disliked the most, especially when compared to the book, was Dr. Ferguson, who comes across here as kind of a naïve bum of a doctor. Way too sensitive, too; in one scene his eyes are tearing up while he watches video footage of wolves being chased down by helicopters in the snow. He served a real purpose in the novel, becoming one of the major characters, although even there he was too much of an idealist. But here he just is along for the ride, and not very long at that.
Overall, I'd say Wolfen is enjoyable, and at times scary, but it's not what it easily could have been with all the talent and potential. But it certainly is a unique film that has a place in "werewolf" film history.
Movie Review: Schitzophrenic screenwriter?
Summary: 3 Stars
This movie deservedly achieved some good reviews, but it's not anywhere near as intelligent as some have described it. The first half is a tense, well made, interesting mystery/thriller that also has some intriguing supernatural/metaphysical possibilities. Unfortunately though, around halfway through "Wolfen" takes a dive straight off a cliff and becomes boring and uninteresting. It then falls apart completely; the ending is laughable and preposterous. During the first half, the predator/killer remains unknown and unseen, and there is a great deal of mystery as to who or what is viciously killing people. We see the actual murders from the p.o.v. of the killer, via good and innovative Steadicam work. It's interesting to watch as Albert Finney slowly realizes shapeshifting may be behind the murders. I was riveted to the screen and was thinking "what a fantastic movie!", despite some minor annoyances, which I'll get into momentarily.
Around the halfway point, the wolf cam perspective and accompanying psychedelic colors and distortion started becoming tiresome, and the movie ceased being a tense thriller and instead turned into a really boring and ludicrous mess. Too many unanswered questions: why is the medical examiner accompanying the chief detective to a known hot spot with a rifle? Is he a sharpshooter in his spare time? Since when does a medical examiner go out to catch a mass murderer? Why does he immediately seclude himself, eating chips and beer, mooning the detective - knowing a killer is on the prowl? Answer: because the writer was too unoriginal to think of any other way to get him killed. And since when do wolves have the capability of severing limbs and heads, cleanly and in one lunge?
Also, the characters are terribly underdeveloped. I couldn't have cared less about any of them. The chief of police is a cliched caricature - doesn't believe in the supernatural, thinks the investigating detective is nuts, then realizes the error of his ways, but does something stupid anyway. If I were that actor, I would have been complaining VERY loudly about the moronic lines he has to say and the ridiculous things he does at the end of the film. There is also a female in a lead role, but I have no idea why she's there except to make love to Finney for no reason, and get herself into danger that he has to get her out of. She has no reason for being in this movie. And I already mentioned Greg Hines' character, who is annoying and totally unrealistic. Leonard Maltin said Hines did a great job, but I disagree - he's awful, and whoever wrote his part is even worse. Finney does an adequate job, but the script really lets him down. He's forced to act like a Dirty Harry-type of cop at the beginning; slovenly, a rebel, near retirement. But there's no reason for any of that, it has no meaning at all toward the plot. In fact, much of the stuff they put in like that seems to be just filler in between the action, an attempt to give the characters some spark of life, and it doesn't work. These people are totally cardboard. The wolves are the stars of the movie, and we don't see them until near the end. And even then, they're obviously wolf dogs, not wolves, because wolves aren't the most cooperative actors.
So ultimately, "Wolfen" ends up being one of those films that tries hard, but fails, despite its strengths. At it's heart, it's a message film, but it drenches the viewer in repulsive, unnecessary blood and gore strictly for the purpose of making more money at the box office. It also tries to be a mystery for the first half, which it succeeds at. But after the mystery is solved, it doesn't know where to go except to bore us with all the details and struggle with a conclusion. It's almost as if two different screenwriters wrote this: one intelligent guy did the first part, and a no-talent hack wrote the latter part. And just to make sure the movie is permanently ruined, they had Finney do a much-too-literal and melodramatic voiceover in the last scene to explain it all. It's a laughable attempt to end on a spiritual note, which is hard to do after they've just shown a man's head brutally decapitated and rolling in the street, eyes still blinking. This movie tries to be too many different things at once, it fails at most of them, and it's about 30 minutes too long. It does, however, get 3 stars from me because it was quite riveting for a while. Truly disappointing to see it blow up. Deservant of 2 1/2 stars, but they don't have halves here at Amazon. Wolf lovers will give this one 5 stars though - but the fact that Albert Finney's uninteresting character now respects them, which is where it all ends up, is a meaningless thing to base a film around.
Movie Review: Intriguing political horror movie, but short on scares
Summary: 3 Stars
1981 was "The Great Werewolf Year," when three major films heralded a revival of the legendary monster. "The Howling" and "An American Werewolf in London" have both become classics, while the third, "Wolfen," remains an oddity. It is definitely the strangest of the three and makes unusual changes to the werewolf mythology to the point that it might not be about werewolves at all. The usual standards of the genre -- silver bullets, wolfsbane, transformations, curses -- are nowhere to be seen, although there are hints of spiritual powers and cunning intelligence beyond the natural world. And while "American Werewolf in London" and "The Howling" contained extensive comedy and many genre-references along with their horror, "Wolfen" plays its story straight and dead serious. It has social issues mixed into its thrills 'n' chills premise: a police detective (Albert Finney) investigating murders in New York City that point toward a wolf-like killer, or possibly a whole pack of them. Director Michael Wadleigh (his only other film is the classic concert documentary "Woodstock") uses the horror movie backdrop as a venue for commentary on class, environmentalism, industrialization, and Native American politics.This is an ambitious bill to fill, and "Wolfen" doesn't quite manage to pull it off. You can appreciate Wadleigh's goals, but he often trips over trying to do too much. The political grandstanding makes for a thoughtful horror movie, but it also slows the film down and overbalances it. Sometimes, you just want action and scares, and "Wolfen" frequently drags. It would have rocked at ninety-minutes, but at nearly two hours, it goes on for too long. The open moves rapidly, and the ending delivers the right amount of apocalyptic violence you expect, but in the center the spaces between the wolf attacks start feeling longer and longer.
Some of various elements never fit together, and a few plot points just left on the ground. The mystery surrounding the creatures is, however, appropriate -- sometimes it's better for a horror film to avoid spelling out everything for you.
Where "Wolfen" works best is in Wadleigh's superb visual style and the realistic performances. The use of a polarization effect and a steadicam to represent the wolves' POV is quite stunning and eerie. Wadleigh also expertly films New York City and its run-down slums. The film absolutely breathes with a battered, decayed atmosphere. Wadleigh really goes all out with unusual visua; approaches, and it gives the film a polished and inventive feel. Albert Finney and Diane Venora are both good in their roles; Finney especially projects a wonderful world-weariness that matches the setting around him. The film thankfully doesn't load him down with excess psychological baggage. We don't need to have his troubles explained to us; we can SEE them in the world in which he lives. Edward James Olmos is also memorable as a Native American who draws Finney's suspicions early in the movie. Gregory Hines, however, is too exaggerated in his semi-comic role (the only comedy in the film) of the coroner working with Finney. The movie also has an excellent early score from James Horner (composer of "Titanic" and "Aliens").
The DVD has an extremely good transfer, which is surprising considering the film's age. The print looks almost pristine and is gorgeously formatted in widescreen. Warner Bros. usually doesn't put this much effort into back catalog movies like this. The Dolby Surround Stereo is adequate (I occasionally noticed some synch problems) and a bit low in volume. The extras are skimpy: the trailer, a page listing the cast and crew, and a few screens of text on the history of werewolf movies. (An earlier edition advertised audio commentary on the back of the snap case, but this was a misprint.)
"Wolfen" is worth a look for horror fans, or people who want some social commentary and intelligence with their thrills. If you can make it through the slower sections, you'll find it a rewarding viewing experience.
Movie Review: A Wolf with Bite
Summary: 3 Stars
I've never been a big one for werewolves' films. They always seemed silly to me and for the most part- I think they have been. Wolfen is that rarity- that something that presents itself as one thing but winds up being entirely different.
The surprise.
Albert Finney plays Detective Dewy Wilson- called in on a high profile murder case that has all the earmarks of an execution. Finney's portray is weathered, worn and worth the watch from the word go. I love watching an actor who can convey a character's past in the seconds or minutes he or she is given to establish it. Very few can and Finney is one of them. His Dewey is a man on the edge- a man called in for cases like these, and a man whose nerves, sensibilities and reality are shot as a result of them.
He is placed in the company of a young security expert (high tech intelligence) Diane Venora and they form an interesting duo/love interest as they try to unravel the murder(s). The late, great Gregory Hines is also enlisted (by Finney) as pathologist and he turns in a terrific, hip and solid performance as the only other character Finney's Wilson seems to collaborate with. Edward James Olmos also deserves special mention (pre Miami Vice) as a dramatic tease that winds up with some telling truths. " You got your technology but you lost. You lost your senses ".
The visual effect for the wolves sensory/hunt sequences is terrific (aided greatly by James Horner's score), and they take their time in introducing `the werewolves'- like any really good film does. Ultimately, what it really winds up being/meaning is food (pardon the expression) for thought.
The film is based on the Whitley Striber novel (a really good read, too). David Eyre and Michael Wadleigh (who directs) did a terrific job with the screenplay- the characters are a proper mix of street and smarts and the mystically ancient.
The Bronx scenes are properly eerie, disturbing and a visual testimony to some of our own poverty in North America.
I won't ruin the story by revealing anymore but if you're looking for an overlooked gem in the horror/mystery field, this film will be of interest. It drew poor box office when it came out because it was lost in a `werewolves avalanche' of film releases (i.e.: The Howling, Silver Bullet, American Werewolf in London etc) but for my money, it was by far the most interesting, inventive and socially conscious.
Good work has several levels and if you're looking for the thinking person's horror story- here's a good one for you.
Movie Review: Very odd
Summary: 3 Stars
I was pretty young the first time I saw Wolfen but I remember that my reaction was bewilderment. A lot of people either hated Wolfen or left the theater with a shrug. It is based on a fine book but something got lost on the way to the big screen.
Albert Finney is a terrific actor but he's wrong for this movie. He seems deeply uncomfortable in every single scene and I don't think it's just acting. The poor man is playing a New York City cop but his accent is all wrong. At best he sounds Canadian. On top of all this he mumbles his lines.
The female lead does an okay job but her main reason for being here is to give Finney something to look at and the wolves something pretty to menace. There's an out of the blue sex scene but mercifully it's shot through the wolf's eyes so the audience doesn't get to see a semi naked Finney full on and in color.
The only person who does well here was the late Gregory Hines, who plays a light hearted medical examiner. He gets killed of course but back when this movie was made the black guy always gets killed if not in the first reel then by the second.
Indians, particularly those in New York were not pleased with this film and I can't really blame them. Edward James Olmos is a good actor but he's no more Indian than Finney was and it was obvious. This casting was just as offensive as gettitng a white actor, spraying bronzer on him and sticking a black plaited wig on his head.
Now about the wolves. They aren't awesome in the least. It's just a pack of dogs. All of whom looked to me like they just needed a firm talking to and a milkbone. The ending was weak and Finney's characte seems just as befuddled as he was at the beginning. Also, the film fails because it preaches. Nobody wants to be preached at by a B movie. Ultimately, Wolfen is fascinating because it's so botched and it is fun to mock it but as a horror movie or even as suspense it doesn't cut the mustard.