Search
A film with dodgy voices.
Catching up here with a review of a film I saw a couple of weeks ago.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated BloodRayne (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Turning a video game into a feature film is often a daunting task. With a large built in audience, gamers tend to be very picky over film adaptations and agitate very easily over even the slightest deviation from the source material.
Often in games, storylines are kept to the basic elements in order to keep the action flowing, unhindered by dialogue, character development, and plot twists as the notion is that gamers want action and will become bored if they have to wait through the elements listed above.
It is ironic that in films bases on games, the paring down of plot and characters in favor of a more linear setup and action often draws the wrath of critics and gamers for doing what game makers have been doing for years, letting gamers get to the goods.
In the new film Bloodrayne based on the hit game series of the same name by Majesco, Director Uwe Boll has crafted a film that explores the how and whys of the game series, focusing on the origins of the title character Rayne (Kristanna Loken), who toils as the half-human, half-vampire Dhampir in remote 18th century Romania as a freak in a traveling circus. Here ability to be burned by water yet healed by the blood of animals is a big drawing card to the circus, who has no problem exploiting her only to lock her in an animal cage when the show is over.
Unknown to Rayne, her fate is about to become entwined with a man named Vladamir (Michael Madsen), a vampire hunter and member of a secret society dedicated to eliminating the threat they pose. It is learned that the land is under the control of a powerful vampire named Kagan (Ben Kinglsey), who is seeking to locate and reunite three vampire relics in an effort to gain absolute power.
In time Rayne is brought into the order that sees her as a tool for fighting back the ever increasing army of Kagan. This movie is not met well by certain members of the group, especially Katarin (Michelle Rodriquez), who is not certain that bringing a person who is part vampire into their midst is a good idea.
Despite rising tensions and a steamy attraction to a hunter named Sebastian (Matt Davis), Rayne soon finds herself part of the group and firmly matched up against Kagan and his minions with the fate of the world in the balance.
While the film has some issues such as a thin plot and at times stiff acting and basic dialogue it is a marked improvement for Boll who has received harsh criticisms of his past works. Bloodrayne blends exotic visuals with classic gothic touches in a manner that compliments the material and is never heavy handed. The action scenes while gory are engaging and abundant, especially the inclusion of so called Boss battles that are common in video games.
While Bloodrayne has its blemishes, the film has its moments and is not nearly as bad as several mean spirited campaigns against it and Boll have suggested.
I have seen far worse films in the last 6 months such as The Cave, Into the Blue and Bewitched to name a few. As vampire films go, Bloodrayne is better than most of the horror offerings we have been inundated with in recent years less we forget “Wrong Turn” and “House of Wax”
Often in games, storylines are kept to the basic elements in order to keep the action flowing, unhindered by dialogue, character development, and plot twists as the notion is that gamers want action and will become bored if they have to wait through the elements listed above.
It is ironic that in films bases on games, the paring down of plot and characters in favor of a more linear setup and action often draws the wrath of critics and gamers for doing what game makers have been doing for years, letting gamers get to the goods.
In the new film Bloodrayne based on the hit game series of the same name by Majesco, Director Uwe Boll has crafted a film that explores the how and whys of the game series, focusing on the origins of the title character Rayne (Kristanna Loken), who toils as the half-human, half-vampire Dhampir in remote 18th century Romania as a freak in a traveling circus. Here ability to be burned by water yet healed by the blood of animals is a big drawing card to the circus, who has no problem exploiting her only to lock her in an animal cage when the show is over.
Unknown to Rayne, her fate is about to become entwined with a man named Vladamir (Michael Madsen), a vampire hunter and member of a secret society dedicated to eliminating the threat they pose. It is learned that the land is under the control of a powerful vampire named Kagan (Ben Kinglsey), who is seeking to locate and reunite three vampire relics in an effort to gain absolute power.
In time Rayne is brought into the order that sees her as a tool for fighting back the ever increasing army of Kagan. This movie is not met well by certain members of the group, especially Katarin (Michelle Rodriquez), who is not certain that bringing a person who is part vampire into their midst is a good idea.
Despite rising tensions and a steamy attraction to a hunter named Sebastian (Matt Davis), Rayne soon finds herself part of the group and firmly matched up against Kagan and his minions with the fate of the world in the balance.
While the film has some issues such as a thin plot and at times stiff acting and basic dialogue it is a marked improvement for Boll who has received harsh criticisms of his past works. Bloodrayne blends exotic visuals with classic gothic touches in a manner that compliments the material and is never heavy handed. The action scenes while gory are engaging and abundant, especially the inclusion of so called Boss battles that are common in video games.
While Bloodrayne has its blemishes, the film has its moments and is not nearly as bad as several mean spirited campaigns against it and Boll have suggested.
I have seen far worse films in the last 6 months such as The Cave, Into the Blue and Bewitched to name a few. As vampire films go, Bloodrayne is better than most of the horror offerings we have been inundated with in recent years less we forget “Wrong Turn” and “House of Wax”
Josh Burns (166 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Vampyr in Video Games
Jun 21, 2019
Great story (2 more)
Great Atmosphere
Adaptive gameplay
Protect or Prey on the people of London in Vampyr
Vampyr is a mixed bag that may not be for everyone. It really depends on the types of games you like on this one (as with Until Dawn).
The game draws inspiration from a real epedemic called the Spanish Flu, which for whatever reason, gets way less attention than the Black Plague. You play as an esteemed doctor who gets turned into a vampire after returning to London from being in World War 1. The game just drips in atmosphere as you travel the nearly abandoned streets and docks. It channels gothic horror but with a tasteful dose of modern genre updates. It has a very good story that reminds of a bit of Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein in the fact that you do not like what you are, or what it has caused you to do.
Now, this game is largely what you make it to be. The people of London all have fleshed out backstories, personalities, and many offer side quests, trade options, or useful info on certain things. You can either bond with then and work to keep them healthy, or you can feed on them and grow stronger. Your choice on how you handle this can dramatically effect the game. You gain a large amount of experience from feeding on them, even more if you gain their trust first. If you take that route it can take the game from challanging to being easy. There is are a lot of options when leveling up, without feeding you will not be able to max everything out. Another thing that depends on play style, is that there is a ton of talking if you choose to help tje people and gain their trust. This isn't a requirement, however. So the game can be very deep and story driven with a lot of dialogue, or it can be more of an action game, depending on what you do.
On that note, as a pure action game, I'm not sure if it would hold up for most. The combat mechanics are quite basic, attack, dodge, and a few specials, and ranged attack with gun. It's fun enough when not taking the feeding route because you still have to be strategic but if you feed a lot and are extremely powerful, I don't see it being very fun.
The game also features light crafting in the form of upgrading weapons, making blood, stanima, and health injections (same as potions in most games) and medicine for the people. It's semi open and semi linear. You have a map that you can go anywhere on, but only in certain buildings and some streets are blocked off. In fact, navigation can be infuriating at times because of dead ends, doors that need to be unlocked from the other side, and objective markers sometimes being in the wrong spot on the map. I spent a half hour trying to get into a mansion before looking it up and finding out the marker was wrong and I was at the wrong building.
So in conclusion: if you like games like the 1st Mass Effect where story, characters and dialogue are the focus of the game with a healthy dose of combat that isn't amazing but gets the job done, then you'll love it. If you want to just run arpund and hack shit up, it might not be for you.
The game draws inspiration from a real epedemic called the Spanish Flu, which for whatever reason, gets way less attention than the Black Plague. You play as an esteemed doctor who gets turned into a vampire after returning to London from being in World War 1. The game just drips in atmosphere as you travel the nearly abandoned streets and docks. It channels gothic horror but with a tasteful dose of modern genre updates. It has a very good story that reminds of a bit of Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein in the fact that you do not like what you are, or what it has caused you to do.
Now, this game is largely what you make it to be. The people of London all have fleshed out backstories, personalities, and many offer side quests, trade options, or useful info on certain things. You can either bond with then and work to keep them healthy, or you can feed on them and grow stronger. Your choice on how you handle this can dramatically effect the game. You gain a large amount of experience from feeding on them, even more if you gain their trust first. If you take that route it can take the game from challanging to being easy. There is are a lot of options when leveling up, without feeding you will not be able to max everything out. Another thing that depends on play style, is that there is a ton of talking if you choose to help tje people and gain their trust. This isn't a requirement, however. So the game can be very deep and story driven with a lot of dialogue, or it can be more of an action game, depending on what you do.
On that note, as a pure action game, I'm not sure if it would hold up for most. The combat mechanics are quite basic, attack, dodge, and a few specials, and ranged attack with gun. It's fun enough when not taking the feeding route because you still have to be strategic but if you feed a lot and are extremely powerful, I don't see it being very fun.
The game also features light crafting in the form of upgrading weapons, making blood, stanima, and health injections (same as potions in most games) and medicine for the people. It's semi open and semi linear. You have a map that you can go anywhere on, but only in certain buildings and some streets are blocked off. In fact, navigation can be infuriating at times because of dead ends, doors that need to be unlocked from the other side, and objective markers sometimes being in the wrong spot on the map. I spent a half hour trying to get into a mansion before looking it up and finding out the marker was wrong and I was at the wrong building.
So in conclusion: if you like games like the 1st Mass Effect where story, characters and dialogue are the focus of the game with a healthy dose of combat that isn't amazing but gets the job done, then you'll love it. If you want to just run arpund and hack shit up, it might not be for you.
Black-Eyed Susans
8.6
Rate It
Book
**THE TOP 5 SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER** 'My book of the year so far. Breathtakingly, heart-stoppingly...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Prestige (2006) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Criminally underrated
Film #10 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Prestige
The Prestige is one of 3 Christopher Nolan films on this bucket list (the others being Memento and The Dark Knight), and probably the one that has least recognition out of the the three. In fact I’d say it’s criminally underrated. It focuses on two rival magicians in Victorian London, Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale), as a tragic accident gives rise to a bitter escalating feud. Supporting are Michael Caine as stage magic designer and engineer Cutter, Scarlett Johansson as magician’s assistant Olivia, Rebecca Hall as Borden’s wife Sarah and a brief appearance from Andy Serkis and the great David Bowie as Nikola Tesla and his assistant.
From the very start, The Prestige asks us the age old magician’s phrase “Are you watching closely?” and is very much a hint at events to come, warning us that we should be paying attention. And with this being a Christopher Nolan film, this shouldn’t be a surprise. The Prestige starts at the end, with an intriguing image of dozens of discarded top hats explaining magic tricks and the meaning behind the film’s title, and is followed by the death of one of the main characters and subsequent incarceration of another. It continues in typical Nolan style, jumping between the prison, Angier’s journey to visit Nikola Tesla and telling the story of both magicians and their feud from the very beginning. A tad confusing at times, but it wouldn’t be a Nolan film with a some time travelling story telling.
Magic isn’t probably something that appeals as much now as it did back when this film is set. Victorian London is a perfect setting at a time when magic was very much a fascination and a popular form of entertainment, and the costumes and set design for this period are very well done and in keeping with the dark and dreary setting. Yet strangely despite this, The Prestige never feels like a run of the mill period drama. The cast too are perfect for their roles and also help to make magic a lot more appealing. Christian Bale’s cockney Borden is exactly what you’d expect from him yet couldn’t imagine anyone else playing the role, especially with such an awkward verging on unlikeable character, and it’s refreshing to see Hugh Jackman play a part where he isn’t a completely nice or likeable person. And of course it wouldn’t be a Christopher Nolan film without Michael Caine, who brings some much needed humour and exposition. The only drag is unfortunately Scarlett Johansson, whose dodgy English accent pulls us away from anything she puts into her performance.
The Prestige is a slow burn murder mystery, that almost feels like a gothic horror at times with some sci-fi aspects thrown in. The plot has a vast amount of twists and turns and you really do have to be watching closely to understand it all and the ending itself and the final twist is probably the most polarising of them all. For me, the first time I watched this I never saw this twist coming. It truly shocked me, despite the many nods the film gives to the twist throughout. Watching this back now years later, I have to admit that the twist is actually a little predictable when you really think about it. But the feeling of astonishment I had watching this for the first time was second to none. What is most strange though, is that the most confusing thing in this entire film isn’t the twists and turns, it’s the fact that both Angier and Norden can dress up in ridiculously fake disguises to fool each other and ruin the tricks. This does spoil things a little.
I’ve always loved magic and grew up watching many magic shows on TV when I was younger. For me Nolan has brought back that love and appeal of magic, with a hugely entertaining and captivating story. It may not be perfect and the ending may lose some of it’s shine after the first watch, but it’s still another brilliant film from Christopher Nolan.
The Prestige is one of 3 Christopher Nolan films on this bucket list (the others being Memento and The Dark Knight), and probably the one that has least recognition out of the the three. In fact I’d say it’s criminally underrated. It focuses on two rival magicians in Victorian London, Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale), as a tragic accident gives rise to a bitter escalating feud. Supporting are Michael Caine as stage magic designer and engineer Cutter, Scarlett Johansson as magician’s assistant Olivia, Rebecca Hall as Borden’s wife Sarah and a brief appearance from Andy Serkis and the great David Bowie as Nikola Tesla and his assistant.
From the very start, The Prestige asks us the age old magician’s phrase “Are you watching closely?” and is very much a hint at events to come, warning us that we should be paying attention. And with this being a Christopher Nolan film, this shouldn’t be a surprise. The Prestige starts at the end, with an intriguing image of dozens of discarded top hats explaining magic tricks and the meaning behind the film’s title, and is followed by the death of one of the main characters and subsequent incarceration of another. It continues in typical Nolan style, jumping between the prison, Angier’s journey to visit Nikola Tesla and telling the story of both magicians and their feud from the very beginning. A tad confusing at times, but it wouldn’t be a Nolan film with a some time travelling story telling.
Magic isn’t probably something that appeals as much now as it did back when this film is set. Victorian London is a perfect setting at a time when magic was very much a fascination and a popular form of entertainment, and the costumes and set design for this period are very well done and in keeping with the dark and dreary setting. Yet strangely despite this, The Prestige never feels like a run of the mill period drama. The cast too are perfect for their roles and also help to make magic a lot more appealing. Christian Bale’s cockney Borden is exactly what you’d expect from him yet couldn’t imagine anyone else playing the role, especially with such an awkward verging on unlikeable character, and it’s refreshing to see Hugh Jackman play a part where he isn’t a completely nice or likeable person. And of course it wouldn’t be a Christopher Nolan film without Michael Caine, who brings some much needed humour and exposition. The only drag is unfortunately Scarlett Johansson, whose dodgy English accent pulls us away from anything she puts into her performance.
The Prestige is a slow burn murder mystery, that almost feels like a gothic horror at times with some sci-fi aspects thrown in. The plot has a vast amount of twists and turns and you really do have to be watching closely to understand it all and the ending itself and the final twist is probably the most polarising of them all. For me, the first time I watched this I never saw this twist coming. It truly shocked me, despite the many nods the film gives to the twist throughout. Watching this back now years later, I have to admit that the twist is actually a little predictable when you really think about it. But the feeling of astonishment I had watching this for the first time was second to none. What is most strange though, is that the most confusing thing in this entire film isn’t the twists and turns, it’s the fact that both Angier and Norden can dress up in ridiculously fake disguises to fool each other and ruin the tricks. This does spoil things a little.
I’ve always loved magic and grew up watching many magic shows on TV when I was younger. For me Nolan has brought back that love and appeal of magic, with a hugely entertaining and captivating story. It may not be perfect and the ending may lose some of it’s shine after the first watch, but it’s still another brilliant film from Christopher Nolan.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.