Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Fright Night 2 (1989) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
My 2nd purchase using my new all region DVD/Blu Ray player is another film I have not seen in probably 30 years since it has never had a DVD or Blu Ray release in the United States. In fact, the European DVD I purchased was in Spanish which I had to change back to English dialogue.
Charlie Brewster has been in psychotherapy for 3 years trying to convince himself the deeds he and fellow vampire killer, Peter Vincent, were all in his imagination. That is until a new sultry vixen creature of the night and her entourage happen to meander into his life. She also happens to be the sister of Jerry Dandrige, whom Charlie and Peter executed in their initial vampire romp.
Charlie and Peter share combined and separate encounters with their new enemy and her minions eventually trying to convince each other this is really happening again meanwhile Charlie's new girlfriend is growing impatient with her boyfriend's peculiar behavior.
It is only through their inevitable final confrontation will tensions be resolved for good.
Upon the rewatch, I soon discovered lightning did not strike twice for this sequel. This should have been one of those I rested my fondness on its memory rather than trying to update or sustain my initial opinion. It certainly was entertaining to see the vampire dispatching duo back together again; however, the formula seemed both too much the same yet the tone was remarkably different this time around.
I'm sure all would have been solved with a tight, biting script which the first film was blessed with. It was able to find the balance between humor, camp and gore. This one seemed forced and the situations more unbelievable. The villainess lacked the charm and charisma of Dandrige and her lackeys were not as fun as "Evil Ed' from the first film.
Still glad I watched it and looking forward to finding more forgotten gems in the future.
Charlie Brewster has been in psychotherapy for 3 years trying to convince himself the deeds he and fellow vampire killer, Peter Vincent, were all in his imagination. That is until a new sultry vixen creature of the night and her entourage happen to meander into his life. She also happens to be the sister of Jerry Dandrige, whom Charlie and Peter executed in their initial vampire romp.
Charlie and Peter share combined and separate encounters with their new enemy and her minions eventually trying to convince each other this is really happening again meanwhile Charlie's new girlfriend is growing impatient with her boyfriend's peculiar behavior.
It is only through their inevitable final confrontation will tensions be resolved for good.
Upon the rewatch, I soon discovered lightning did not strike twice for this sequel. This should have been one of those I rested my fondness on its memory rather than trying to update or sustain my initial opinion. It certainly was entertaining to see the vampire dispatching duo back together again; however, the formula seemed both too much the same yet the tone was remarkably different this time around.
I'm sure all would have been solved with a tight, biting script which the first film was blessed with. It was able to find the balance between humor, camp and gore. This one seemed forced and the situations more unbelievable. The villainess lacked the charm and charisma of Dandrige and her lackeys were not as fun as "Evil Ed' from the first film.
Still glad I watched it and looking forward to finding more forgotten gems in the future.
Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath
Games
App
** NOTE: Requires at least an iPhone 4S, iPad 2, iPad Mini or iPod Touch 5th gen. Runs at variable...
SSH Term Pro
Utilities and Business
App
SSH Term Pro is the advanced and best SSH/Telnet Client app for your iOS devices — Best Selling...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Friday the 13th Part III (1982) in Movies
Aug 4, 2020
Disclaimer: I still like this film, in the same way I like the whole franchise for better or worse, but man, Part III is a struggle to get through at times.
The main issue is the pacing and dialogue. I always found Part 2 Jason to be pretty intimidating, almost like a feral animal, but this time around, he's sneaking about Higgin's Haven, causing all kinds of hijinks and skulking in the distance. Leave that shit to Michael Myers and give me the Jason that's an unstoppable bull in a china shop!
This approach to Jason means that there is a ludicrous number of fake out scares in the first half of the film. It becomes trying pretty quickly.
The script is absolutely piss poor, no two ways about it - although I do appreciate the more frequent attempts at humour than what came before. Some of the characters are memorable in their own way - Shelley and Fox to name a couple, but none of the characters are developed much - watching the special features, it was made clear that the use of 3D and the increased technical issues that came with it took up most of the attention whilst filming - a classic case of actors doing the best with what they were given, which wasn't much in this instance!
Although all of this ensures that the end product doesn't begin to touch the first two in terms of quality, there are still some positives of course. This was the entry that gave Jason his iconic hockey mask for starters, and the make up work done on actor Richard Brooker is impressive even today. The practical work put into the films many death scenes is easy to appreciate, and the overall look of the film is pure 80s slasher, which is never a bad thing.
It's not the best film in the series, and certainly not the worst, and if you like slashers as much as I do, then there's definitely something for you here, even if the end result feels a bit aimless.
The main issue is the pacing and dialogue. I always found Part 2 Jason to be pretty intimidating, almost like a feral animal, but this time around, he's sneaking about Higgin's Haven, causing all kinds of hijinks and skulking in the distance. Leave that shit to Michael Myers and give me the Jason that's an unstoppable bull in a china shop!
This approach to Jason means that there is a ludicrous number of fake out scares in the first half of the film. It becomes trying pretty quickly.
The script is absolutely piss poor, no two ways about it - although I do appreciate the more frequent attempts at humour than what came before. Some of the characters are memorable in their own way - Shelley and Fox to name a couple, but none of the characters are developed much - watching the special features, it was made clear that the use of 3D and the increased technical issues that came with it took up most of the attention whilst filming - a classic case of actors doing the best with what they were given, which wasn't much in this instance!
Although all of this ensures that the end product doesn't begin to touch the first two in terms of quality, there are still some positives of course. This was the entry that gave Jason his iconic hockey mask for starters, and the make up work done on actor Richard Brooker is impressive even today. The practical work put into the films many death scenes is easy to appreciate, and the overall look of the film is pure 80s slasher, which is never a bad thing.
It's not the best film in the series, and certainly not the worst, and if you like slashers as much as I do, then there's definitely something for you here, even if the end result feels a bit aimless.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Love Wedding Repeat (2020) in Movies
Aug 16, 2020
Movie marketing departments, please repeat after me: "I will not mislead the audience with my blurb for the film."
Jack has to juggle with dramas at his sister's wedding to make sure a troublemaker doesn't ruin the whole day.
Love Wedding Repeat looks very much like every other romcom out there but its saving grace appeared to be an interesting cast and the fun alternate timelines we'd see as promised in the blurb... but don't get your hopes up on that last part. I rewatched the trailers to try and find out where I got the wrong end of the stick about this and I found it was only mildly implied, in fact, it's the synopsis that outright tells you "alternate versions of the same day".
What's given to us feels more like an accident, like they filmed heavy and then realised they were running out of time and needed to cram it in. The "alternate versions" are more of a footnote on the film and a wasted opportunity. You could have run the Groundhog Day-esque scenarios or had the comedy rewind sound and gone back to the beginning of the scene... but the comedy alternatives are really nowhere to be seen.
The lack of comedy doesn't stop there, for the most part the script isn't a great success, I don't think I even laughed once. It tries to rely on quite an aggressive humour (that might not make sense to you, but it does in my head!) and everything feels very forced.
A good cast can sometimes redeem those moments that don't land on the page but the majority of the characters are just forgettable. No one is particularly likeable and that was a real drawback when you add it onto all the other drawbacks.
Love Wedding Repeat feels terribly balanced, had any of the elements been even slightly better it could have made this more watchable, but alas, they weren't, so it wasn't. Simple as.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/love-wedding-repeat-movie-review.html
Jack has to juggle with dramas at his sister's wedding to make sure a troublemaker doesn't ruin the whole day.
Love Wedding Repeat looks very much like every other romcom out there but its saving grace appeared to be an interesting cast and the fun alternate timelines we'd see as promised in the blurb... but don't get your hopes up on that last part. I rewatched the trailers to try and find out where I got the wrong end of the stick about this and I found it was only mildly implied, in fact, it's the synopsis that outright tells you "alternate versions of the same day".
What's given to us feels more like an accident, like they filmed heavy and then realised they were running out of time and needed to cram it in. The "alternate versions" are more of a footnote on the film and a wasted opportunity. You could have run the Groundhog Day-esque scenarios or had the comedy rewind sound and gone back to the beginning of the scene... but the comedy alternatives are really nowhere to be seen.
The lack of comedy doesn't stop there, for the most part the script isn't a great success, I don't think I even laughed once. It tries to rely on quite an aggressive humour (that might not make sense to you, but it does in my head!) and everything feels very forced.
A good cast can sometimes redeem those moments that don't land on the page but the majority of the characters are just forgettable. No one is particularly likeable and that was a real drawback when you add it onto all the other drawbacks.
Love Wedding Repeat feels terribly balanced, had any of the elements been even slightly better it could have made this more watchable, but alas, they weren't, so it wasn't. Simple as.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/love-wedding-repeat-movie-review.html
The Stars in Her Eyes (Love in LA Quartet, #1)
8.0
Rate It
Book
Love in LA just got a whole lot hotter! One woman. Three men. Some things are best kept secret. ...
Reverse Harem Contemporary Erotic Romance
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Halloween Kills (2021) in Movies
Oct 17, 2021
I can safely say, that I'm not 100% sure whether I liked Halloween Kills or not. There were parts that I genuinely enjoyed, in no small part thanks to Michael Myers. As in Halloween (2018), this Myers is a brutal and unforgiving one. His aesthetic is great and he's intimidating as fuck. This movie pulls no punches in making him out to be a monster, shying further away from the days of rooting for slasher villains. To top it off, Kills easily has some of the best Michael moments in the entire franchise. This is bolstered by some truly fantastic cinematography.
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
However, the positives are marred quite severely by everything else. The script is hammy as fuck, which is fine, but the tone of the movie is pretty damn serious, and a lot of the screenplay just doesn't land properly. There are endless characters saying something along the lines of "it's my fault, and I'm going to be the one to kill Michael Myers" for no real reason. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of "legacy" characters from the OG Halloween making their return. It's lovely to see the likes of Kyle Richards, Charles Cyphers, and Nancy Stephens back for another round, but they do kind of feel shoehorned in. Tommy Doyle being thrust into the spotlight as a main character is in no means a bad idea, but he's just a bit of a gammon for the entire runtime, and quickly becomes a tiresome protagonist. All of this is exacerbated by pacing that just plummets around the mid point. The whole subplot of a mob chasing down a small bald man who clearly isn't Michael Myers is just ludicrous, and it's goes on FOREVER. All just to throw in a forced "maybe we were the monsters all along" conundrum. It's really dumb.
I didn't hate Halloween Kills by any means, but for me, it was a huge step down from the fantastic 2018 effort. Hopefully, Halloween Ends will bring the quality back up (with more Laurie Strode fingers crossed)
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2464 KP) rated It All Began with a Scream in Books
Nov 11, 2021 (Updated Nov 11, 2021)
Uneven History of the Scream Franchise
This book covers the history and production of all four movies released to date in the franchise. With new interviews and research into previously released articles, Padraic dives into what went into the creation of each movie in the franchise. He starts with the origins behind Kevin Williamson writing the first script and covers casting, production, releases, and everything in between for all of the films.
Despite my normal cozy mystery reads, I am obsessed with the Scream franchise, so as soon as I learned about this book, I knew I had to get it. I appreciated the interviews and research that went into this book. There were fewer bits of trivia I didn’t know about the original movie, but the sections on Screams 3 and 4 made me understand some of my issues with those films better. I did feel that the writing lacked a bit of passion that kept me out, and many of the quotes could have been cleaned up for clarity to make the reading better. I would have really appreciated it if the author had included a person’s full name and their position in the crew more than the first time he mentioned them. There are a handful of typos throughout the book, and that wouldn’t bother me, except that each time my alma mater was mentioned by name, it was listed as Santa Rosa high school instead of Santa Rosa High School. Yes, it’s silly, but it bugged me. I also take exception to the producer interviewed about that controversy saying not getting to film at the school was censorship. While there is much to be said on the subject (and both sides behaved poorly during the controversy), it was never censorship. Overall, the writing issues keep me from giving the book a full recommendation, but I am glad I read it.
Despite my normal cozy mystery reads, I am obsessed with the Scream franchise, so as soon as I learned about this book, I knew I had to get it. I appreciated the interviews and research that went into this book. There were fewer bits of trivia I didn’t know about the original movie, but the sections on Screams 3 and 4 made me understand some of my issues with those films better. I did feel that the writing lacked a bit of passion that kept me out, and many of the quotes could have been cleaned up for clarity to make the reading better. I would have really appreciated it if the author had included a person’s full name and their position in the crew more than the first time he mentioned them. There are a handful of typos throughout the book, and that wouldn’t bother me, except that each time my alma mater was mentioned by name, it was listed as Santa Rosa high school instead of Santa Rosa High School. Yes, it’s silly, but it bugged me. I also take exception to the producer interviewed about that controversy saying not getting to film at the school was censorship. While there is much to be said on the subject (and both sides behaved poorly during the controversy), it was never censorship. Overall, the writing issues keep me from giving the book a full recommendation, but I am glad I read it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Escape Room: Tournament of Champions (2021) in Movies
Mar 6, 2022
Did the first film need a sequel? Probably not.
Having found their way out of their escape room, Zoey and Ben decide to investigate the mysterious corporation behind their ordeal. In their quest for the truth, they find themselves pulled into another maze of escape rooms with other survivors of Minos.
As far as the plot goes on this, a fair bit is just new rooms to escape. And at this point we're potentially just in an eternal spiral of Escape Room films.
Though these characters all have something in common, they could not be more different. And while that's totally legitimate, it also makes the film very busy. Given the nature of the action as well, it's a lot more chaotic than I was comfortable with.
The acting is sadly, entirely average. At certain points, the ridiculous deductive powers of the group felt even more nonsensical than they would have been under normal circumstances. It was very much a snowball of acting, plot and script.
Despite the similarities, I did like the rooms that we came across. (By that I mean they're fine when you suspend several layers of belief and logic.) Some of the effects looked particularly good in them, and the transitions within the beach scene stood out for me.
What I don't like is the potential neverending spiral I mentioned. The first film was enjoyable, but I'm not sure it really warranted a second. Is there a plan? Because why would you jump straight to this point? You had four other people with stories that could have been explored before jumping back in with the same two characters from the first film, I'm a little baffled as to why, if you're going to copy and paste, you wouldn't transfer it directly, get four other films out of it before combining the world.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/03/escape-room-2-movie-review.html
Having found their way out of their escape room, Zoey and Ben decide to investigate the mysterious corporation behind their ordeal. In their quest for the truth, they find themselves pulled into another maze of escape rooms with other survivors of Minos.
As far as the plot goes on this, a fair bit is just new rooms to escape. And at this point we're potentially just in an eternal spiral of Escape Room films.
Though these characters all have something in common, they could not be more different. And while that's totally legitimate, it also makes the film very busy. Given the nature of the action as well, it's a lot more chaotic than I was comfortable with.
The acting is sadly, entirely average. At certain points, the ridiculous deductive powers of the group felt even more nonsensical than they would have been under normal circumstances. It was very much a snowball of acting, plot and script.
Despite the similarities, I did like the rooms that we came across. (By that I mean they're fine when you suspend several layers of belief and logic.) Some of the effects looked particularly good in them, and the transitions within the beach scene stood out for me.
What I don't like is the potential neverending spiral I mentioned. The first film was enjoyable, but I'm not sure it really warranted a second. Is there a plan? Because why would you jump straight to this point? You had four other people with stories that could have been explored before jumping back in with the same two characters from the first film, I'm a little baffled as to why, if you're going to copy and paste, you wouldn't transfer it directly, get four other films out of it before combining the world.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/03/escape-room-2-movie-review.html
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.