SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

gnasher-18201 This film has left an indelible impact on my childhood. I first saw it when I was 5 years old as my mother didn't want to watch a horror movie alone, I have been frightened (albeit also intrigued) by horror folklore.since and spent much of my teenage years reading about werewolves vampires and witchcraft and then studying psychology. If you claim to love the genre but have never seen this film I don't believe you love werewolf movies. Evocative story-telling, creative displays, both humanizing and animalising the werewolf. Watch this and 'Dog Soldier's and you will not be disappointed.

Scott LeBrun This appropriately moody looking film from co-writer / director Neil Jordan is good entertainment, a combination of horror and fairy tale that plays up the sexual angle in its exploration of the werewolf myth. It's true enough that the film is murky, but that fits the material; Jordan avoids a lot of bright colours and his crew give this an excellent period feel. (This only helps to make the red shawl worn by our heroine to really stand out.) The acting is solid, and overall "The Company of Wolves" benefits from its theme of there being more to "wolves" than meets the eye. Of course, this also ties into the time honoured idea of the beast inside man.The film encompasses several tales, all of them either told by kindly Granny (Angela Lansbury) or her granddaughter Rosaleen (Sarah Patterson), and supposedly all of them are contained within Rosaleens' dreams. They range from a groom (Stephen Rea) having a surprise in store for his new bride (Kathryn Pogson) to a young man receiving some sort of magical potion from a stranger (Terence Stamp, in an uncredited cameo) to a village that traps a wolf whose paw transforms into a human hand.Enhanced by Bryan Loftus's lighting and the music of George Fenton, "The Company of Wolves" is deliberately paced but full of atmosphere; one does feel like they are being transported to another time and place. It's also full of creepy imagery, and Christopher Tucker contributes makeup and transformation effects that may not quite measure up to what Rick Baker and Rob Bottin devised for their respective werewolf classics ("An American Werewolf in London", "The Howling"), but are striking nevertheless. The dialogue created by Angela Carter has a very literate quality. The cast - ever delightful Lansbury, Rea, David Warner, Graham Crowden, Brian Glover, Danielle Dax, Jim Carter - does creditable work, with young Patterson convincingly essaying an essential innocence.This film remains somewhat forgotten today, having come in the wake of those aforementioned werewolf pictures, so for lovers of the sub genre, it should be worth their while to discover it.Seven out of 10.

Andy Steel I remember when I first saw this film (many years ago); I found it quite slow and plodding. This time I appreciated much more the measured approach taken by the director. It gives the audience time to take in the story and become familiar with the strange world he has created. Yes, there are a few clichés in there, the medieval village with a 17th century manor house and the fact the snakes (big ones) live in an English forest did seem kind of wrong to me. Also in the 'dislike' column came the musical score; sorry but synth's just don't cut it any more. May have sounded cool at the time but now it's just too damn cheesy. Okay, so what's to like; well, first there's the performance of Sarah Patterson, who I though did a truly excellent job given the talent she was working with. I also liked the special effects; all mechanical with not a hint of CGI (after all, it didn't really exist back then). I really liked the way the story was structured but it could have done without the 'modern day' bits tagged on to either end. Over all I found it an entertaining watch and something every horror fan should have seen at least once.SteelMonster's verdict: RECOMMENDEDMy score: 7.3/10.You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

SlinkyVamp I'm the only person I know who's actually seen this film, let alone loved it, so it's nice to be able to share my enthusiasm for this rich little gem.Why do I love this film? Well, let's start at the very beginning. I adore it when a movie's title is open to interpretation and could be taken in any number of differing ways. Is this about wolves in various guises as companions, whether literal or metaphorical, or are they merely playing a role in some elaborate scenario in our personal fabrication of reality? As it turns out, both. This flick is BIG on the symbolism and the worst wolves are, to quote, "hairy on the inside."Secondly, and let's not beat about the bush ( pun entirely intentional ) the movie is positively dripping dark Gothic sexuality. Not that is has any sex scenes per se ( though there is the least erotic lovemaking scene between the heroine, Rosaleen's, parents at one point ), but it's a Freudian orgy. Sensuality swamps practically every scene, and though it has been known for me to over-analyse a tad ;) it's hard to resist the urge to intermittently shout out "ooh, lipstick as a labia metaphor!" or "That tree has a phallus!" ( which is why I stopped watching films with my parents decades ago... I think I was embarrassing them.)"Oh come ON Mum !!!! The tree quite obviously has a penis!!" "I think I'll go make a pot of tea now..."Like the much later "Ginger Snaps" lycanthropy is pretty much a metaphor for sexual awakening, however, here the nature of the beast is firmly rooted in seduction. Even the walks in the mist-shrouded forests bring a quickening of the pulse that can't always be attributed to unease.Possibly my fascination for this collection of stories within a story comes from seeing it for the first time when sexuality was foremost in my own mind. That said, it is classified as a horror movie and has a couple of impressive wolf transformations that haven't aged too badly, though they distracted me from my preferred focus of the Gothic ambiance. In my world Beauty and the Beast wouldn't have been totally ruined by the Beast becoming yet another bland Prince, and the happy couple would have embraced their attraction and maybe popped out a few puppies or something. But then I would have preferred Beauty to have not been put off by her beau having a bit of extra fur on him. Likewise, when the wronged 'witch' in one of the tales exposes the vile aristocracy for the savage beasts they truly are, and thereby commanding the respect she deserved, then I, for one, cheered her on.If I were to have one criticism it would be this : the movie is often interpreted as having a feminist bias, with the men all being portrayed as beasts in disguise, cruel brutes, or seducers. Whilst I can see why a confused and blossoming pubescent girl may see things this way it's only balanced by a quote from Rosaleen's mother that goes, "It there's a beast in men it meets it's match in women too."Things this film has taught me? 1) If his eyebrows meet in the middle and he speaks with an accent then he wants in her pants. And 2) "My, what big teeth......." leads exactly where you'd expect it to.Some fabulous little performances all round, but you don't really watch it for the Oscar winning acting. Give it a go, you might actually like it if you have a taste for the quirky with a slight under-taste of perverse.