SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Adam Taylor Basic, workable plot. Wonderfully campy acting that still hits some surprisingly serious notes. Wacky but lovable characters. Good action. Passable CGI.All in all, it's just a fun movie to watch. Sure, it's not going to win any huge awards, but it isn't trying to. This is a film that knows its limitations, and yet still pushes them as far as it can go.Sure it's campy, but that's half the fun.

TheManInOil Never mind how bad this movie is. I spent most of it trying to figure out where and when it's supposed to be set. The time is easier - seems to be late 1800s, with anachronistic elements. But as to where? No idea. The accents and place names, etc. seem to be completely all over the place. Given the diversity one might think it was the US but it's clearly meant to be someplace European (even though the wealthy locals speak with distinct American accents). Baffling movie.

Phil Hubbs Judging by the cover of this film thoughts of 'Van Helsing' and 'Underworld' spring instantly to mind...and your not far wrong with that.This is pretty much a copy and mix of both of those films, chock full of lovely clichéd characters and everything you've ever seen before in a werewolf movie.Bunch of crazy hardass werewolf hunters come to a small village to purge them of the wolf horror. A young man from the village volunteers to help them do so but there are twists to come, many predictable twists that aren't too well hidden.The film looks quite good with that typically bleak, dark, murky, 19th century, forest set, Eastern European village look. The characters are basically rips from many other films and include your obligatory Hudson from 'Aliens' type, the cool calm Clint Eastwood-esque leader, the sexy ninja like female and a well spoken, smartly dressed toff who throws lots of little knives. A kind of quirky 'League of Extraordinary Gentleman' type looking gang. The dialog is all the right kind of hero spouting fluff you have heard before, tight little one liners throughout the action just to emphasise these guys are cool and tough etc..The reason I watched the film (apart from being a werewolf fan) was down to the reasonable looking effects. It swings from good to bad really, some shots of the werewolf's claws, eyes or silhouettes against the darkness are pretty neat and work well. The transformation sequences are fully CGI and a bit hokey but I've seen worse, whilst in full CGI motion the creature doesn't look that bad. Put it this way its no worse than the first 'Underworld' flick which had a much bigger budget.Unknown cast accept for previous vampire player Stephen Rea, none of which are much to shout about although Guy Wilson who plays the young man from the village looks perfect for his character. Honestly for a straight to DVD film this isn't too bad and offers some nice visuals and claret soaked action, just don't expect anything original at tall.5/10

UnderworldRocks The CG in this film is, surprisingly, not so fake! The scene in which the explosions blew the werewolf away looks realistic. The plot twist concerning the true identity of the main beast is pretty good---if not smart---and unexpected. Another twist, somehow, may leave the audience speechless: voila! Suddenly there is a vampire in the film! And it does not fear sunlight. There are some major plot holes, e.g. Daniel's mother left the prison with an animal growl---that must mean that she is a werewolf---but later she showed up in the full moon unaffected---maybe she is powerful enough to change at will? ---before getting killed by her fellow villagers' bullets; how the doctor portrayed by Stephen Rea was able to command the beast like a circus animal domesticator is never fully explained; Charles the beast hunter took a bullet and later he was able to rise up again (Was he wearing an anti-bullet sweater?)… There is some serious gore, such as cutting open the corpse's tummy, leaving the guts and intestines flowing. The cast is great, except the guy who plays Daniel, who's not hot enough. All in all, the film would be better if only there could be a better plot, more violence and nudity.