Red Riding Hood (2011) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
288 Reviews
Sort by:
Tries to be too many things, fails at all of them
Rick Gershman8 March 2011
You'd be hard pressed to find a better example of a film ruined by trying to be too many things to too many people than Red Riding Hood, which opens Friday and, by all rights, should close Saturday.

The most obvious audience Hood hopes to attract is fans of the Twilight film series, snagging the director of the first film, Catherine Hardwicke, and refashioning the Little Red Riding Hood folk tale into, in a remarkably halfhearted way, a love triangle between three extraordinarily uninteresting characters. (If all three had been eaten by the wolf in the first act, we might have been onto something.)

What's weird about Hood, which inexplicably counts Leonardo DiCaprio as one of its producers (stick to swimming in icy water, Leo), is that this romantic angle is not its main thrust. It doesn't have a main thrust.

In fact, for a supposedly sexier take on a classic folk tale, it's in desperate need of thrust in general.

It flits around the idea of being a more adult folk tale but never commits. It throws in a bit of (pretty bad) CGI werewolf attack action from time to time, but it's nowhere near violent or bloody enough (it's PG-13) to interest action or horror fans. It has moments of campy fun, specifically every second Gary Oldman appears as a sinister Cardinal Richelieu-type character, but other scenes are played ridiculously straight.

Perhaps the film's biggest mistake — and that's saying something — is structuring itself like a Scream film. The Big Bad Wolf is indeed a werewolf, and our sweet little Red (named Valerie, played by Amanda Seyfried) has to figure out which of her fellow villagers turns into a beast when the moon is full. Is it her forbidden love, the dull as dishwater Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), who presumably equates to the hunter of the folk tale? Or is it the man she's been arranged to marry, the somehow even duller Henry (Max Irons)? Or is it one the other remarkably dull villagers? And given how dull Valerie is, who the hell really cares?

On looks alone, Seyfried perhaps is perfectly cast as Red, considering Christina Ricci might be a bit too old for the role. Seyfried's pristine, alabaster skin and enormous eyes give Red just the right look, but every time she opens her mouth you're begging for that werewolf to put her out of our misery.

To be fair, no actor could be expected to excel given the cheesy dialogue and Hardwicke's uninspired direction; solid veterans such as Virginia Madsen, Julie Christie and Lukas Haas struggle to make an impression, with Christie holding up the best. As Red's father, Billy Burke seems more zoned out than James Franco at the Oscars, suggesting he's only here for one more Twilight connection.

Only Oldman acquits himself well, simply because he treats the film as the campfest it should have been from the opening credits. He's acting in an entirely different movie, a Sam Raimi romp like Army of Darkness or Drag Me to Hell, and Red Riding Hood briefly becomes almost fun during Oldman's most animated scenes.

The film doesn't even look that great in a technical sense: The exteriors look fake, all clearly shot on soundstages, and not fake in an intentional "this is a dreamy heightened reality, because this is a folk tale" way. They look fake in a "we really suck at our jobs" way.

Red Riding Hood is pretending to be a darker, more adult take on the folk tale, but it's hardly the first: Neil Jordan mined the territory in 1984 with the R-rated The Company of Wolves, focusing more on sexual metaphors and heavy werewolf action. It wasn't great, but at least it knew what it wanted to be. Red Riding Hood tries to be a little bit of everything, but ultimately it succeeds only in being a tedious mess.
343 out of 447 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
My, what a bad job you've done!
TheMovieMark11 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Dear Warner Brothers, director Hardwicke, and screenwriter David Johnson, What exactly was I just subjected to? I was willing to buy into the potential wrapped within the concept of a dark version of the Little Red Riding Hood story. And when I saw that Gary Oldman was on board as a werewolf hunter I naively thought to myself, "OK, this could work." Then I watched the movie...

Did you blow all the acting budget on Oldman? After rounding up some bigger names who no doubt owed Ms. Hardwicke and/or WB a favor or two, it appears you had to resort to scouting some high school plays with little more than free bologna sandwiches and a credits mention to offer. I'm particularly curious as to what was going on with Billy Burke. Did you agree to give him something stronger than bologna sandwiches? I don't know how else you explain the fact that he spends the entirety of his monotone performance in a complete haze. At least Oldman didn't need the sandwiches as he obviously satiated his appetite with his voracious scene-chewing.

You should be aware that the sub-par acting of the very modern-day looking teenage-ish characters effectively takes the viewer out of the film immediately. It's bad enough that it looks like they shop at The Gap for Medieval Teens and that their hair is perfectly coiffed; was it necessary to give them clunky dialog and awkward "make-out" scenes in addition? It's not all bad though. You might be happy to know that the film did cause a bit of discussion between my wife and me afterward. In the midst of trying to come to an agreement on the most ridiculous scene of the film, we narrowed our choices to the following three:

* The weird 10-15 minute "celebration" scene with the idiotic dancing that obviously served as nothing more than filler.

* The dream sequence featuring all the "my, what big eyes, ears, teeth you have" lines. You did a masterful job at awkwardly forcing this into the film without giving it any real purpose. Kudos.

* The (poorly-rendered CGI) werewolf telepathically speaking to Valerie. If inducing unintentional laughter was your goal then y'all are some goal-achieving sons of guns! I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter.

In conclusion, I would probably find the film to be quite intense and scary if I were a sheltered 9-year-old girl with no true sense of fear. And the romantic subplot would have hit on all the right angles if... well, if I manage to think of a demographic it would appeal to I'll get back to you.

With the economy as bad as it is, surely you can agree that movie-goers deserve better than this, no? How can you as a business - in good conscious - expect your customers to spend time, gas money, and $10+ a pop on such an inferior product as Red Riding Hood? Have you seen gas prices these days? Come on, the least you can do is offer a "money back guarantee." At one point (correction: it was at about three or four different points), my wife turned to me and said, "This is just stupid." Audience exclamations such as "Well, that was awful!" and "Are you kidding me?" would seem to indicate that you'd be hard-pressed to find many who disagreed with that assessment.

Anyway, back to my original question - what was I subjected to? I said adieu to two hours of my life in order to watch something that doesn't even measure up to a Sy Fy Original! An explanation would be much appreciated.

Sincerely, A frustrated movie-goer
143 out of 198 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One word: Snore...
Ryan_MYeah11 August 2011
Amanda Seyfried plays Valerie, a young girl in a village fearful of an ungodly werewolf that has been terrorizing them for twenty years. Its latest victim is Valerie's sister. So to solve the mystery of who the werewolf is, as well as to kill the creature, they seek the help of a religious priest (Played by Gary Oldman), a man experienced in the killing of a wolf. One night, the wolf attacks, but Valerie discovers that... she can talk... to the... wolf...



What? Oh, sorry. I guess I'm as bored summarizing the plot of the movie as I was watching the actual movie.

First of all, Amanda Seyfried makes an attractive fit for the role of Valerie, and the production design of the film is interesting, but that's as close to complimentary as I'm going with this movie.

Director Catherine Hardwicke really has trouble keeping an even sense of rhythm, and the cast is a serious disappointment. Gary Oldman hams up the scene, while Julie Christie is sadly exploited for her willingness to stand around and do nothing. The leading men of Valerie have the personalities of water and sandpaper, while Billy Burke and Virginia Madsen can't make anything out of their roles. They do bad jobs, but it isn't all their fault. I know I'D have trouble trying to do a half decent job with this kind of writing.

The screenplay is awful beyond comprehension. Full of contrivances, unbearable dialogue, and a needless sense of piling on characters, and twists and turns until the final product is a total WTF of lame explanations. I wouldn't be surprised if someone fell asleep watching the movie, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they woke right up. The movie, with it's musical thumps and white noise, is near as loud as a rock concert... and I never could understand why they felt the need to play alt. rock music during a period piece.

In short: One or two bright spots - bland acting + ridiculous screenplay + off pacing = Terrible.

Red Riding Hood = * out of ****
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Red Riding Hood is...Good enough!
M Smith12 March 2011
Just returned from a nearly sold out theater and I must say the film was somewhere between decent and good!

I've read quite a few reviews here and was truly surprised about the supremely negative feedback. "The Grimm brothers would roll in their graves," someone wrote. My response to that is: "Really, would they now?" I believe a bit of research on the subject would do some quite a bit of good. The brothers Grimm -which weren't the original story tellers of 'Rotkaeppchen' as they called it- told folktales, not fairy tales…they were the very first tabloid writers and although their stories all had a grain of truth at the very core, the brothers wrote them to feed into peoples believes, superstitions and prejudice in central Europe in the 1800…their tales were often capricious and usually cruel, showing very little moral. It took generations of translations and retelling to soften the originals enough to be considered bedtime stories because the originals would have provoked nightmares in grown man at their time. Does anyone know what the significance is of the name Peter and why he wears black throughout the entire film?? I'd love to read your ideas about that. The film is a nice translation…yet another one. And by far closer based on the Grimm brothers vision than the stories we all were told as kids. I did see a bit of parallel to Twilight but only because both, this film and all the Twilight movies were filmed in Vancouver and surely used the same scenery. The Storyline is based on the folktale and (in my opinion) it has been done rather well.
181 out of 272 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The better to bore you with, my dear.
Has it become increasingly difficult to write an ending? Have writers suddenly forgotten that the climax is the high point of a story? Or is Hollywood getting lazy? Red Riding Hood is probably the most frustrating and unsatisfying movie I've been to, and the above reason is just one of many. While it certainly isn't bad, I haven't finished feeling so let down since Haneke's "The White Ribbon".

Of course, Hardwicke is a director who is willing take big risks. She did so with Twilight, which was a huge smash with teens everywhere. And she does have a good eye for a shot, and several scenes here show. If had to recommend the movie for one thing alone, it would be for the visuals. The look of the film has a gorgeous, lush and colourful palette that made this film worth seeing on the big screen.

The film's biggest problem aside from being anti-climatic is that the plot is just... a mangled mess. It reads like a really bad fanfiction. If you thought Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland was bad... .wait till you get a load of this movie. We have several plot points that come in and suddenly are left do die, one of which includes Father Solomon played by Gary Oldman, who is made to be a crazy bastard type character, and we don't see anything to prove it. To top it all off, it's rife with clichés, like the obligatory love triangle, the whodunit, damned protagonist.

The actors are a mixed bag. Seyfried does a good job here and has plenty of emotion in her performance. She has plenty of cheesy lines but she does a good job for what she has to work with. Gary Oldman was also great, but that was expected as he always shines with every performance. On the downside, Shiloh Fernandez gives one of the worst performances ever here. He spends the whole movie looking like he wants to punch someone and reads his lines like he's reading them off a paper. And Virginia Madsen just awful here as well, and is over-acting Billy Burke In short Red Riding Hood is a film that has plenty of promise, but sadly doesn't live up to it. It isn't a bad film by any means, but you are most likely to leave disappointed.
135 out of 202 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The question that kept on running through my mind was not who the wolf was, but rather who cares who the wolf was?
TheUnknown837-12 July 2011
The plot of Catherine Hardwicke's "Red Riding Hood" revolves around a series of massacres and a pressing question. The said massacres being caused by a werewolf and the said question being who the wolf is. But as I watched it, the question that kept on running through my mind was not who the wolf was, but rather who cares who the wolf was? This is a very flabby-footed, self-delusional mess of a movie that succeeds in making even the great Gary Oldman look as unnatural in his performance as Steven Seagal.

"Red Riding Hood" suffers from a poorly-constructed screenplay, one that seems was written within a handful of days and not given a single second of revision. The writer, David Johnson, was a production assistant on Frank Darabont's masterpiece "The Shawshank Redemption" but his talents seem to be more focused on polishing up a movie rather than spinning up a story. The plot of "Red Riding Hood" is contrived, flat, and lacking any zest. In fact, even though the denouement has great potential to be a real shocker and (I'll be honest) caught me by surprise, it was handled and executed so sloppily and the writing that summarizes it all up was so flimsy and manipulative, that it registered no impact on me whatsoever.

There are no characters worth caring about and next to nothing in terms of acting. The titular character is played by an up-and-coming starlet by the name of Amanda Seyfried, although if all of her performances are as uncharismatic and dull as this one, I cannot imagine why. In this performance, at least, she did not strike me as being a natural actress. Then again, she has nothing to work with in Mr. Johnson's screenplay. She also has two romantic interests, one played by Max Irons and the other by a wooden-faced Shiloh Fernandez. They are just as boring as their characters. They have absolutely no chemistry whatsoever with Miss Seyfried; I never felt any passion. Even Gary Oldman, so good so many times before, is awful here, hamming up and chewing apart every scene that he is in. His introductory moment, where he explains his experiences with werewolves, is handled by him in a way that is so over-the-top, almost like a really bad vaudeville performance. It's hard to believe that this is the same actor from "The Dark Knight," "The Book of Eli," and the Harry Potter movies.

If there is one good performance at all it is by Julie Christie, who is just as magnetic and wonderful as she was when she graced the screen in David Lean's "Doctor Zhivago" forty-six years ago. She has a powerful star presence and quality that allows her to overcome even the trashy dialogue and nothingness that she was supplied.

Another strike against the movie is the apparent lack of experience by its director, Catherine Hardwicke. She was a production designer before this movie (she designed the wonderful town reconstruction for "Tombstone" in 1993) but her skills with a motion picture camera are next to nothing. She doesn't seem to even know the basics about misc en scene and how to structure a sequence. Not even enough to know that a moment where Mr. Oldman gives a last minute warning to a stubborn old villager about the impending threat of the werewolf that she should have had a reverse angle to show the villager's reaction; instead she chooses to stick to the back of his head. There is no steady flow of images here, with too many medium and long shots and close-ups so claustrophobic that they enter the territory of being loony. One scene that was directed particularly badly was a laughable love moment between Miss Seyfriend and Mr. Fernandez. There is a problem with a romantic moment where the sight of two people making love is neither heart-warming, nor, obviously, erotic.

But Miss Hardwicke did coordinate well with her production designer, for the sets are quite good. And the special effects are decent enough in and of themselves. The werewolf, computer-generated of course, are much better than the cartoony wolves I saw in "Season of the Witch" earlier this year. It's only a shame that that wolf was not on-screen more.

"Red Riding Hood" has a feel of so many medieval melodramas of recent years: half-hearted and flimsy. It is also crippled by that haunting feeling that even the people who made the movie would not even want to see it. It feels like an assignment done by people hopelessly unhappy in their work, who just wanted to get through the dailies so they could go home and relax before getting up to do the same thing again the next day.
28 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tries to be too many things all at once
TheLittleSongbird16 April 2011
I wasn't sure whether I wanted to see this movie. I am not a fan of the Twilight movies(the first of which Catherine Hardwicke also directed) and it didn't look like my kind of film. But I saw it for the wonderful Gary Oldman.

I wasn't expecting much, and I didn't get much. Red Riding Hood(not the fairytale by the way) does try hard to be a lot of things, including introducing a number of horror, fantasy and mystery elements. But due to the sluggish pace and disjointed story structure(that is full of overlong filler, particularly the celebration scene, and the dream sequence was very awkwardly placed) the film fails at pretty much all these elements.

The script is very clunky, underdeveloped and banal as well. A lot of it did not keep my attention and I found myself chuckling into my coke at any unintentionally funny bits. The CGI is quite poor here, with the wolf looking as though it was done in a hurry. Hardwicke's direction never rises above mediocre, the editing is unfocused and frenzied and the three titular characters are incredibly dull and uninteresting with the romantic elements between them poorly written and directed.

The acting doesn't fare much better. Amanda Seyfried is pretty but bland in the title role and shows little or no chemistry with her co-stars, while Max Irons(son of Jeremy), Lukas Haas and Shiloh Fernandez show good looks but awkward line delivery. Virginia Madsen and Billy Burke are both wasted, both over-doing it in a valiant attempt to elevate their weak material(these two actors probably had the worst of the dialogue next to the leads actually). And the climax is little more than a mangled mess and devoid of depth.

Despite these many cons, there are some decent assets. The score is atmospheric enough and the costume and set design are spot on. Plus there are two good performances, Gary Oldman and Julie Christie. Oldman does chew the scenery, but he looks as though he's having a ball, while Christie is very enchanting.

Overall, not terrible, but deeply flawed and over-ambitious. 4/10 Bethany Cox
62 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
painful...cringe worthy...just terrible
firefly_607511 March 2011
I let my friends talk me into seeing this film with them because I think Amanda Seyfried is adorable and I had high hopes that this supposedly adult re-imagining of a children's folk tale would be entertaining in the same aspect of Tim Burton's Sleepy disappointed I was.

The acting was so corny and so ridiculous although I can't help but feel that it's not entirely the fault of the actors, but the director. The dialogue was so incredibly cheesy that at several points throughout the movie, groans were heard throughout the audience. Visually, the film is beautiful but the plot is choppy, the romance scenes are cringe worthy, everything about this film was just painful. Shiloh whatever his name is has a constant sneer/smirk on his face that makes his character so annoying. And the other love interest was just plain dull. Seyfried is a perfect Red Riding Hood but she brings nothing to the film other than her constantly doe eyed, surprised expression.

Do not waste your money on this crap.
134 out of 222 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Wish the Wolf Had Eaten Everyone Before Making This Film
ThreeGuysOneMovie18 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I tend to watch some movies that the other guys would never check out and this is probably one of them. My wife and I were discussing what to watch one night and it seemed there was nothing immediate to catch our attention, so after a little discussion we decided on this film. She said "I like fairy Tales and you like Amand Seyfried, so let's watch this one, it was decided. This is a spin on the classic fairy tale little red riding hood, as you may have suspected. RRH takes place in an old style village where there is a history of a Werewolf killing civilians for no reason. This has been going on for years and the village continuously leaves animal sacrifices to keep it at bay but this time he killed a young girl out after curfew, why was she out, this is where the story starts to unfold.

It seems everyone, including the werewolf, wanted to eat (Valerie, Little Red) Amanda Seyfried and to that I respond; Can you blame them? There is some sort of love triangle sub plot that is terrible but it helps divert attention to different wolf suspects. In steps Solomon (Gary Oldman) as a religious werewolf hunter, who has lost his family and has an ax to grind with the wolf. Solomon knows for some reason the Werewolf is among them and uses his deduction tactics to isolate the threats, killing and threatening anyone in his path. He is basically a mad priest. So basically the whole movie you are guessing who the Wolf is? Well who is it? I will not tell you, you will have to watch it to find out or Google it.

This movie was terrible and the only bright spot was Amanda Seyfried, not her acting but…. Gary Oldman was almost bad in this one also, no he was bad but I think it was a bad role choice rather than bad acting. There was a strange face in the village that I had not seen for some time and that was boy star Lukas Haas, who seems to be trying to make a comeback. He has been seen in Inception and Red Riding Hood, recently Inception being a good choice and RRH a bad one. I do wish Haas some luck and I am always rooting for child stars to not go insane and at least function in society.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Red Riding Bore
doctorsmoothlove30 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I promise you are going to read a review of a recently-released film, but before you do, why don't you see if you can guess which film I am going to discuss. OK, the movie is about an unremarkable young woman who is caught in a love triangle with two hunky guys. She is in love with the more brooding of the two, who also happens to be less sociable than the other. Her entire self-identity is determined by which of them she chooses and she doesn't actually have sex with either one. Also, the movie was directed by Catherine Hardwicke.

It isn't what you thought (if you figured it out), but it is close. Replace the leading candidate's vampirism with lycanthropy, and Twilight becomes Red Riding Hood. Hardwicke has remade her first film, minus the brand name, and the results are equally unappealing. Still, the lack of originality extends even further. This is one of almost twenty film versions of the titular short story, and the fourth horror movie adaption. Of said films, only Neil Jordan's The Company of Wolves does something innovative with the material by subverting it as a metaphor for adolescent sexuality.

This version of the story is fodder for Twilight fans who are anticipating Breaking Dawn. It takes place in a nondescript village that could never have existed. White sand, substituting for snow, covers the ground and poorly-rendered CG snowflakes fall in the air. This production design mimics a snow globe, and its inhabitants are as three dimensional as figures you see living in snow globes. The residents speak contemporary U.S. English, which bears no relevance to the source material. The story is mostly remembered as a Grimm fairy tale, so it could have been set in Germany or even France where it was first published. Most of the actors were cast due to looks not talent, and they recite lines as if rehearsing for parts in a better film. Those who were not, namely Gary Oldman and Amanda Seyfried are picking up a paycheck.

Not Recommended
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It was okay...
juk27515 April 2011
I went to the cinema today with two good friends to see this film. I had seen the trailer and got worked up that this would be a good film. However, it is not as good as it could have been. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy some of the film. Amanda Seyfried, Shiloh Fernandez, Max Irons and the excellent Gary Oldman acted brilliantly in the film, and the effects for the Werewolf were pretty fantastic as well. However, the rest of the cast let this film down and although it is classed as a "horror" movie, there is only really one jump-worthy moment. I don't want to give away the secret of the wolf, but if you listen closely, you can easily tell who it is...

There is a bit of gore, but if you are into some of the supernatural stuff (especially Twilight, even though I'm not a fan), you should give it a shot and might like this... but horror-lovers, keep well away, you might end up feeling a bit ripped-off...
30 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Twilight, Jr.
thesar-29 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
For those of you who don't follow film directors, listen up: watch 'Red Riding Hood' and you'll KNOW who directed this crap. Her name is Catherine Hardwicke and she damned herself with the laugh-out-loud 'Twilight' and now she makes Wes Craven's 'Cursed' a second thought as the worst werewolf movie ever.

This abomination, this cheap-ass werewolf movie without a single transformation, started bad, became increasingly painful and ended up converting nonbelievers to begin praying this nightmare would end. And believe it or not, the terrible dialogue and hilariously bad acting wasn't the worst of it...

It was the Catherine Hardwicke signature STARES she brought with her from 'Twilight.' O…M…G… I laughed hard when I did see the 'Twilight' gazing, longing, boring STARES, but unfortunately, here, it was just simply dreadful.

There is ZERO reason to see this, even for die-hard "Red Riding Hood" fable lovers. This has as much to do with the original story as 'The Lawnmower Man' film had to do with the Stephen King short story.

Skip it!
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Little Red Riding Hood and The Crucible in an Underrated Film
Claudio Carvalho11 June 2011
The youngster Valerie (Amanda Seyfried) lives in the edge of a dark forest in the small village of Daggerhorn. Valerie uses to break the rules and is in love with the lumberjack Peter (Shiloh Fernandez); however, her mother Suzette (Virginia Madsen) has promised her to the wealthy Henry Lazar (Max Irons).

The villagers have a pact with the wolves, offering pigs and other animals to them in the full moons. When Valerie's older sister Lucie (Alexandria Maillot), who has a crush on Henry, is slaughtered by a wolf, the villagers decide to chase the animal in its lair. However, Henry's father is killed by the wolf, but the animal is murdered and decapitated by The Reeve (Michael Hogan). But when the werewolf hunter Father Solomon (Gary Oldman) arrives in the village, he advises that the werewolf is one of the locals. Now the dwellers have to face another threat.

"Red Riding Hood" is a combination of Little Red Riding Hood and The Crucible and the result is uneven, with good and bad points, but anyway this film is underrated in IMDb. The best this film can offer is certainly the wonderful cinematography. The story and screenplay open the possibility of suspecting of several villagers of being the werewolf but the real one. The poor side is the acting of the histrionic Gary Oldman; the wooden Shiloh Fernandez; and Amanda Seyfried that keeps the same expression of the face along the film. But the film is not as bad as the critics write. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Garota da Capa Vermelha" ("The Girl with a Red Cloak")
49 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A classic tale turned sour
sam_i_amgirl25 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
When I saw the trailer of this film I was completely put off by it's striking similarity to Twilight. But my friends invited me to go, and I thought I'd give it a chance - after all, Gary Oldman was in it, and surely his acting could save it?

I was wrong.

The entire movie was groan-worthy. The characters were weak, undeveloped - even the "surprise" twist at the end wasn't surprising because there was no prior foreshadowing to suggest (that person) could be the werewolf.

The acting was atrocious, Gary Oldman saved the movie at certain parts, but even the cheesy dialogue killed his character. Amanda Seyfried's character was as pathetic as Bella (despite her "viciousness" by killing rabbits as a child), and the two men competing for her attention (Jacob and Edward, anyone?) were as useless - by the end of the story we had forgotten their purpose. There was just no steady plot.

At times I laughed (for the wrong reasons), and other times I wanted to be sick. I'm extremely disappointed by this film. Why do people these days think that sexy damsel-in-distress fantasy stories are good? Disney Princesses are more gutsy these days!
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Watch the previews, skip the movie.
despicableME4 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I was looking forward to this movie after seeing the previews. After watching the whole movie, I wish I'd just stuck with the previews and saved myself the extra hour and a half. The movie is choppy, badly acted, and full of tantalizing "hints" that never go anywhere.

A friend of mine had already told me he was disappointed because the movie wasn't anything like what he expected after seeing the previews. He said it was very "Twilight-ish". I went into it with an open mind, hoping maybe it just hit him wrong.

From the first 10 minutes, I realized he was absolutely, 100% spot on in his comparisons. From the music, the "Edward" hair on the main character's love interest, the choppy way the events unfold (or failed to unfold), even the love triangle, I kept thinking, "This has got to be by the same people that did Twilight." So, I looked it up right here on IMDb, and yes, the director of Twilight was one and the same for Red Riding Hood.

I looked up the director's profile, and realized that this must just be her style. I don't care for any of her movies.

I like a movie that doesn't spell everything out at the very beginning, but if I get to the end and I'm still wondering what the point was, I just think, well..."what was the point?"
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Leaves you guessing until the very end
neenahhh18 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
How did this movie get so many bad reviews? I thought this movie was great since it successfully played with people's emotions. Even from the very starting, with the shot of the beautiful village, the film got me interested. And it kept me interested until the very ending.

Let me just say that I enjoyed the romance factor that this movie had. It was sort of cliché, but I liked it! I was kind of wishing that it didn't end the way it did, though. Oh well. It was still great.

This movie reminded me of 'The Village'. They kind of have the same premise. The town is being terrorized by some sort of being and all the villagers are scared. I'm just glad that this movie had a better conclusion and ending than 'The Village' had.

My only complaint was how they kept on publicizing the fact that the director of 'Twilight' was the one who directed this film. Because of that, I couldn't help but compare the two movies when it came to the characters and the romance storyline. Both films had a girl as the main character who had two guys fighting for her. The only differences with the characters from both films were that the heroine in this movie kicked ass and this time, the "better guy" loses.

The best thing about this movie is the suspense and mystery that it gives. My guesses of who the wolf was kept on changing throughout the whole film. I checked the rating of this movie a while ago before I went off to the movie theater and saw that it ranked really low (below 5.0). I thought the reason for the low rating was because the identity of the wolf was really obvious from the trailer itself and there was no need to watch this movie. BUT, the thing is, the wolf isn't who you think it is! The movie incriminates and makes you suspect everyone in the town. I honestly did no expect the conclusion. That's what makes this a great movie.

Don't listen to the naysayers. Just keep in mind that this isn't a horror movie as the trailers portray it to be. It's a sort of mystery with some sort of romance mixed into it. Give it a try. And don't get brainwashed by those unbelievably harsh critics.
98 out of 194 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
another overpriced candy bar
mukava99113 March 2011
There is very little to like in Catherine Hardwicke's latest offering. She does have a good casting concept, however, with Julie Christie, Virginia Madsen and Amanda Seyfried as three generations of the same family. There is a distinct resemblance among them. But this marvelous potential is pretty much wasted. Gary Oldman carries his weight well as Father Solomon, a priest with colorful trappings who comes to the village to destroy the werewolf who threatens it. Billy Burke is very interesting to look at as the title character's father but he too is given little to do. Seyfried and her romantic leads (Shiloh Fernandez and Max Irons, who looks and sounds nothing like his famous father Jeremy) get to look pretty and add another notch to their youthful resumes. There is no suspense at all despite the formality of medieval villagers fearfully wondering who among them is a wolfman in disguise. It's all very similar to another bloated, boring, CGI-dependent medieval fantasy from the 90's: "Dragonheart," which also featured Julie Christie in a matriarchal context, wearing flowing garments. The camera swoops down and jiggles through the cotton candy gingerbread house-style set to the accompaniment of the usual synthesized swooshes, inducing yawn after yawn, kind of like leafing through a perfumed issue of Vanity Fair while you're waiting to get your teeth cleaned. Movies are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the overpriced candy bars sold in the lobbies of the soulless venues in which they are shown.
49 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What did I just watch?
Nora Alexa3 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
What did I just spend my precious time on? This film was... I'm trying hard to find another word for awful, but it seems that's the only word who can serve this film justice.

This strange film has no idea what it wants to be or do. It seems like the entire script has been written spontaneously along the filming, rushing everything into an undefinable genre. What is this film? Watching the cover, the trailer and the rumors about this film it seemed to be quite of a thriller. There was not a single thrilling, scary or intense scene at all. The "action" scenes with the random wolf who never manages to scare you at all, was completely random and was over within seconds. The romantic genre this movie also suddenly wants to embrace is also a complete fail. I feel nothing passionate or intense among any on the three actors who are supposed to be in a love triangle. All three characters are very random, and we never get to know any of them, leaving the audience to feel no care or interest in them. Who cares if one of them gets killed by a wolf? Not me. The fact that the whole cover is covered with the grand name Gary Oldman is also ridiculous considering the fact that he also was a random factor in this film, running around the poorly made village sets, screaming something about killing the wolf, but that you as an audience never really catch or even cares about. And then he proceeds to die, just as random as he lived.

At the end of the film I was left with an empty, almost angry feeling that I've been cheated and that this film stole my precious time (and my money). It left me with NOTHING. No thrills, no romance, no laughs, no wise morality or any admiration for good acting/directing/etc. This film was so random and awful that I can't even express it enough... I'm so sorry Amanda Seyfried, I really admire your beautiful persona, but this film is not a proud moment in your career.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good Movie! Ignore Bad Reviews!
cityofalex21 June 2011
I really cannot understand why this movie received such awful ratings.

As soon as I found out Leonardo DiCaprio was the producer of this movie I knew I had to watch it, because he never signs his name to an inferior film.

The movie was thrilling and truly kept you guessing to the very end, with just the right amount of action, suspense, and romance, making it appealing to all types of movie watchers.

However,the romantic elements of the film didn't overshadow the suspense, which made for a very well rounded movie.

Red Riding Hood was an intriguing movie that I would recommend to all who are thinking about watching it.

Don't let the negative reviews convince you otherwise!

You really would be missing out on a good movie.
56 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of my favorite horror films
iceredfatboy4 April 2012
I absolutely loved this movie. I have seen it several times. The work they performed on the computerized wolf is outstanding. The cast is excellent and the story is horror and Gothic at it's best. The music score on this film is goth, haunting, and awesome. This movie may not be for all, but for a werewolf thriller, it is one of my all time favorites. It takes an old story and puts a different twist. Imagine a story which seems to be set in an old Transylvania village put to upbeat music and a very romantic story line. I know it has had some bad reviews, personally it is a love/horror/werewolf thriller that is a winner to me. Red Riding Hood is worth watching and then some.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Troy_Campbell6 April 2011
This film is a steaming pile of cinematic poop. It's dreadful in every single way. There's not one nice thing I can muster to say about it. It makes the Twilight series, which it so blatantly and unashamedly mimics, look positively brilliant. I can understand the logic from Warner Bros; in a time where Edward Cullen and Bella Swan rule the roost, why wouldn't you want to get in for your share of the pie. I'm sure it will reap the rewards at the box office thanks to the universal lack of taste teenage girls have in picking fads. That doesn't stop it being the worst movie of recent years.

It all begins with the downright hilarious dialogue. In a film rife with atrocities, this stands tall as the most dreadful of the lot. I almost feel sympathy towards the actors as no-one, and I mean no-one, could make some of those clunkers work. Trite clichés such as "I don't want you to see me like this" (complete with sooky head turn) and "I'll do anything to be with you" (barf) rear their ugly head throughout. Even the attempted humour, mainly from Julie Christie's Grandmother, falls flat thanks to some lamely scripted jokes. Hardwicke does what she can to emulate her Twilight success, but her regurgitating attempts at hitting gold twice is boring, lazy and worthy of the regret she'll feel at the end of her career looking back.

Youngsters Seyfried, Fernandez and Irons can be forgiven for signing on as I'm sure they all had grand illusions of being the next Bella, Edward of Jacob. I can even give Burke and Haas a pass as they're not exactly thespians of a standard where they can be too fussy with their roles. What I can't figure out though, is what in the hell is Gary Oldman doing here? An actor who has produced so many memorable characters and starred in so many fantastic films, Hardwicke must've beaten a drunken Oldman in a game of poker to get him to appear in this garbage. Surely he didn't select this role whilst of a sane and sober mind. Hopefully for him his upcoming Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and The Dark Knight Rises wash away all memory of Red Riding.


1 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Average, 3 - Good, 4 - Great, 5 - Brilliant)
31 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Waste of 10.00$ -Contains spoiler-
wolfgirl1712 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I absolutely love the tale of Red Riding Hood. But this 'vision' of it was absolutely HORRIBLE. The acting was terrible and i believe that was the saddest part because a lot the actors in this film are very good actors. Great set of actors HORRIBLE director! There was too much 'twiligh' to actually figure out that it was completely different story. I mean the beginning was exactly the same as twilight for a minute there i was expecting to see the story of how mr. glittery vampire came to be. And the wolf was pathetic. All i thought when i saw it was, 'Jacob Black dyed his hair'. Not too mention that the entire first part of the book was non existent. This movie made me want to go home and scrub myself clean. Save your money.
38 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Reminds me of dubbed horror films
youlately11 March 2011
There is no kind way to say this: aside from Gary Oldman, Julie Christie and Amanda Seyfried; the acting is awful. I think the script, dialog, and acting would have definitely improved if the writers had given more elegance to the words by using a more elevated dialog like Shakespeare or Jane Austin.

The romantic elements are weak and there was great opportunities lost for heart wrenching moments for scenes of both grief and affection. The special effects were less than what I expected, and I expected a more magical look and feel to the general photography. There were times when this movie had dialog that looked and sounded dubbed. It was distracting and I hope this film is not nominated for sound. I did however like the plot. Youlately ****
44 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worst movie
Warning: Spoilers
Let's start with the fact that I'm not a Twilight hater. I've read the book, they were OK. But the movies were horrible, but not as horrible as this one. I've read some reviews, but I thought I'll give it a try, because I really like Amanda Seyfried. Unfortunately, no matter how much I like her, It was a bad movie. Let me explain the big issues: 1. Red Moon. Have you seen anywhere a red moon? Nope, you have not. Why ? Because there's no such thing AS A RED MOON. 2. The snow. The snow is white, cold and does not look like sand. And you cannot simulate snow with sand. Period. And from this comes item nr. 3: 3. This village is supposed to be set in the middle of the mountains, and after a heavy snowing, It's supposed to be damn cold. Well, that's not a problem for Mr. Edward ehmm.. excuse me, Harry I guess (I did not bother remembering his name) or the rest of the metro-sexually dressed young lumber jacks. They are dressed in the movie as if it's as much as in autumn, with their chest showing out, just like in Twilight :) Dear Catherine, maybe you grew up in Florinda and you haven't seen any snow. The snow usually appears when there is damn cold outside. And you have to dress up in that season. And yes, you can see your breath when you are outside. But not in this movie, of course. 4. The acting of the characters is quite good (well, Edward.. ehmmm lumber jack should exercise a little more), but the script is so awful and meaningless that even with a good acting you cannot mask that. 5. I forgot about the windows. M'am, good work there. You've used blurred windows, so then you don't have to worry about the exterior when shooting from inside. But,in one scene, if you look out on the window outside is light, then in the next scene, after the villagers come out from the pub, the windows shutters are closed. Good job, where is the light coming from then ? 6. The wolf. It's Jacob. A little bit smaller, but still him. And he talks of course. And looks awful, just like in Twilight. The same crappy CGI.

Well, there are more... but I guess i've made my point. People, don't waste your money. If you want to see Amanda, go watch Mamma-Mia.
22 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not even worth renting
Westmassboy5 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Where to begin... About only thing this mess of a movie has going for it is Gary Oldman, who gives his usual almost over the top performance. Apparently in medieval Europe most of the inhabitants spoke North American English, with the exception of Mr Oldman who's dialect is somewhere between Vlad the Impaler, and beer swilling euro-trash. In addition, while most of the villagers were dressed in shabby period garb, had the prerequisite ratty hair, and looked as if they hadn't bathed in years, the majority of the central characters were well washed, and looked as if they just left Bloomingdales' clearance outlet. Oh, and it seems that Paul Mitchell and or other types of hair products were also available at the time. Virginia Madsens hair was perfectly curled, and coiffed, while Shiloh Fernandez looked like a NYC Chelsea Boy marooned in West Hollywood. The Village and surrounding forest were laughable. I guess large spiked protrusions were an architectural feature back then, and the forest was filled with similar razor sharp spikes protruding from the barren trees that lined the path wherever people walked. I'm sure this was supposed to make the shots look spooky, but seriously, do you think people in that era wouldn't trim the branches so their family and friends wouldn't be impaled or loose an eye walking to grandma's house? By the way, I wasn't aware that medieval European villages had Raves, complete with heavy bass tracks playing all night, but strangely there were no DJs, musicians, or even an odd villager knocking on a hollow log. The wolf wasn't even threatening. Come on, you can CGI a pretty scary wolf nowadays. The plot was so contrived and predictable, that even the twist at the end couldn't help it, and the majority of the acting was flat. Overall, not worth your time or hard earned cash.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews