Night Wolf (2010) Poster

(2010)

User Reviews

Review this title
39 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Good, Bad and Ugly
SuperMah25 April 2012
This movie is not the greatest as you would guess with not a very good cast nor an original story line. To start with the acting. The actors performances were all average apart from Isabella Calthorpe's, her acting was awful. Directing was average, nothing special.

The film starts of with Sarah Tyler coming back to England from the United States after a long time. We find out about each of the characters personalities and their previous relationships before Sarah left for USA.

Then the action starts with the creature appearing and the family trying to survive. Trying alternate solutions to find an escape or protect themselves from the creature.

The ending was surprising. It could have been better. No explanation was given on why such events happened which was frustrating and made things seem pointless and too simple.

Pretty gross scenes with gore. Stupid decisions and bad storyline. Maybe you can have a laugh with friends while watching this but I don't think it's much more than that.
31 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Decent horror romp hamstrung by budget limitations
bad_badger2 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this at FrightFest in London and was engaged right up to the final reel where things came a bit unglued.

The film deals with an estranged daughter coming home to visit her father and step-family at their ancestral manor. A building storm cuts off the power and an aborted party in the hay-barn is moved to the house, where the family discover that something *else* has crept into the house ahead of them.

There follows a horror genre cat-and-mouse chase around the house interior where the group of youths are steadily picked off by the monstrous invader during their efforts to contact the authorities and call for help.

Much of this section of the film is quite tense and well-played and this second reel is where I found most enjoyment. The creature responsible for the mounting chaos is never shown (other than a clever Gollum-style silhouette in one shot) and works for the film rather than against, leaving imagination to fill in the blanks.

Only in the final act of the movie do we learn the origin of the creature (although this particular twist is not difficult to see coming much earlier in the movie) and see it in more detail, which is where things fall down a bit.

When budgets are tight, prosthetics and animatronics typically suffer - the visual effects for the creature are a bit wobbly (which shouldn't really matter that much if the editing is tight or evasive) and although the body count is high and the corpses are suitably eviscerated and mangled (with probably the best effects of the movie) somehow the revelation of the responsible party left me feeling flat. Many of the actual murders also happen off-screen or in cut-away, which was another source of frustration for a horror fan.

Ultimately, this is a decent movie and the second act is where all the tension is rooted, but I found the ending lacking something. At the festival, the director explained they only had something like 18 days to shoot which would certainly impact on the final film.

If you like monster movies and have a free hour and a half, you could do a lot worse than watch 13Hrs.
23 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I second the good the bad and the ugly
LovinMoviesMakinGames26 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I think the integrity of IMDb has gone to sh_t because of fake posts, fake ratings by those involved in the film.

I rented this one, seeing a >8/10 review from some 25 people. I can't say it was anything but a waste of money. I'm a huge horror film fan, and watch anything that comes out and doesn't get abysmal ratings on here. I had to watch this one in fast forward. The initial dialog, and characters were interesting. Acting seemed fine. Once the creature and killings enter in, we are left with incoherent camera flashes, and a claustrophobic mess. When we finally see the creature, we understand why they decided to hide it till the end. The quality of the creature effects definitely are the bad. The story the ugly.. and the acting, and characters... the good.

The film had a lot of things done very well. Others very badly.
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not a bad movie, but...
paul_haakonsen18 November 2010
Not having a clue what this movie was about prior to sitting down to watch it, I could be nothing but surprised.

The movie started out a bit slow, but was quick to pick up in pace and start blasting onwards. There was a lot of thrills and suspense building up not far too into the movie, and that was what was working the best for this particular movie.

Actually the cast did a good job with their roles, and each brought something good, solid and unique to the movie with their individual roles. Not award-winning performances, but still very good shows of talents here.

There weren't really any twists to the storyline, except for one that was revealed at the very end, but you saw it coming, so it wasn't a moment of utter surprise by then.

I am not going to spoil it here and say what the movie is about, but trust me, "13 Hrs" will keep you riveted to your chair throughout the entire feature. You just want to see what waits around the next corner and see what is going to happen.

Though, honestly, I do not see this movie as having enough value or weight in it for a second viewing. Having seen it once, is enough, and I doubt it that I will ever be returning to watch it a second time around. It was good, just not that good. But for a non-Hollywood movie, they actually pulled it off well enough. The movie had definite potential and could have been so much more. Now, I am not saying it is a bad movie, not at all. They just didn't get as much out of the movie as they could have, which actually is a shame.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not that bad finally
lideln5 May 2012
After reading one of the reviews, I was tempted not to watch the movie. I'm glad I watched it (okay I did it mainly because of Gemma Atkinson).

The movie is not that bad. I do not agree with what the last user review says : the actors were acceptable, and despite a few bad choices during the movie, I was never bored. The special effects are really poor during the movie, except at the end where it is acceptable.

Despite what was said in the last user review, the director gave us hints about a few things during the movie, you just have to pay attention ! I think the story in itself is quite common, and at the beginning you can easily guess who will survive and a few other things, but then again, the movie was not that bad !
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Excruciatingly boooring!! Very Avoidable!
rajivness25 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
when i saw that this movie was from the producers of Dog Soldiers - I had huge expectations since that was a smash/cult hit. It introduced a new/relatable way to look at the Werewolf mythos to the point where its actually believable. Dog Soldiers had a very satisfying twist in the story. The viewer realizes only in the very end that the most innocent looking person is somehow involved with the 'bad guys'. This movie is a huge disappointment. There is no story and no point to anything really. There is a bit of a twist in the end - but there's no real substance here. A girl comes home from the US and in the night - the entire family gets massacred one by one - by a monster. This movie is very similar to the Howling - where we're guessing who the werewolf is - but its kind of like a slasher where its just one senseless killing after another. As a viewer i felt 'wtf' - is this story going anywhere??! The twist in the end is kind of silly and a way to quickly tie up loose end is a very unsatisfying way. Don't waste your time with this movie. This movie tries to be too many things (werewolf, horror, thriller, slasher, whodunit?) without doing justice to any one main idea. There is little or no character development at all. We don't know who these people are aside from the fact that most of them are siblings. There is some back story as to a rift in the family which is not explained well at all. I'm hopping mad. I wasted 90 minutes of my life which I'm not getting back!
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
An average film
hanson_bolt30 October 2010
I watched this film at this year's Grimm Up North festival and was very disappointed. As the hotly tipped British production of the festival I was anticipating a good indie horror flick. Within the first five minutes the film succeeded in losing the audience to its appalling attempt at suspense. With a promising cast comprising elements of Harry Potter and My Family the only strong performance was turned in by Gemma Atkinson of Hollyoaks fame. Once the directors had filled their quota of cleavage and short skirts with Atkinson she produced a credible horror performance. It was such a shame that the rest of the film could not continue this momentum. I admit I could not stomach the full film as the suspense was noticeably lacking, the plot non-existent, and the acting was amateurish given the cast involved. What a waste of British talent, even die-hard indie film fans would baulk at this atrocity. Such a shame
17 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Mediocrity incarnate
boydwalters16 November 2010
And here we have it folks ... The very epitome of the fall of horror cinema ... This has all the visual style, depth, and maybe even stars, of the latest episode of Emmerdale Farm ... Flat picture ... No idea of lighting and atmosphere ... Full of soap opera cliché characters ... Just total mediocrity It is not any more expensive to make something look good than it is to make something look like television ... It just takes talent and imagination ... Unfortunately that is something that is totally lacking in modern day film makers I would suggest stopping ... Getting your own camera ... And spending a bit of time experimenting to see what sort of interesting images you can create before throwing up another rehash of some kids TV series with a bit of gore added cos your grown up now ... Tragic
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A good horror film from the producers of 'Dog Soldiers'.
Michael-Hallows-Eve30 July 2012
This movie is made by the producers of 'Dog Soldiers'. It isn't that bad but in no way is it in the same league as the for-mentioned movie. It is however a good film, with moments of bloody gore and good old-school effects, just like 'Dog Soldiers'. The story is nothing new but it does go along at a good pace. I have to admit, the Brits do make a good horror compared to others. There is a small twist to the plot near the end, but you can kind of see it coming if you look for the signs. The 'wolf' like creature is done well, but you don't see enough of it. But overall it was a good movie to fill in 85 minutes if you don't have anything amazing to watch. So I give it a 6.5 out of 10. Not that bad.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
An atrocious horror film
Argemaluco4 October 2012
Among the classic monsters from fantastic cinema, my favorite ones are undoubtedly the werewolves. It might be due to my affinity with canids; or maybe because of the interesting moral conflict lying in the center of the character, who can be a moral and decent person for most of the time, until the curse becomes him a violent beast impulsed by its animal instincts. And even though I'm interested in watching every movie from this sub-genre, it has been a little scarce since the vampires and zombies became fashionable. So, I was quite interested in watching Night Wolf; it didn't only promise lupine action, but also, its British manufacture suggested the potential of being another European film of a superior quality to its Hollywood counterparts. Unfortunately, the film ended up being pathetic.

My mistake might have been to expect an intelligent werewolves film such as Dog Soldiers and Ginger Snaps; needless to say that Night Wolf had much more modest ambitions. The characters are completely stupid and antipathetic. The cinematography is too confusing; some of the scenes are so dark that it's difficult to notice what's going on. As for the actors, they did whatever they could with their poorly written characters.

In conclusion, Night Wolf is a deplorable horror film, and a waste of time. This film disappointed me pretty much, specially considering the many excellent British horror films we have been seeing in the last 10 years (such as Evil Aliens, Wake Wood and the previously mentioned Dog Soldiers).
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Very effective horror!
chrichtonsworld15 April 2011
Come on people,it is a horror movie not Shakespeare. For some reason people were expecting more than they got and were disappointed. That is one of the reasons I was surprised with it. It actually was good. I always try to avoid knowing too much of the plot. So "13hrs" isn't original. Guess what most movies aren't. Get over it. Here the director obvious knows his stuff since he builds up quite the tension throughout most of the movie. There are moments (a bit too many) where soap antics ruined the main story a bit. But at the same time were suggestive enough to steer us to another explanation other than the one we finally get to see. And here is where the biggest flaw comes in.The little twisty ending is too predictable.All this time I was hoping for something wild I would never think off. And then they choose the easiest option available. Despite this it is definitely worth watching.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A family mystery not worth wasting time
saadgkhan7 May 2012
13Hrs/Wolf Night – TRASH IT ( C- ) 13Hrs is one of the trashy indie horror movies we see from time to time. The story revolves around a girl who returns home after years to meet her family. She meets her half siblings and their friends, who are drinking in the barn. Suddenly they realize that there is something really strange roaming around the bran and their house. From there the hide and seek for their life starts. The story is acceptable but it's the presentation that bothered me. Low budget is understandable but bad lighting is not. It was sometimes really hard to even understand what exactly is going on in most of the gruesome scenes. The only thing nice in the movie is the friction between friends and siblings. Joshua Bowman (Reason I saw this movie), Gemma Atkinson, Isabella Calthrope, Peter Gadiot and Gabriel Thomson were good in their respective parts. Drunken Tom Felton is not a good thing to look at, he was over the top and not good at faking it. Overall, Trash it, the family mystery in it is not worth wasting time.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Good idea, but could have been better ...
larawoolley21 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I was going to give this a much lower rating, but the last 10 - 15 minutes or so of the film changed my mind - slightly. The ending really saves the film, however it still wasn't worth more than the 4 stars I'm giving. The twist at the end was a surprise for me, I love twists in films, so on those grounds I suppose the film was successful (although it didn't seem well thought out); however one huge problem with this film - and probably the main reason as to why I just couldn't enjoy the film was the acting. Oh it was terrible. So, so terrible. The mixture of posh English accents, insults and swearing, combined with average acting (at best) and irritating characters makes the film difficult to enjoy. I couldn't take the acting seriously. Another problem I had with this film was that the brief character introductions made it difficult to distinguish the relationships between each of them. Problems aside, the idea of this film is pretty good. I just think it was let down by characters, acting, filming, and writing. I didn't really get a huge feel of 'low budget', I just don't think that the film overall was very good. You can't blame low budget for that.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The new lease of life for Brit horror
stuart-19323 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Not exactly in the same league as Dog Soldiers or American Werewolf, but also not having the same budget as those titles, this little flick shows budding directors that you can get released with a low budget horror.

Apparently shot in 6 weeks and edited in no time at all on a shoestring, if you like werewolves, then this will be for you. You're going to have to ignore the wooden planks who were cast in this ... but they do get picked off in style which is very satisfying. The Director picks up the pace nicely after introducing the aforementioned wooden planks to us and the suspense is kept at a no nodding off level with gusto.

For those who like a bit of gore, there are some nice gnarly bits but not too overboard - the creature is acceptable for a low budget flick and the script, whilst no great shakes and somewhat predictable in places, is more than adequate to keep you from snoozing between the teeth gnashing and the inevitable running sequences

The downside - you are likely to become annoyed with the whining actors. The lead should have been handled by someone less, erm, "nice" and we could have done without the overall feeling of a made for TV one off. However, that aside, if you like werewolves and you want to support British film, you will be entertained.

I gave it 6/10, which is an OK on my scale - I wanted to give it 7/10 (good) but overall performances from the cast could have been better even on a low budget. Still - a commendable effort from writers and director who will go far.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Spoilt by a largely unlikable cast
mike_brunton28 October 2010
I will be honest and say that I didn't get to the end of this movie without fast forwarding, and indeed found out the 'whole' story from previous reviews. I did watch the first 15-20 minutes and that was enough to switch me off. In previous reviews I complained about directors not giving enough time for characters to develop before killing them off. In this movie we had several minutes of idiotic young adults drinking and stoning with suitably annoying dialogue. I can only think the director and writer wanted us to hate them so we would cheers the monster ending their pathetic little lives. I stopped the movie though at the point where the monster had been discovered and they had escaped up into the attic. Oh my god was acting beyond belief! I was too sure if one of them was attempting a smirk,grin or a scowl, but considering that he had just seen his father eviscerated in bed he certainly should have been pretty traumatised. Really, really poor. Any horror movie buff who has seen many a monster movie in small tight spaces would do well to re-watch Alien rather than this tosh. All too often small budgets are bandied around as an excuse for the failure of movies. That simply is not true. A recent cheapy British flick about a monster was produced recently which worked far better because one who actually care for the hunted. I can't remember the movie but it is in my review list. Verdict: wanted to like it, but characters and acting were truly atrocious.
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Wild in the night
Boloxxxi8 November 2010
Good, suspenseful, horror movie with an interesting explanation at the end. I'm feeling mischievously creative today, so instead of giving you a straight forward review I'll clue you in this way: There once was a girl named Gutsy who, after spending some time abroad in the States making her fortune, returns home to England to visit with her family. Her father, Noclue, was outwardly happy to see her. If he resented her going away or not staying in touch very often, he did not show it.

"Where's mum?" asked Gutsy.

"Oh, you know these ambitious business types. Always off doing this thing, and that thing."

"I see," said Gutsy. "What about my brothers?"

"They're out in the barn trying to fix that old jeep."

"You look tired," Gutsy observes. "Why don't you go up and take a nap while I take over a bit and visit with my brothers."

"Excellent idea, dear child!" her father beams. "You'll put those boys on the straight and narrow path to righteousness." Her father takes his leave. His objective: said nap.

Gutsy heads out to the barn. She enters. All her brothers are there. There's Prick, Loyal, Innocent, and Airhead. As well, her best friend, Shallow. Oh yeah, and some guy I don't remember. We can call him Forgettable.

We can see that there's some tension in the air. Faces are smiling but there are undercurrents of hostility in some of the exchanges; snide remarks abound. Apparently there's some resentment over Gutsy having left to better herself and not staying in touch. Perhaps even some jealousy.

"Well, well, well. The prodigal bitch returns," says Prick.

"You shut your mouth," says Loyal.

"I once smoked a joint this big," says Airhead.

"Where's Innocent?" asks Gutsy.

"He's up in the loft taking a nap," one of them says. "Airhead must have given him something." Gutsy goes up and visits with her little brother a bit. She tells him to stay there and finish his nap. She would be back for him. Shortly thereafter, the whole gang (sans Innocent) repairs to the house to have some fun. I'm guessing: booze, drugs, nonsense talk, fondling, etc. Unfortunately these plans are interrupted by something that comes out of the night. Something feral, powerful, and vicious. Will Gutsy and her brothers Prick, Innocent, Loyal, and Airhead survive? Who knows. Love, Boloxxxi.
9 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dreadful!
weedman8826 April 2012
8.1 rating?! (as at April 2012) Did you see the same film I did? Yet perhaps another sad case of inflating ratings in order to soothe filmmakers egos.

No tension, no pace, no catch phrases, no humour, no wit and unfortunately no "horror".

Poor acting, annoying characters, uninspired direction, unoriginal plot = 90 mins of boredom.

Credit goes only to the movie poster. Why is it that all the really bad horror films (not good bad, but bad bad) have really great posters/DVD covers?

Simply avoid this clunker, you will be a much happier movie lover for it!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Has its moments
kosmasp7 November 2010
A few nice scares here and there (I think 2 or 3), but the rest is really not noteworthy. The actors should not be judged by their performances in this movie. It's not like they had anything much to do. Actually they had almost nothing to do. The story (and back-stories) feel more than just cliché. They feel even more used than that.

The effects are OK, but nothing great (especially towards the end, you might not like what you see, in a bad way). The story is very straightforward and you should be able to see where this is going. Nothing special happening and even the end is not really satisfactory. If you are a horror fan, you might wanna give it a try, otherwise steer clear of this
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
budget was not the problem AKA low budget vs low quality
therefdotcom6 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
OK, let me start off to give you a short summary of the storyline: bunch of teen to tween aged relatives and the people they make out with, meet in an area that has not aged well, for an evening of fun and narcotics. the main protagonist, who is the half sister, joins them after being away in the USA for longer amount of time. some kind of monster appears, hell breaks lose, people act stupid, surprise ending, curtains.

well, one could also list all the filler material sub plots that were needed to stretch it into the estimated runtime, but let's face it: what the writer had here was a good basic idea and a rather satisfying and almost clever ending, but he had no idea what exactly to do with it. the ending kinda works, everything before that fails eventually. funny enough, if you just watch the last 30 minutes as a standalone short movie, it works surprisingly well. unfortunately that lowers the first hour or so even more,as it renders them unnecessary.

anyway, on the positive side i can say that they have put a lot of effort into this and that i liked the last minutes very much. on the negative side though, all that effort went to waste.

the budget. not really as low budget as they want us to believe. funny enough i had a hard time to find confirmed informations regarding this ultra low budget. every homepage that covered this film seemed to have an extreme focus on the insanely low amount of cash that was spent, which seemed more like an attempt of fishing for advanced sympathy, without actually stating any hard facts. if have have any insight into the film business then you will recognize some stuff within the flick that swallowed up quite some cash. this is not clerks. this is not a risky indie project, based on a 36k USDA credit card loan. this is a small studio movie, so it has to be compared to other projects like aronofsky's pi and vincenzo natali's cube.

the characters. they were for the most part pretty unbelievable, as the dialog was mediocre at best. never heard young adults talk in such a strange manner. furthermore they all seemed to have been suffering from a different kind of mental problem, which left me rather confused, since i eventually got lost as of which of the characters i was supposed to like or be emotive about or dislike or whatever. they all seemed equally uninteresting and unsympathetic. the writers tried to give the characters more depth through their dialog and actions throughout the film, which backfired, as it only added to the confusion.

the story. well, as i already stated: they had a good and interesting ending and wrote a whole lotta boring story to put right in front of it. usually that saves the experience as a whole for me, but this time my interest was already hopelessly lost, so eventually the best part got wasted.

also, it is always a triple risk package right there, if you insist to include a monster of any kind into your movie. this goes especially if you claim to have budget restrictions. we have seen any type of monster that a human brain can come up with in like 10000s of versions. vampires, werewolves, aliens, ogres ..etc and all mixtures and hybrids of those. unless you come up with something that separates you positively from the rest then you are most likely to fail. and please let's not forget that this is not the 80s anymore, where you can talk about and run away and fight something and not show it for 70 minutes just to rely on the human interaction.

which leads me directly to my main criticism. it was an overall inconclusive experience. it starts off with the always wise for an indie flick confined space, the usual group of young mischiefs and a yet unknown evil. as soon as the monster arrives the whole thing completely falls apart. first person gets killed and the rest hides safely in the attic. now, keeping in mind that this is a restricted budget horror film and even keeping in mind all the clichés that such a movie usually almost guaranteed comes with, why didn't they take a nap and wait until daytime?

look, when you are writing a horror b-movie then of course reality is secondary, but at least you gotta use the tools that make such movies compelling. you don't even need clever answers. answers alone usually just do fine. in this case for example: why didn't they stay in the attic? because due to some freak incident a lamp fell over and everything started to burn. just an example.

bottom line: i can see the effort that went into this and i would for sure like a short film version of this, but as a full length release it is just too boring and too confusing for too long to let the ending alone make up for the rest.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The bald truth about 13Hrs.
BA_Harrison28 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Let me begin by answering the burning question that is no doubt on your mind: Does ex-Hollyoaks babe and lads mag favourite Gemma Atkinson get her kit off in 13Hrs? Well no, she doesn't, and that's not the only way in which this Brit-horror disappoints: it's also got bloody irritating characters, a wafer thin plot, shocking acting, briefly glimpsed gore, a nonsensical ending, and a blink-and-you'll-miss-it monster that turns out to be... get this... a bald werewolf!!!

'So why is the monster bald?' I hear you ask; sadly there is no real reason for the creature's chronic alopecia other than to allow for a brief visual clue to its human identity midway through proceedings—a blonde wig in the mother's bedroom. By placing the answer to the film's surprise revelation right under their unsuspecting viewers' noses, the makers of this mess obviously thought they were being terribly clever—but if they were that clever, they would have concentrated on writing a much better script before trying to pull a 'Shyamalan' on the audience.

3.5 out of 10, rounded up to 4 for IMDb.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Time wasting crap
pesic-127 October 2017
I would understand if a group of college students set out to make this, as their first attempt at a feature film. At least I could forgive the stupidity of the film, if this was the case.

This film doesn't even try to go beyond overused clichés. It has a badly written plot, irritating characters, poor dialogue, pointless squabbles between characters in order to 'give them depth'... The budget is very low, too, so don't expect to see the monster a lot. It appears in brief flashes, and the film uses POV shots of the monster to save money.

Basically, it's a bunch of stupid young people being stalked by a cheap monster, with zero creative input from the filmmakers. It can at best provide mild entertainment if you are tired and have absolutely nothing better to do. And frankly, doing pretty much anything is better than watching this.

Don't waste your time on this, you will be very disappointed even with very low expectations.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I've seen worse...but if you're only watching this movie because Tom Felton is in it don't bother...
emmarie05129 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The main reason I watched this movie is because Tom Felton is in it. I thought he was going to be one of the main characters like it was advertised. I was very disappointed when he "died" like 20 minutes into the movie. He was one of the first to "die". I have die in parentheses because at the last moment of the movie it shows him blinking. So I would assume maybe he was turned into a werewolf. I gave this movie a five because of the gore and there were some scary moments. However you don't see the wolf until the very end. The wolf is basically hairless which is weird, and like I said Tom Felton only had like 5 minutes of screen time :( but he still looks extremely cute in this movie. The character he plays is rather funny and I think he played him well.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
IT BITES
nogodnomasters17 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Sarah (Isabella Calthorpe), who has been away from home for a long time, returns to England from LA. The house is being remodeled. We are introduced to Duncan (Simon MacCorkindale), Sarah's stepfather. There are some bill issues and mom is away for...? but will return in a couple of days. She is accused of keeping a boyfriend and draining the family of money. Sarah joins her brother out in the garage/barn where we are introduced to the rest of the gang. She has 3 brothers: Steven (Peter Gadiot),Charlie (Gabriel Thomson), and Luke (Antony De Liseo). Doug (Joshua Bowman) is a playboy and a friend of the guys. Emily (Gemma Atkinson) is Steven's girlfriend, formerly Doug's girlfriend as so crudely pointed out by Gary (Tom Felton)another party animal.

After we get the basic idea of who all these people are, under a full moon and a power outage, the drunk stoned party moves to the big house with flashlights and candles....only to discover the terror that occupies the house. (If you have read the title or looked at the cover, you got a good idea what is there.)

The creature makes noises that sound like "Predator" apparently an easy noise to duplicate as all the horror films have gone to it. The "night wolf" moves through the house by jerking around an infra-red camera. The movie was a fairly good idea that was poorly executed and suffered from the lack of decent special effects. I thought the support cast of Tom Felton and Gemma Atkinson were great. Isabella Calthorpe left much to be desired.

F-bombs, sex talk, no real nudity. Pot smoking, drinking.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Nothing to write home about.
lojitsu29 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A-Z Horror Movie of the Day..."Night Wolf" (R - 2010 - UK)

Sub-Genre: Monster/Werewolf

My Score: 5.9

Cast=6 Acting=6 Plot=5 Ending=7 Story=7 Scare=4 Jump=5 F/X=6 Monster=7 Transform=6

As a storm rages outside, a group shores up for the night...cut off from the outside world. Something comes out of the driving rain and darkness. Something that holds a dark secret so devastating that in one night, it could wipe out the entire family.

'A deadly secret is coming home', reads the tagline to this run of the mill werewolf movie. The movie wasn't bad...basic story with no twists, decent gore, nice images...blah blah blah. The key to a great werewolf movie if in the transformation. The thing is, I don't remember a lot about it...that means it was pretty basic. So it's not a bad watch if you like anything that howls at the full moon.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It is what it is
Saiph909 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Chose this through Amazon Prime rather than fork out more money to Sky, so for free it was not that bad. Story, girl arrives back from America to the family home, her Father meets her and tells her, "the half brothers are getting drunk in the barn" there is a lot of tension and due to a poor script and awful sound quality we never get this fully explained. Then we get into the meat, there is something out there, they return to the house and are picked off one by one by what they think is a huge rapid dog. OK spoiler, it appears the mother disappears to a deserted island every full moon, the father thinks she is having an affair, unfortunately one of the sons lets her tyres down to prevent her having an affair. As she turns into a werewolf she returns to slaughter her own family, daughter has inherited her mothers genes. I noticed one of the reviewers in 2010 compares it to Emmerdale which is pretty prophetic as Gemma Atkinson ends up there.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed