This movie is… bad is such an easy word to use. Yes. Yes indeed it is not a great movie, but it has a few important things going for it, namely the whole budget to appearance ratio.
IMDB.com reports this movie as having an estimated budget of $5 million. They’re able to do this by using zero A-listers, and focusing quick cuts for most of the film so that you don’t have to worry about the quality of the SFX.
The graphics of the werewolf go from okay to embarrassing, but it’s important to remember …. $5 million dollars. That got them okay SFX, full period setting (somewhere around late 1800s Transylvania) clothing, weapons, housing, etc. It has beautiful end credits and remarkibly good camera work.. That’s what made me sit up and take notice in the first place. I’m used to seeing cheapy B- and C-movies on my little movie channel. This SHOULD have fit easily into that group, but it does not LOOK like a cheap movie.
As random examples, The Bling Ring had a budget of $15 million, which was probably all there to reserve time in Paris’ house. As a much better example, Red Riding Hood, the 2010 adaption of the Little Red Riding Hood story (I know, I never would have guessed, either), had an estimated budget of $42 million.
Both had some pretty lame dialogue. Both were campy as hell. The CGI is where the real difference is, and it’s not really different enough to justify tens of millions of dollars difference between the two.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Werewolf:The Beast Among Us is a good movie. It’s not. It’s a pretty drab retelling of a werewolf movie. Werewolf terrorizes a village, group of hunters come to — wait for it — hunt the beast. Beast kills, Hunters fail. Random people are sadly mistaken for the werewolf and killed, young boy joins the hunt, his girlfriend (a girl above his station) is threatened. Big fight, the end.
Visually the creature is typical of wolfmen:
Originality wasn’t the goal here. Still, like I said, for a low-budget horror movie, it’s a perfectly acceptable offering. It’s not any worse than the ($150 million) The Wolfman from 2010.
It’s nice to see a movie doing an okay job (even with some quippy lines and empathetic acting!) with a reasonable budget in a world of growing, bloated budgets.
So, anyhow. If this happens to come on around you, and you happen to have 90ish minutes free, and you happen to be in the mood for a popcorn flick, then I would be fine recommending you take a moment with this one.