Oh boy.
From the moment 'Wolfhound' begins it's so inescapably ham-handed that it feels very much like a picture made for TV. The writing and the direction are both just as bluntly, strenuously forced, forthright, and frank. So it is, too, with the music, and the acting; whether this is owing to the cast's capabilities, or a reflection of guidance from the directors, is up for debate.
I appreciate that the movie was filmed on location in Ireland. I think the concept of the narrative, while hardly unfamiliar, holds promise, and the lore that is the basis of the plot is enticing. But value in the screenplay is thwarted by its unseemly bent toward salaciousness and the unmistakably artless directness of the filmmakers. Moreover, the story as it is written is weak and specious, with connections between scenes that are often less than credible. There's almost no consideration at all for continuity; day and night come and go within juxtaposed concurrent scenes.
In fairness, of course - hey, to each their own. 'Wolfhound' makes no apologies for what it is, and adopts no pretense otherwise. This is clearly intended for audiences seeking minor titillation in the suggested eroticism, and that's fine. I should have known what I was getting into when I sat to watch. Yet with that in mind, too, I think even viewers actively seeking out titles like this would be hard-pressed to deny the deficiencies that abound.
Consider: Most shots featuring canines have the appearance of having been filmed on a rudimentary cell phone camera. This especially goes for an early fleeting scene of action, when exceptionally blurry and indistinct camerawork suggests that for lack of trained animals or meaningful ability to capture these instances as desired, actors simply roughhoused with the animals, and this is passed off as a genuine struggle. We also get a single shot of what is absolutely a puppet standing in for a real dog. Meanwhile, nudity and sexuality is so tawdrily direct (there's that word again) as to be bereft of real sensuality. Sex scenes aren't invigorating - they're equally ham-fisted, awkward, and unconvincing.
There are a few good ideas here. I think the transformation effects are marginally better compared to some other films out there. Sparing instances of swell delivery and nuance of expression portend finesse of performance that the cast at best broadly has difficulty achieving.
But plot and earnest entertainment is at most a secondary concern of all involved. What genuine worth this could have had is rendered almost entirely inert by poor, careless execution. I can't really imagine recommending 'Wolfhound' to anyone. I should have known better, and maybe if someone comes across these words before clicking "play," I can at least impart the appropriate forewarning.
From the moment 'Wolfhound' begins it's so inescapably ham-handed that it feels very much like a picture made for TV. The writing and the direction are both just as bluntly, strenuously forced, forthright, and frank. So it is, too, with the music, and the acting; whether this is owing to the cast's capabilities, or a reflection of guidance from the directors, is up for debate.
I appreciate that the movie was filmed on location in Ireland. I think the concept of the narrative, while hardly unfamiliar, holds promise, and the lore that is the basis of the plot is enticing. But value in the screenplay is thwarted by its unseemly bent toward salaciousness and the unmistakably artless directness of the filmmakers. Moreover, the story as it is written is weak and specious, with connections between scenes that are often less than credible. There's almost no consideration at all for continuity; day and night come and go within juxtaposed concurrent scenes.
In fairness, of course - hey, to each their own. 'Wolfhound' makes no apologies for what it is, and adopts no pretense otherwise. This is clearly intended for audiences seeking minor titillation in the suggested eroticism, and that's fine. I should have known what I was getting into when I sat to watch. Yet with that in mind, too, I think even viewers actively seeking out titles like this would be hard-pressed to deny the deficiencies that abound.
Consider: Most shots featuring canines have the appearance of having been filmed on a rudimentary cell phone camera. This especially goes for an early fleeting scene of action, when exceptionally blurry and indistinct camerawork suggests that for lack of trained animals or meaningful ability to capture these instances as desired, actors simply roughhoused with the animals, and this is passed off as a genuine struggle. We also get a single shot of what is absolutely a puppet standing in for a real dog. Meanwhile, nudity and sexuality is so tawdrily direct (there's that word again) as to be bereft of real sensuality. Sex scenes aren't invigorating - they're equally ham-fisted, awkward, and unconvincing.
There are a few good ideas here. I think the transformation effects are marginally better compared to some other films out there. Sparing instances of swell delivery and nuance of expression portend finesse of performance that the cast at best broadly has difficulty achieving.
But plot and earnest entertainment is at most a secondary concern of all involved. What genuine worth this could have had is rendered almost entirely inert by poor, careless execution. I can't really imagine recommending 'Wolfhound' to anyone. I should have known better, and maybe if someone comes across these words before clicking "play," I can at least impart the appropriate forewarning.