User Reviews

Russia's first proper foray into Tolkeinesque fantasy cinema, WOLFHOUND, based on the first novel of a tetralogy by Maria Semyonova about a last-of-his-tribe mighty warrior, is a mixed bag – on the one hand, it is formulaic, derivative and uneven in terms of acting and pacing; on the other, there is enough novelty in the film's distinctly Slavic demeanor, philosophical subtext and production design to make it play well internationally as a crossover curio.

WOLFHOUND opens with the back-story of the main character, a mighty warrior from the Grey Hound tribe named Wolfhound (Bukharov). While still only a child, Wolfhound's family is killed by marauders led by the evil priest Zhadoba and his henchman the Man-Eater (Domogarov). Zhadoba steals a sword forged by Wolfhound's father and has Wolfhound enslaved. The boy grows up dreaming of revenge.

Zhadoba is priest of Morana, a malevolent goddess that has been imprisoned by spell cast by the rulers of Galirad, one of whom, Princess Helen (Akinshina) is betrothed to the Man-Eater's son Vinitar (Bely) in an effort to keep the peace. Zhadoba is trying to free Morana to wreak havoc upon the world and subsequently dominate. He hopes to accomplish this by spilling the blood of Helen at the ancient shrine where Morana is imprisoned. Standing between him and his goal is Wolfhound, who, after saving Helen from an assassination attempt in Galirad, becomes her bodyguard.

Contrary to many Russians' fatalistic attitudes towards life, the film presents a new and intriguing philosophical slant in terms of the free will versus determinism debate, which comes out in favor of free will. Wolfhound frees himself from slavery by killing one of his captors, thereby changing his fate. As a free man, he pursues revenge, but throughout the film, his conscience, in the form of visions of a female spirit, comes to question whether the seemingly fated cycle of killing is worth continuing when he encounters Vinitar, the last of his enemies, in battle.

If the plot sounds formulaic and derivative, it is. Intentionally or not, the opening sequence is virtually a remake of John Milius's CONAN THE BARBARIAN. Masked in a sharp-toothed skull helmet, Zhadoba is vaguely reminiscent of Tolkein's dark lord Sauron. The predictability of the storyline and the pace, which lags in places, sometimes makes you wish they'd just get on with it. In terms of editing, the film could have been better served with a classic, chronological progression of the main character's life rather than its more trendy, non-linear, flashback tack, which dampens its philosophical message.

The performances are uneven, with the supporting cast generally better than the leads. TV heartthrob Bukharov (Russian TV series MAROSEIKA 12) and internationally known Oksana Akinshina (LILJA4EVER, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY) look appropriately wide-eyed in the right places, neither of them leaves much of an impression. The purported love story between them feels pat due to being underdeveloped plot-wise. Since this is Russia's first LOTR-style fantasy and the genre is very alien to Russian cinema, some sequences feel downright awkward in terms of acting. Also a bit gawky is the very noticeable use of facial close-ups, presumably in order for the film to subsequently play well on the small screen.

One of the more memorable performances was that of the matronly Nina Usatova as the leader of the savage Kharyuk people, whose lands Helen's entourage has to cross to reach her betrothed. Usatova steals every scene in that sequence, which is somewhat obviously played for comic relief.

Nevertheless, the film acquits itself well by stretching its comparatively shoestring budget to the limit. It looks similar to a $40 – $50 million Hollywood film. The cinematography is atmospheric, well lit and generally melds well with the computer-generated effects. CGI use is rather sparing compared with something like LOTR, but then this is not only because of budgetary constraints. The filmmakers didn't cut corners on things like extras and sets. The film features around 1800 costumed extras, and nine different "large" sets were built, the most spectacular of these being Galirad, which covered 5 kilometers square on a Mosfilm studio backlot. The film also makes use of numerous on-location forest sequences shot in Slovakia. CGI is used mostly in the background in establishing shots and the level of CGI use builds up slowly, until going full-bore in the closing magical battle sequence. The battle scenes of are varying quality – some are quite clear and easy to follow, while others are pretty sloppy and a blur of swords and grunts. The fighting is not very gory and would probably earn the film a PG-13 rating in the U.S.

The film's unique and exotic look, which draws on an amalgam of some never-before-seen elements from Slavic archeology, makes it a novelty item. Wolfhound looks positively Scythian with his long hair, beard, scars and animal-hide costume. Helen's red beaded wedding dress was painstakingly created from 3000 individual parts. The bat sidekick is a first, and its CGI is very accomplished – nearly impossible to tell that the bat was not real. A healing process used by a white wizard to remedy some near-fatal wounds is also thus far one-of-kind. It uses heat provided from the campfires and the three healing sequences (one of them repairing the bat's wing) elicit a sense of wonder.

Outside of Russia, the film should benefit from the post-Lord-of-the-Rings renewed interest in the fantasy genre and the general curiosity about Russians' take on the genre.

Coming from someone who has no prior knowledge of the book and who loves Russian fantasy, Wolfhound was a film with good things as well as a lot of problems. The way that Wolfhound looks is its best asset, the scenery is just breathtaking, the costumes really suit the fantasy atmosphere and most of the photography- excepting some slow-motion that doesn't add anything- and CGI are similarly great(loved the bat). Second place is the music score, which is hauntingly beautiful and adds so much to every scene. The atmosphere is brilliantly evocative as well, and there is some good acting in the supporting cast, Nina Usatova knows how to steal a scene and it is thrilling to watch. The leads are not as convincing, there is a fair bit of awkwardness and the wild-eyed innocence does go overboard. Most of the action scenes are chaotic, especially the climax. The direction is inconsistent, sometimes it's fluid and assured, at other times it gets chaotic and convoluted like in the action scenes. The script is rather stilted and doesn't give the actors much to work with or give us time to properly get to know the characters(basically left as fantasy clichés), while the story is formulaic(much has been said about the Conan the Barbarian-like beginning and understandably), very daft at times and not always very engaging. There's a lot of atmosphere here but not enough magic and the structure can feel choppy and rushed, you don't have to have read the book to figure out that there were things left out and re-written, it actually shows. In conclusion, a fantasy film that induced mixed results from this viewer, some good things on display(the production values and music) but there's too much bad too(story, script and action scenes). 5/10 Bethany Cox

For start let me say that I am aware that this was adaptation of Mariya Semyonova's book which btw I haven't read, but I have read a lot of other fantasy/adventure books including many of Conan's adventures and I must say that this movie reminds me most of him (with some name changes and some addition of strength to main character).

Volkodav visually looks very appealing and CGI was done well and not on expense of storyline (like most of Hollywood flicks this days). Although story was somewhat predictable and not very original it was nevertheless enjoyable experience.

It was also refreshing seeing some of Slavic Mythology adapted to widescreen (and to be honest it would be nice to see some of ancient folk tales adapted into movies - it could be even commercially very profitable accompanied with adequate marketing)

yes, its old fashioned and riddled with clichés yet I found it much more satisfactory then last Conan (2011) movie.

My Rating 7,5/10

The quote on the DVD cover for Russian fantasy/adventure flick Wolfhound describes this as 'Conan the Barbarian meets Lord of the Rings', and that is definitely what the film aspires to be, boasting a story that is remarkably similar to the Schwarzenneggar movie, and with director Nikolay Lebedev clearly attempting to emulate the epic grandeur of Peter Jackson's Tolkien trilogy in his more elaborate set-pieces.

However, despite some fun moments and excellent production values—plenty of rubles having clearly been spent on state-of-the-art CGI and brilliant set design—Wolfhound cannot match either film in terms of sheer entertainment value. It falls way short of Conan, its barbarian lacking Arnie's physical presence, and its narrative lacking the scope of the epic Middle-Earth movies, with Lebedev's chaotic direction and editing sapping potentially impressive scenes of excitement (the 'rousing' finalé is a noisy, confusing whirlwind of in-your-face effects).

If you're an avid fan of the sword and fantasy genre, then I recommend checking the film out—it's got enough fun stuff in it to make it worth a go (Wolfhound's trained bat is particularly good); it is certainly no worse than a lot of the CGI-laden tosh that comes out of Hollywood. Just don't expect to be blown away—give it a week and you'll have forgotten all about it.

5.5 out of 10 rounded up to 6 for IMDb.

Gotta agree with previous comment - if you have read the book, do not watch the movie, or prepare yourself for a weak parody of the book. As a stand alone it is not THAT bad - certainly better than "Wizard of the Earthsea"... but not better than anything else of what I have seen from fantasy movies...except maybe some of TV series crap. Many of the ideas are brutally taken from other movies, and many of them - done poorly. A lightsaber alone in one of scenes was something... looked like they decided "oh gosh, those saber-things in Star Wars looks good, we need a bigger and better one!". The bat does look good...

Another failing, but this is usual one for most fantasy movies, there is a single example of partially functional armour in the movie - main heroine wears a mail shirt at one point. Rest wear some crazy mix of stupid looking non-functional stuff that would restrict movement and make it much harder to fight - no surprise that main hero ignores that crap and fights unarmoured, even if in book he preferred to wear a mail when possible.

All in all, it is clear that with enough money they can get effects on the level of world standard, but otherwise this movie is a waste of time.

Everyone was ranting about two Russian movies Day Watch and Night Watch. Personally I didn't like them very much. The story was a little hard to follow at times, and overall I found them pretty boring.

When I picked up Wolfhound I was really expecting more of the same.

However, it turns out Wolfhound is a pretty good movie. It keeps a pretty good pace all the way through. The production values are really good. The story was good. Actors did a good job. I don't really have anything to complain about with this movie.

I would have to say I liker it better than Eragon and In the Name of the King.

The DVD case says "Conan the Barbarian meets Lord of the Rings". Well, I wouldn't go that far. Sure, I think it's a little better than the first Conan movie, but it really doesn't come close to The Lord of the Rings (what does?). LOTR is going to be a pretty hard movie to beat in this genera.

If you enjoy fantasy movies and stories then this movie is for you, and you won't be disappointed.

I'll not say a word that the movie has nothing to do with the book. If you have read it, and more over -- you've liked the reading, I beg you not to watch it just not to feel sorry for wasting 2,5 hours of your time. But the matter is that if you haven't, you'd also feel sorry for the time wasted. The actors are talented indeed -- but you will never get it from the movie. The fights are awful and general as the plot itself, you can't see who is doing what, and it's pretty hard to understand why they behave the way they do. Too many stamps. The main (and originally deep) idea of "Wolfhound looking for another life purpose after having done the only thing he've been dreaming about for 20 years" was transformed in an ordinary love story with some extra mystical evil. Not once you will recognize episodes from the Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones, Star Wars and Night Watch: Nochnoj Dozor. Someone in a web review said that the Wolfhound reminds a cartoon, where each has his own part and plays it in the most obvious way with the same face expression during the whole movie. I do subscribe to the point. The only good thing about the movie is the Bat -- the Wolfhound's pet. By the way -- in a matter of fact the Hero got his nick ('coz it's not his true name) for killing the slave-driver named Wolf. But they never explained it...

I admit that I rented this movie initially because I wanted to watch something 'bad'. Sometimes I do that as it's a fun mix to be able to find something to make fun of. 'Wolfhound' sounded like it would be an entertaining joke - some low budget tragedy of a movie with a bunch of men running around with swords.

However, while it wasn't the most amazing film I'd ever seen, there was very little to make fun of as I was shocked to find I actually enjoyed watching it. (Yes, the fight scenes are hokey at times, but the way it's done you kind of start to transcend the action on screen and imagine more than there is. It's hard to explain, but things are constantly moving even if it doesn't make the greatest sense.) I can understand how anyone would feel this is derivative. It didn't add too many new and original ideas, and yet there was enough interesting to keep the somewhat generic plot from becoming tedious. Wolfhound's bat is an obvious gem, but there's enough other things to wonder about the various characters (the details that are glossed over sometimes) to keep you wondering despite the somewhat plain meta-story.

Lush, interesting scenery also pops up from time to time, giving it hints of Lord of the Rings, and yet it's somehow nice not having over-exaggerated scenes.

The clincher, though, is that there was something altogether too real about the movie. More than once I found the world 'believable' thanks to subtle special effects and a kind of grittiness that makes the characters, while not altogether perfect, human. Once I was done, I was crying out in appreciation that the movie didn't drift into the usual Hollywood marketing, overacting, or other posturing drudgery. (The bat didn't talk, dance, and sing and inspire a line of breakfast cereal! Rapture!) It felt fresh and real, something altogether missing from most of the blockbuster movies I've seen recently (and thankfully devoid of the usual overpaid action-movie actors trying to upstage each other!) It may not become a favorite of mine, but it was a breath of fresh air. A movie instead of a sales pitch for a series. And I'm quite thankful for that. I hope the cast all the success in the future... hopefully without letting it go to their heads.

Also, next time maybe they can light their sets better or afford better cameras. :)

I saw this in the 2008 Fantasia Festival and have just found it on DVD (yah!) I wouldn't call this high art by any stretch of the imagination but I really enjoyed myself. There was a lot of effort put into the making of this movie, and it shows. Among other things, the world seems lived in, which is a nice touch, even if many of the establishing CG visuals were over-amped à la Peter Jackson.

Unfortunately, the editing seemed a bit slipshod as there seems to be a scene or two missing. Just before the scene near the swamp a warrior-maiden(?) is suddenly part of the caravan with no explanation. I suspect that the scene introducing her was cut for time or some such reason.

However, this movie is ultimately about the titular hero being a bad-ass warrior rather than clever plotting, or careful film work. High art, it ain't but if you want a hacking good time, kick your boots off and enjoy this.

Also, the landscape is fantastic. Part of me wants to go visit the area it was filmed in.

I was looking for some traditional adventure movie, yet with an intriguing story. Honestly movies like Eragon didn't manage to deliver that sense of real epic journey. So I was in the mood to try something new when I stumbled across that Russian gem. Even from its very beginning the Wolfhound lived up to my expectations.

A brilliant recreation of the well-known story about a boy, who seeks revenge for his murdered family. Without any unnecessary delay the story jumps in time and the boy is already a swordsman on his quest for justice for his slaughtered tribe. Following his destiny Valkodav makes new friends in the face of a charming bat, a blind magician, a saved victim and a bedazzling princess.

What I particularly like about this movie is its realistic atmosphere. The people look staggeringly rigid and joyless, the breath-taking scenery alternates with evil-infected places like the dark and muddy pagan village. The hero bleeds like anyone else who meets the blade. When the ultimate battle takes place Valkodav is at his upsurge to change the course of history.

If you liked Conan and The Lord of the Rings, Wolfhound would certainly surge some emotions you though you had forgotten. And all I can do is to restlessly wait for the sequel.

I was ready to put down this fantasy film for the following reasons:

1. The very cliché colourless blue-green photography that has become almost universal since "Lord of the Rings" and makes me wonder if fans of those films (and the CGI artists responsible for them) have ever experienced real sunlight; 2. The bloody battle scenes borrowed from the spastic camera work of "Gladiator" and the first scene, borrowed from "Conan the Barbarian"; 3. The fact that there are not enough speaking parts and the stories, back-stories and flashbacks are difficult to follow and put together; 4. The music that aspires to loudness more than anything else; 5. And the fact that most blond, bearded long-haired Russians look alike.

But I decided to be more lenient because...

1. This is a Russian fantasy film that can look back to a great tradition of movies like "Sadko" (1954); 2. It is based on a book and it must have been difficult to compact all that data into a coherent whole; 3. The ending is kind of cool and carries a positive message; 4. The sets, costumes, art direction and composition are excellent - IN SPITE of the anaemic colour scheme; 5. I liked the bat; 6. It wasn't an American action film.

Loved this movie, not really sure why. Its a dubbed movie, but the voices they used don't match some of the characters to me. Some points in the movie I got confused, but they tie it all together pretty well if you pay attention to what is going on. Watching the movie a second time cleared everything up that I didn't catch the first time. I had to do the same with two towers and return of the king. Not saying this movie on the same level as either of those movies, but it is still a good movie. If you are looking for something to compare it to, the cover of the movie comes pretty close. Its a mix of Conan the Barbarian and LOTR, but with some elements of the D&D movie(the one with Marlon Waynes *shivers*) and In the Name of the King(the only Uwe Boll movie i will watch). Its a good rental, if nothing else to make fun of with your friends MST 3000 style, but I bought it to have something to watch when im bored.

please don't compare it to Lord of the Rings. i see many of the commentators here do it, but its totally wrong. LOTR put the limit too high for any fantasy movie, its the gold standard now in the industry, and hardly any movie can reach its heights, i hope this doesn't mean that people will stop making this kind of movies. but they shouldn't create crap either. I didn't like Volkodav very much and i was irritated many times while i watched it. The dialog is so simplistic, the story is...i would say the writers made it along the way while shooting the movie - what ever something happens each of the main characters just calls for the help of some god that we never know the story of their relationship with. Naturally the gods always help our heroes. I haven't read the book and maybe if i had many of the gaps would've been filled, but LOTR did fine filling any gaps for the people who haven't read the books...Ooops - I compared Volkodav with LOTR...:)

the movie is not badly made, has some nice effects and thats basically it...

This is a Russian Fantasy movie and to be honest it's not a bad movie. Acting is good, direction is More then Ok. Screenplay could've been better. Background music supports the screenplay. Climax is gripping. Overall a surprisingly good movie.

Russian made fantasy film concerning Wolfhound who seeks to get revenge on the people who killed his family and his tribe and threw him into slavery. He ends up meeting a princess and...well thats the story.

I don't know if this is a great film, I really don't care, Frankly the film grabbed on an emotional level and took me back to the place I go when I read good swords and sorcery novels. From the point where we see Wolfhound and his bat, I was hooked. More so once he started his solo assault on the castle that is the first great (yes great) set piece of the film. No one is making films like this any more...or maybe ever. This film has the high adventure of old Hollywood fantasy films but mixes it with a sense of reality and gravitas that is missing in pretty much every sword and sorcery fantasy movie. As much fun as the earlier films were they always had a sense of dress up. In most cases we were not in these mythical kingdoms, we were on sets. Lord of the Rings came along and blew that all to hell. Now everything feels unreal...or did until this film came along.

Set in a time when "the gods still walked among men" the film has the feel of a rural Russia. We are in these places, the towns, the forests, the castles and the temples. These are real places. The characters seem real as well. To be certain they are not real people but the fantasy equivalent, but they still feel as though they belong in the world they inhabit. This is a world where magic works and for most of the film its kept to a minimum so that the magic we see is special (indeed the film is reasonably free of CGI which only really shows up for the final show down between the various factions, and while the CGI at the end isn't LOTR perfect, it gets the job done).

The story, based in some form on a novel or novels, is nicely dense. The film doesn't breeze along mindlessly, it is heading in a certain direction and it takes its time going where its going so that layers and characters are built up. Many minor characters are given enough of a presence so that when you meet them later in the film, or see them in the background you have a sense that the character is some one other than soldier number 2. If there is a flaw it is perhaps an odd side trip to a river community. While it allows for some information to be brought in to the plot it isn't wholly necessary (perhaps what happens there will have effects in the promised sequels).

Also helping things is a dynamite score which is often hauntingly beautiful. I may have to try and track down a cd if one exists. The music is often married to some very beautiful sequences to stunning effect, I'm particularly thinking of the song of the prisoner who changed his fate and the sequence when the princess heads off to meet her bridegroom the latter is a beautiful sequence that is cross cut with the bad guys getting ready to attack.

I love the film. I can't speak rationally about it since even though its flawed (the opening sequence where the villains attack and kill Wolfhound's family is clichéd and has some really bad wigs) I fell under its spell. Its a grand adventure film of the highest order. Its the sort of film they don't make any more- or never really did.

You'll forgive me I want to go into great detail about the film but I think it would be better if you just saw it for yourself. Its wonderful.

This movie blew me away! It was the most interesting 2 hrs I've spent engulfed in a fantasy film in over 2 years! The fact that it was really from a foreign country with real Russians speaking Russian put the icing on the cake...mmmh delicious! The plot was tight and well scripted, the acting was kick a--, and I really believed I was back in time with the back drop and costumes. I didn't even realize Russians were such beautiful people! Oh yes, one more thing...the special effects was so impressive, I felt like I was in movie lala land! Hey! no plot holes here, either. Now you know, thats quality film making and writing there *wink* If you enjoy this genre in films, sword fighting, fantasy, and happy endings...don't miss this little gem!

This has to be a very poor attempt of fantasy, if this is the best the Russians can do then we don't have to worry about the movie industry in the West. Its safe and sound, the storyline was poor the acting was like... well take some silent movie actors from the last century and tell them to actually speak. The actors at times appeared to be just standing around with literally no direction, it was as if the movie was made with 2 actors and 100 extras ha ha ha and that included the Ham bat LOL. Overall i only watched it because I paid GBP 10.00 for the DVD, I will now however read all the blurb on the packaging to make sure this never befalls me again..............

I spent my childhood in a country behind the "iron curtain", in the Soviet sphere of influence. As such, as a kid I've seen more Russian movies than most people in the west. And then, after the fall of USSR, I haven't seen any Russian movie at all. I was very intrigued upon hearing of this movie - I wanted to see how modern Russian cinematography looks like.

I can say that the movie is a treat. It may not be the best fantasy movie ever, but it's definitely in the top of my list.

The story is not really all that original, but it's different enough from the typical Hollywood to feel fresh. As others have noted, the movie deals with some philosophic aspects regarding fate and free will as well as Slavic mythology.

The production value is just fabulous. I found the town of Galirad incredibly realistic and then I've read that it was actually built on 5 sq.Km (2 sq. miles). It looks real, it feels real. The costumes are also nicely done.

The special effects are just incredible, especially considering that we're not talking about Hollywood budgets. The main character has a bat sidekick, which happens to be the most realistic CGI animal I've seen. I'm still not convinced it's 100%, I think they "cheated" by using a real bat in some of the shots.

Acting is good, even though it's not stellar; the characters are somewhat underdeveloped.

Overall, I think it's a must-see movie - if only to see something different than you're used to. (as an aside, just after I've seen the movie, I checked the TV; "Troy" was on. It looked so fake, so cliché, so much obsessed with the big stars it had on-screen that the story had to take the backseat, that I couldn't watch it.) With this film, the Russians have shown that they still can do great movies. I can't wait to see more of them!

Because the story is quite good, for a fantasy movie. But it's not only a fantasy movie, it's an action movie as well. Or let's say a fantasy-action movie if you will. I think I still rated it too good, but only because I still give the Russians credit for trying to break into a film market that is run by financially bigger "players". And because I liked the story.

But as I said, the action does count too. And boy does it disappoint in this case! I don't even know if you can talk about badly edited or badly shot. But it seems to be a mix of both. Every time an action scene occurs on screen (in the script), you can feel how the movie changes ... to the worse. It's difficult to cope with that (for me it was nearly impossible), but there are always people who'll find something they'll like and maybe you're one of them ...

If this was a high school film project I would give it a "C" ---- but it is not and gets an "F"- If it was played for shtick it would fail there too. Nothing marginally accurate about it. Camp stereo Nazi types, broken bones cause a limp and magically allow the victim to run through the forest 1 minute later,, girl thrown in to just have one, a black to check the box, gay, and Asian missing. Unbelievable circumstances and coincidences. Story is so sweet you should check blood for diabetes if you watch it --- which I strongly recommend against --- maybe an episode of "Mr. Ed" instead.

It's true, I started with low expectations. I also rated this higher because I don't see many Russian movies. But let's face it, it was better than Eragon, Narnia and Terabithia put together. With a lower budget, it is comparable to Lord of the Rings.

Of course, the plot is not terribly original, but it's not a cheap copy of something else, either. Even from the start you know this is a heroic fantasy and the film fully delivers both in action and special effects and background story. It also suffers from the Russian book worm: a lot of characters, sometimes you don't know who is who, since they all look dirty and long haired. The men too :) The sound is not really professional, the music seems added on the film with no real consideration of what is going on.

However, it was really enjoyable. If you take Conan, you add a bit of Lord of the Rings and a little of the Sergiu Nicolaescu movies, you get an American-Romanian Wolfhound :) The ending is a bit pathetic, but the lead character is truly well played. The other actors are mediocre at best. And no, the bat does not turn into an eagle, it's just bad CGI.