Type of being least likely to enjoy this film: Fans of werewolves Tagged 1.Crime writer Mo Hayder once described her disturbing thrillers as “wiggling my toes in life’s gutters, examining the worst in the human condition.” Someone at the BBC has had the bright idea of turning this into primetime entertainment, so here we have Wolf (BBC One). Type of being most likely to enjoy this film: Poodle-holics, I suppose
100 wolf review how to#
Genre: Somebody taught the Aussies how to animate by computer
When the cool gene his generation skippedĭirector: Alexs Staderman (Is this twins? What’s the plural of “Alex?”) I whole-heartedly encourage Australia to continue being part of the computer-generated animation craze … but let ‘em all know that quality film starts with the screenplay. Surely the top 20, right? Personally, I found only one character worth my attention, and he seemed like a rip-off of the villain in Meet the Robinsons. If you have a family member that thinks the idea of a werepoodle is funny, well, I’m guessing this film might make the top 10 representations of such. It was quite frustrating, in fact, to have to root for this character. The film made plenty of noise about how it’s not the dog in the fight, it’s the fight in the dog and all … but Freddy didn’t seem to have any fight in him. Even if Freddy morphed into a gorilla, I’d rather have an ordinary poodle leading my way. He isn’t strong or brave or smart or loyal or clever or anything you might want in an alpha. I didn’t see any quality in Freddy that made me want him to lead me anywhere. Other than the stupid plot, one of the things that really irked me about 100% Wolf is Freddy. And then he gets lost in the city and the only help Freddy gets comes from dogs … except dogs hate werewolves, another subplot that makes no sense to me – dogs love dogs and dogs love humans a werewolf is both. And Freddy doesn’t know how to be a wolf, much less a dog. He’s supposed to be a big bad wolf and instead Freddy morphs into a toy category of dog. And by “funny” I mean “not at all funny.” Freddy turns into a poodle. Six years later, Freddy the orphan is ready transform into the Jack of Wolfman and a funny thing happens. The conclusion of this scene, however, is an ice cream vendor-turned-werewolf hunter. The vendor has assumed the pack has dingo-ed the small boy and tries –good for him- to do the right thing. No matter.įreddy the pup (well, he’s a boy as I said above, they don’t have li’l wolves in this world) is tracking the pack one fateful night when he loses his father to a cliff and a demented ice cream vendor. Considering it got every little bit of it wrong, I’m quite confused as to why it took said tack. I dare tell you that this film actually indulged in a fair amount of biology.
And you don’t get your magical werewolf transformation power until you reach an exact age? Ummm, ok. And they’re fully sentient as humans when they do this? Ummm, ok. The young master is destined to be head of the pack one day and do all that crazy werewolf shit like … rescue folks from burning buildings!? That’s what werewolves do, huh? Ummm, ok. Now, if you amortize that over 30 years at 12%, you still get a bad movie.įreddy Lupin (voice of Ilai Swindells) is a prince among werewolves. I can’t tell you what to do with the other 20% it’s worth > 2% to me, but can be sold on the open market at 60% of face value at 15% APR. Take The Lion King, (or Hamlet if you prefer), animate it, remove anything touchy, and set it in urban Australia with 98% benevolent werewolves, and you’ll get about 80% of this 100% Wolf.
The lessons aren’t terrible, nor the action, nor the animation. 100% Wolf is simply a poor premise indulged. Is there anything I take from this film? Not really. Was I surprised by its lack of quality? Not really. Do I need a percent sign quota that badly? On this blog, I have review over 2,300 films and not a single one has a percent sign in the title. Sometimes you just want to review a film with a percent sign in the title, knowwhatI’msayin’? Good, cuz I don’t.
0 kommentar(er)
