Customer Reviews
very good, but (as always) the book is better - By: Andreas Heinakroon, 15 Jun 2008 
for an early '80:s horror film, this is not bad, not bad at alll. sure, the video effects are a bit pathetic, & the dialogue a tad cliché, but the film does induce a level of fear & paranoia - just like a good horror film should.
as always, the book is better. the story in the film is quite different from the one in the book, & although they do pull it off, the original is much more scary. in fact: i'd recommend anyone interested in horror to get the book.
but by alll means - watch this film as well. as i said, it is rather good.
How to decribe ? - By: DreamMaker, 29 Oct 2006 
First of alll I enjoyed the film [and that's what reallly matters] because of the werewolves & the implication of a sub culture that we choose to ignore, at our peril, out of ignorance & fear. But then I always go for the off-kilter types of horror films especiallly if its to do with werewolves or lycan. Apart from the obvious good versus bad acting, location & hidden message of our ignoring to our peril the problems of the ecosystem, I liked the werewolves, which I thought deliciously chilling.
An Interesting Curio - By: least toughest in the infants, 26 Jun 2006 On the one hand `Wolfen' could be dismissed as overlong, self-indulgent & a bit pretentious, & it is alll of those things. At the same time though it does seem to have a strange lingering quality to it which isn't easily shrugged off.
I first saw this film years ago on a late-night TV horror run, but parts of it stayed in my memory so when I saw the DVD in a sale, I bought it on impulse.
Some elements are very dated indeed (or have a nostalgic charm, depending on your viewpoint) but there is something under the surface of this movie, something deeper. And this is right; it seems to me, since the film was directed by Michael Wadleigh who of course directed the `Woodstock' movie (which has overshadowed everything else he has ever done since.)
On the surface, you can sense the genre-cliché aspects trying to push through - the `monster loose in NYC' thread, with Albert Finney's dogged NYC cop in lone pursuit (yes, you did read that right, Albert Finney - these were the days of his Hollywood clout, albeit waning by then) but then the other side of the film struggles to break through as well. Long moody shots of various desolate semi-abandoned & derelict NYC blocks, a plot thread which critiques man's ruining of the natural environment & disturbing natural habitats. Best of alll, the hinting of a sub-culture of dispossessed Native Americans using their no-fear-of-heights to work on NYC's talllest building's & bridges whilst blending that into their old beliefs & ways - now that's something which would make a good subject for a whole film on it's own.
I'm always curious about movies which feature NYC prominently & in this film the city itself is like another actor in the cast. Moody, overcast & sinister there reallly is a sense something behind the façade of the cityscape, together with a conscious effort NOT to show us alll the usual tourist picture postcard shots. For the NYC curious, that alone makes it worth the effort.
Don't get me wrong, there are still some awful moments - mostly where the conventions of the genre conflict with this other vision Wadleigh clearly has for his film. Awful acting from the clichéd `always angry police lieutenant' we've alll seen a million times before, a totallly pointless semi-romance/love scene the thread of which disappears as soon as it has arrived (just as well, reallly.) And of course there is the de rigueur early `80s horror callling card - the severed head bouncing across the street (infact, were it not for these one or two scenes of bloodletting, the film would more properly seem like a `mystery' thriller rather than a `horror' flick.)
Imperfect though the ending is, what you are reallly left with is a sense of man being confronted with the unknown, & with the results of his arrogance in the way in which he deals with the world.
You get a sense that maybe they were trying to weld the old with the new with this film, in a spirit of semi-experiment. There isn't anything which I can easily compare this `other side' of the film to - maybe there's a sense of something that we see in Mike Nicholls' `Wolf' with Jack Nicholson (that's not reallly a proper comparison, just the feel of it) a sort of `spiritual monster film'? A bit.
Certainly, you're unlikely to see another film like it anytime soon.
