(Actual quote.)
Poland’s Wilczyca (The She-Wolf, 1983) is a solid werewolf film from a country not known for its horror cinema. One of a very few movies to portray a werewolf as a real wolf, rather than an actor in furry makeup, Wilczyca succeeds best the further it gets from its main story thread. But by mishandling the relationship between its main characters, Wilczyca falls maddeningly short of being the classic it ought to have been.
(And then there’s the dog. But let’s not go into that…)
#1 by RogerBW on July 31, 2011 - 6:15 am
Quote
A shame. Sounds as though it comes close to being really pretty good. But… I guess not worth the effort of tracking down, at this point.
#2 by Braineater on July 31, 2011 - 9:52 am
Quote
See, that’s the fine line I walk trying to review a movie that doesn’t totally suck. I can give a hearty recommendation to a real piece of crap that manages to be entertaining. But when you get to the movies where the critique amounts to detailing how close they come to being great from merely good, the criticism can seem like a hatchet job. That wasn’t really my intention. I’m having the same issue with a Danish flick I’m trying to write about; I’ll try to tread a little more carefully next time.
Of course, it’s the dog scene that really kills my enjoyment of the movie. But otherwise, it’s a solid piece of work. As a communist-era Eastern European horror film alone, it would be worth a look.
#3 by RogerBW on July 31, 2011 - 10:24 am
Quote
Point taken. This is why I quite like El Santo’s rating system: a +5 or a -5 is probably worth finding, while a 0 isn’t. I’ll see what I can dig out…
#4 by Braineater on July 31, 2011 - 10:40 am
Quote
I could never decide on a rating system that made sense to me. I kept reading video guides where, e.g., a Bergman movie could get two stars, and a Troma flick could get three, and I just couldn’t wrap my head around it.
(I was even considering an animal-based system, where a Brown Dog would be the highest recommendation… and a truly bad movie Blue Goats.)
#5 by supersonic on August 2, 2011 - 9:54 am
Quote
I use a two-axis system: since my site focuses on superhero films, I rate conventional quality in “capes”, but then I separately rate alternative value in “tents”.
#6 by El Santo on August 2, 2011 - 12:11 pm
Quote
Will: In your header graphic for the review, is that supposed to be a crossbar through the middle of the “L,” or just an ornamental spur off the back like most of the other letters with straight vertical elements have? I ask because of the pronunciation gloss in your first paragraph. If it’s a crossbar, that “L” is pronounced nearly like an English “W.”
#7 by Braineater on August 2, 2011 - 2:35 pm
Quote
It’s the feminine of “wilk”, plain-L. The graphic is just an unfortunate font choice.
They can be hard to see, but if you check the body of the review you’ll note that I’ve been reasonably careful with the Polish diacritics. The possible exception was “Maryna/Maryńa”: I ran into both in Polish-language resources and decided to err on the side of simplicity.
#8 by Jen S on August 3, 2011 - 8:45 pm
Quote
I can never see it, because of the dog. I cannot take animals suffering onscreen, even if it’s Lassie in a kid’s movie and I know she’ll be fine in thirty seconds. This? I would destroy my living room, at the very least.
#9 by Braineater on August 4, 2011 - 5:56 am
Quote
We lost our eldest dog to cancer this year, so I’m feeling particularly vulnerable to the sight of an animal suffering. I just find it hard to accept that anybody anywhere would actually harm such a sweet and beautiful creature as that dog (or any dog, come to think of it). For crying out loud: in the previous scene, it had been snuggled up with the lead actor, sleeping. How could they harm something that trusts them so completely? That’s why I hold out some hope that the dog was just anaesthetized.
But even if the death of the dog was just a skillfully realized effect, it’s still tough to watch. At least with realistic human gore effects, you know for certain they’re fakes.