Add a Review

  • This movie was far better than I expected. A easy thriller to get into, with a lot of action and intriguing twists and turns. The lighting and cinematography was very good, and the characters were intriguing.

    The acting and special effects could have been better, and some may wish it to be more scary, but I don't think anything about this movie was poor or cheesy. Especially considering a cast of so few "big name actors".

    I was never bored or disappointed. As action-thriller it did all I would want from the genre, it surprised, thrilled, was nice to view, and engaged me enough emotionally to care what happened. I was well entertained and think a rating of 5 or lower is very harsh when you compare it to other films with a similar rating.
  • Is this film going to win any awards?,no. Will it keep you entertained for 90 minutes, yes it sure will.

    If your looking for a popcorn, creature feature then this will certainly fit the bill.

    There is a story (just about), plenty of blood and guts and a werewolf!!! I grant you it's a CGI Monster so it's not all that but it does fit in with the film.

    The film kept my attention throughout and I genuinely enjoyed it. Visually it reminded me of Van Helsing and the like but thats where the comparison ends as this is pretty good!!

    Recommended.
  • kosmasp19 November 2012
    Nothing special, but more than a decent effort. Plus a few good actors are thrown into the mix. Stephen Rea being one of them. Acting is good overall. Nice make-up FX and nice story support that. There is not too much blood mind you and no nudity (just in case you were looking especially for those things, either because they interest you or appall you).

    You can't or shouldn't compare this with a big budget movie though. It's what it's supposed to be: A nice little snack, an appetizer let's say, no pun intended. It is predictable and does not really make a secret of one of the (supposedly) big mysteries of the movie, but it still works nice enough
  • equazcion8 October 2012
    The story takes place in a town where werewolves are a common hazard. Now, some sort of super-werewolf has apparently arrived. A notorious werewolf hunter (Ed Quinn) swaggers in promising to kill it, while a poor young resident (Guy Wilson), a doctor's apprentice who treats the hordes of werewolf victims, develops an interest in joining the hunt. This to the dismay of his secret love (Rachel DiPillo), the wealthy sheriff's daughter from the other side of the tracks.

    Some good twists are eventually revealed, but you have to sit through an hour of cliché filler before being treated to them.

    The story definitely suffers from its writers' desire to follow the twist trend. Our straight-to-video production spends its first two-thirds biding its time in cliché limbo, then offers up a frenzy of twists as its climax. Offering some early indication that this is actually an interesting story might even have elevated the film to a theater release.

    "Somewhat decent" is really how I would describe most of this. It's a decently glossy looking production with decent camera work, music, and effects, and what becomes a decently original story. Decent acting, too, though it escapes me why the most inexperienced actor was chosen as the lead (Guy Wilson, who definitely has potential, but just isn't a leading man yet).
  • mike-ryan45526 October 2012
    It wasn't great. I'm not even sure if it made good. But if you were looking for a cheap park your brain and have fun blood and guts violence movie with some Eastern European charm and don't mind utterly flawed props, this will do.

    The cast is hardly sterling. We have Nathan Stark from Eureka in the lead. But that was good enough. In this land of Transylvania and cowboy hats, we have The Mysterious Vampire Hunter in a cowboy hat along with the macho chick and their sidekicks, going after the super bad ones.

    It's obviously Romania from things like signs being in Romanian and the reward poster being in the Romanian money. (10,000 Lei) What's more out of place are the anachronisms in the firearms. The rifle the hunter carried was a round receivered Mosin Nagant rifle. They started producing them in 1930 and that gun looks like a post war II version. The revolver he carried was a post war Smith and Wesson. The Mauser rifles the gypsies had were K98's, which were from World War II.

    Despite the historical stupidities and the iffy CGI, it was fun.
  • Good to see that some directors are taking the werewolf genre back to the originality and not just have some musclebound hunk of a teenage idol run around without a shirt and pass as a werewolf.

    The story in "Werewolf: The Beast Among Us" was interesting and packed with action, not to mention a very large amount of mutilation and mayhem. A lot of people ended up dead in this movie, but the best part was the aftermath of the carnage (as the movie didn't really focus that much on the slaughter itself). There was a lot of good and interesting things here, such as severed limbs, massive bite wounds, tear marks from claws and the like. So it does have a good amount of gore, for all us gore hounds out there.

    But back to the story, initially it is a story that takes places in a small 19th century village; a village that is terrorized by a beast unlike any other. The werewolf that is terrorizing the village is big, bad and hungry for blood.

    However, there is an interesting twist to the movie that makes it interesting and stand out from the otherwise generic movies of the werewolf genre. I will not reveal what it is here, but I will say that I thoroughly enjoyed that take on the werewolf's story that the director and writer had opted to go for with this movie. Plus there is another big plot twist later on, with one of the hunters. Again I will not reveal it, as it would be spoiling the movie. Just watch and see for yourself.

    The setting of the movie was great, lots of nice details to the costumes and sets. However, it was little bit confusing as to where they wanted the movie to take place, as the costumes would suggest somewhere in the Eastern parts of Europe, but for some reason everyone spoke fluently English; aside from the questionable accent here and there.

    They had put together a rather good group of people for this movie. Lots of good acting on the screen and people really did work well in their roles, and the characters were nicely portrayed and came to life quite well on the screen.

    Of course you can't have a werewolf movie without a proper werewolf. And the CGI effects in "Werewolf: The Beast Among Us" were working well for the movie, as the werewolf looked quite cool. Great transformation scenes, and a lot of good scenes where you get to see the actual creature, instead of just odd bits and glimpses here and there.

    If you enjoy werewolf movies of the older type (classic style), then you should definitely check out "Werewolf: The Beast Among Us", because it is a lot of fun and a good movie to watch.
  • In the Nineteenth Century, when a werewolf slaughters the dwellers of a small town, a group of bounty hunters commanded by Charles (Ed Quinn) arrive in town and negotiate a higher reward. The apprentice of medicine Daniel (Guy Wilson), who is the protégé of the local doctor (Stephen Rea), joins the group and provides information about the beast that is intelligent and kills not only on the full moon, but also on the previous and the next days. Soon the gypsy leader invites Charles and Daniel and explains that in the solstice, the wolf-like creature will be able to control his transformation at will. Therefore they have only two days to discover who the beast among them is and destroy it.

    "Werewolf: The Beast among Us" is an underrated and entertaining adventure of werewolf and hunters where their leader Charles is a sort of "Van Helsing" of werewolves. The movie will never be awarded with Festival prizes but it is pretty decent and funny. My vote is seven.

    Title (Brazil): "Lobisomem – A Besta Está entre Nós" ("Werewolf - The Beast among Us")
  • I actually enjoyed this movie, quite a bit. Sure, some things were lacking, but nothing is perfect.

    There's parts, like the others said, that are a little fuzzy - it's supposed to be set in a certain era, but there's parts of it that are obviously very modern - which I'll leave for you to find for yourself. There was also quite a bit of mutilated bodies and enough gore that it stood up to its genre - without being too over-the-top.

    The thing that made the movie for me was the fact that it had so many twists, and until the "click" came along (the sudden understanding), I was constantly guessing - also - the ending is quite marvellous - I was thrilled. It doesn't leave you with the let-down feeling that 90% of modern Werewolf movies tend to do - this is MUCH better than its rating suggests.

    So, yeah. For not being another let down as so many werewolf movies are - 9.
  • This film was actually recommended to me by a friend who said it was awesome. I did see the film myself and I wouldn't use the word awesome to describe it but it is one of the better werewolf movies that I have seen in a while. During the first half it had the usual genre clichés that were in a way painfully obvious but later it pulls out a few very clever plot twist that actually manages to surprise.

    Also, given that this is a made for TV movie the quality and production value as well as the special effects will certainly leave you thinking otherwise. The cast has a few familiar faces among them including Ed Quinn, Nia Peeples. Stephen Rea and Steven Bauer and all of them including the supporting cast give good performances.

    Overall, awesome might not be the word I'd use to describe this film but in the end I did like it and I'd recommend it to fans of the genre.
  • Werewolf: The Beast Among Us

    Werewolf: The Beast Among Us is a 2012 action werewolf horror movie directed by Louis Morneau. The movie stars Nia Peeples, Steven Bauer, and Guy Wilson. While I usually like horror movies and movies with vampires and werewolves this one was so badly made I got bored very quickly. The special effects are not bad but the acting and the storyline are atrocious. After 15 minutes it is clear who the werewolf is and how the rest of the movie will go. The actors don't really convince me either. It is supposed to be set in 19th century Transylvania but the clothing and beliefs are all wrong for the region and much closer to Bram Stoker's Dracula. I managed to watch the movie till the end but won't buy the movie for my collection. I give it 3 stars for the visual spectacles even though it is sometimes a bit too dark and fuzzy. If you want to watch a predictable werewolf movie with some nice CGI and other fancy special effects stuff you'll like it. As a werewolf movie fanatic I found it quite dull.
  • Twenty-film years after a kid inadvertently kills the werewolf that's attacking his family by setting his house on fire, he finds himself in the rural town of Dravicu on the hunt to kill more werewolves. Meanwhile, a local doctor's apprentice seeks to join up with the group of werewolf hunters much to the reluctance of pretty much everybody else.

    The production values were a tad bit better than I expected and the acting, if over-dramatic, was still solid enough. The story was a bit on the predictable side, but I've seen many worse werewolf films in my life.
  • After reading some of the reviews, I was convinced that I would enjoy this film. I wasn't wrong at all. The characters were fun and interesting and the story was quite good at keeping me guessing all the way until the final act when yet another surprise was sprung upon the viewers. The scenery is quite good and the music compliments the movie. The actors all pull their weight and their are some really good fight scenes. I will be adding this to my collection.

    If I had seen this in a theater, I would have been happy to see this in a theater. I think it was a lot better than the crap that has been regurgitated over and over again.
  • This film begins promisingly enough with a werewolf wreaking havoc, but after that it kind of loses its way. Fast forward a quarter of a century and another - or perhaps the same - creature is decimating a small town in nowheresville Europe, or perhaps it is USA, whatever, this is an extremely powerful creature, not your run-of-the-mill "eras lupus", but happily a regular band of werewolf hunters happens to be passing through.

    There is a fair amount of gore in this film, and a confusing dream sequence, but much of the action occurs in the dark, there is though a surprising twist or three towards the end. If you can understand the last one, best write your own review.
  • bbriddell29 November 2014
    Warning: Spoilers
    I read the other reviews and decided to watch the movie.

    Cliché characters and obvious movie sets. The movie seemed like it was mostly written using a story software program that filled everything in.

    As a frame of reference for my mindset. Ginger Snaps was OK and as far as I'm willing to go with the entertainment industry. A better movie is Cursed 2005.

    This movie seemed to have more money than Ginger Snaps; sadly it didn't have anything else. For example, a good story, or even at least mediocre casting or directing

    A better investment of your time would be either a good movie you have already seen or watch a blank screen for the length of the this movie.
  • Supersaurus9 December 2012
    Judging by the title, I was expecting more Syfy channel toss.... How wrong I was.

    Though the pacing is a little slow in the first half, everything else really makes up for it. It's actually well acted with a good cast - including Stephen Rea; he's always fun (and for some reason seems to be in quite a few of these kind of films!). There isn't a huge amount of character development, but I don't suspect that's what people watch werewolf films for anyways, eh. The characters were interesting enough.

    The wolf itself has a very good design. Everything seems to be CGI nowadays so really I was expecting that (it was relatively well done too), but I was very pleasantly surprised by a fair few wolfie scenes using practical effects! ALWAYS better.

    Plenty of gore - without being over the top, lots of enjoyable action sequences (particularly during the second half), lets you have some 'whodunnit' guessing and with a nice twist near the end.

    All round, a really good were-movie! I'm sticking this one well in my Top 10 Werewolf Films list :)
  • Universal Studios has a long history with the werewolf, from the very first werewolf film (Werewolf of London) and the highly regarded Wolfman of Lon Chaney fame to the recent (and rather underrated) remake of the latter. Now Universal has added a new beast to the pack with Werewolf: The Beast Among Us.

    Expectations were low on this viewer's part going into the film, but ultimately I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, there are some weaknesses. This is clearly a low-budget production, the main character is a walking anachronism (he seems to think he's playing in a Western), and overall the movie has the look and feel of a Syfy flick, with all that implies.

    But nonetheless, the movie is a success. The setting is well-realized with lots of Gothic atmosphere, and while most of the action revolves around a team of mercenary werewolf hunters the heart of the story resides with a pair of young lovers who find their lives turned upside down by the werewolf which is preying upon their fellow townspeople. The town proves to harbor more than its fair share of skeletons in the closet, some of which prove to be very deadly. Special effects may not be cutting edge, but they are pretty effective, and the werewolf itself fairly convincing and malevolent-looking. The script is rather more ambitious than it may first appear, and in true Universal fashion even manages to turn the climax into a homage to classic "monster mash" films from the studio's glorious past.

    Werewolf: The Beast Among Us may not be a new classic, but it's no turkey, either. Thanks to a story that manages to include a few neat twists while still holding to the conventions of its genre, backed up by decent production design and special effects, Universal's newest werewolf packs a surprisingly mean bite.
  • Don't know why some reviewers trash this movie...it's very entertaining... Far better than crap like Red Riding Hood, and, when compared with Underworld, it has some scenes that were better thought... It has a taste of that old action movies, in the 80's...the "commando"type of movies, where everyone had a different ability...and weapon... Here we have a wurdalek, that throws silver knifes, faster than the devil scratches his butt, a strong man, that uses silver teeth to fight against the werewolves...another big guy with a gaitlin gun...the story is good, the acting is pretty decent,some scenes are great...for me, this deserves an 8...that's my opinion...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    From an extreme werewolf movie fan I'm always excited to watch any wolf movie they come up with regardless if it is direct to video or is completely panned by critics so automatically I was excited for this one. When the movie ended there really wasn't anything that wowed me but I found many aspects that found it definitely acceptable.

    A small town is being terrorized by a savage beast that seems to be constantly on the move and has no set pattern. A group of werewolf hunters decide to take matters into their own hands to run the beast out and rid the world of werewolves once and for all. Delving deep into investigation they come upon things only nightmares come up with and find that killing the savage beasts is much more difficult than they thought.

    I found the storyline was really the only thing that saved the movie from really going down hill. They came up with a very interesting twist that I've never seen in a werewolf movie before and it was well done on screen and made they story that much more interesting. They mixed the love story and action a lot better but really could have used a lot more of the werewolf on screen other than just hiding behind trees. My only real big complaint was the story was a bit dragged and could be very slow moving at points.

    Acting was terrible as you would expect from a direct to video horror movie but I've seen a lot worse. No one famous but some actors didn't do such a bad job; Guy Wilson as Daniel was probably the best performance, Ed Quinn as Charles wasn't a total loss he fits the character of but acting was sloppy, Adam Croasdell as Stefan was by far the worst and I tried to find something good in his performance but I really can't I really found every time he was on screen it was just irritating.

    Special effects were bad but its low budget so it's understandable. werewolf transformations, we only get to see it once from human to wolf and once from wolf to human and it didn't let me down as much but I really wish there was more and it could have improved a bit. Blood and guts were probably the most well done thing, there was a bit to many dead bodies but overall a job well done.

    When the movie ended I kept feeling the movie would have been a lot better if it had to be a sequel to The Wolfman instead of a spin off, but overall a decent story is pretty much the only thing that makes it acceptable other wise there's nothing special. So if you're a werewolf fan at least give it a watch.

    Overall rating: ***** out of **********

    **1/2 out of *****
  • So for what appears to be a modest production value and mostly no- name or not very well known faces, this turned out to be a great little flick to watch. Is it one of the best horror movies? no, this is an entertainment only popcornfest.

    So we have a cowboy type in Europe and questionable early eastern European accents, there are a few moments when the CG is noticeable-though I'll admit the transformation scenes are decent. my only complaint for the "wolf" is its head shape appeared a bit flat headed or too wide.

    Anyway good solid story structure, decent action(it reminded me of Van hellsing but actually good)It has its serious moments when needed, never takes itself too seriously and doesn't go full into silliness either.

    I'd recommend as something to watch on movie night with friends for entertainment or even by itself. The Beast Among Us delivers on what it's selling
  • Interesting and entertaining werewolf motion picture, better than what the general video consumers say, with a fine introduction "a la Hammer", which evokes Guy Endore's "The Werewolf of Paris", and gives a new twist to the old tale of the man-wolf monster. Partially damaged by a too melodramatic plot point that triggers the final act (not the revelation of the werewolf's identity, but of those behind its evolution), by actors who deliver their English lines with a slangy American diction that clash with the European tale and locations, and a very bad performance by Ed Quinn, the plot was handled with a firm hand and a fine visual sense by director Louis Morneau, balancing the development of the horror story and the action scenes. Maybe the special effects reveal the small budget of a B film (according to standards --it must be said-- exclusive to massive productions in which a big part of the money is spent in expensive stimulants), but in general the production values are considerable high. Apart from all this, producers should start reflecting on what they have turned the werewolf film into… Now the creature simply looks like a big, bad wolf with great strength, and it has been deprived of its essential monstrosity: the mixture of man and animal features in a body beyond description. From the Lon Chaney Jr. creature, it did not develop in that direction, but evolved into a four-legged thing with big teeth.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Acting was very good... everything else a bit dated.

    I feel like I've watched it before but it's because this film is so close to any other Werewolf / Van Helsing type of movie... boring !! Unless you're a nerd for werewolves this is a pointless movie. IMO

    CGI was too in your face and gave it that 90's feel. I think it's maybe been made 10 years too late. Would have been good if it weren't for better thought-out movies having been since made.

    I don't know why there's an 18 / rated-r rating as I thought this was kind of tame... OK there were some bloody parts but you can tell this was just for added thrills rather than being necessary to the mood of the story.

    I won't be watching this again
  • dmuel18 October 2012
    This is not a great werewolf movie, but the average rating on this site is too low. It's OK for a horror movie, and certainly miles beyond your typical sci-fi channel flick. There's an assortment of odd characters in the story, not really sure what the location is supposed to be however. There's a group of werewolf hunters, the leader of which seems to be a sort of cowboy, though the rest of the story setting seems to be eastern Europe.

    It manages a little intrigue and a few surprises, so it's a little above average. Having said that, it's not something that will stick with the viewer for very long.
  • goodoldpath20 October 2018
    This movie is refreshing. I thoroughly enjoyed it start to finish. Great character development.
  • sdpmern14 September 2018
    Better than expected, Guy Wilson is great eye candy..
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Judging by the cover of this film thoughts of 'Van Helsing' and 'Underworld' spring instantly to mind...and your not far wrong with that.

    This is pretty much a copy and mix of both of those films, chock full of lovely clichéd characters and everything you've ever seen before in a werewolf movie.

    Bunch of crazy hardass werewolf hunters come to a small village to purge them of the wolf horror. A young man from the village volunteers to help them do so but there are twists to come, many predictable twists that aren't too well hidden.

    The film looks quite good with that typically bleak, dark, murky, 19th century, forest set, Eastern European village look. The characters are basically rips from many other films and include your obligatory Hudson from 'Aliens' type, the cool calm Clint Eastwood-esque leader, the sexy ninja like female and a well spoken, smartly dressed toff who throws lots of little knives. A kind of quirky 'League of Extraordinary Gentleman' type looking gang. The dialog is all the right kind of hero spouting fluff you have heard before, tight little one liners throughout the action just to emphasise these guys are cool and tough etc..

    The reason I watched the film (apart from being a werewolf fan) was down to the reasonable looking effects. It swings from good to bad really, some shots of the werewolf's claws, eyes or silhouettes against the darkness are pretty neat and work well. The transformation sequences are fully CGI and a bit hokey but I've seen worse, whilst in full CGI motion the creature doesn't look that bad. Put it this way its no worse than the first 'Underworld' flick which had a much bigger budget.

    Unknown cast accept for previous vampire player Stephen Rea, none of which are much to shout about although Guy Wilson who plays the young man from the village looks perfect for his character. Honestly for a straight to DVD film this isn't too bad and offers some nice visuals and claret soaked action, just don't expect anything original at tall.

    5/10
An error has occured. Please try again.