Werewolf: The Beast Among Us (2012)

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Well-done horror film with a slight twist on the genre. A good cast and pre-century setting make the film more credible. The film is interesting in the sense it plays like a 'who-done-it' mystery instead of a straight-forward horror. The editing is great, and I loved the music, photography and eerie atmosphere, as well. There never really is a dull moment, and has a great twist ending.

A group of werewolf bounty hunters, led by a man whose parents were killed by a werewolf in the first scene, come to the aid of an Eastern European town plagued by a super werewolf. In the village lives young Daniel (Guy Wilson) a doctor's apprentice who has studied the werewolf. He joins up with the team of experts to hunt the werewolf.People who are bit by a werewolf and survive are called "wurdaleks," a zombie looking creature. To make the story interesting Nia Peeples is one of the hunters and Daniel has a love interest in Eva (Rachel DiPillo). Like all good werewolf movies, it has a gypsy.The special effects are not the greatest, but get a passing grade. The smart storyline is the biggest attraction. The characters could have been better developed with better lines to make the film more interesting. Considering what has come out as late in the horror genre, this one is above the pack.Parental guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity. I watched the unrated version, which apparently has more gore.

Let's face it, werewolf movies saw a peak back in the early 80's with great titles like "American Werewolf in London" and "The Howling" before CGI replaced makeup, animatronics, and other special effects. I won't grade the movie on the use or quality of CGI.However these movies didn't depend on the great special effects to carry the show. "Werewolf: The Beast Among Us" doesn't depend on special effects, tormenting gore, or other clichés to carry the show. The style is very well thought out and could take place just about anywhere. The era is steampunked to give your brain a rest as to when it is taking place. Accents are varied as much as ethnicity does. This adds to the "other world" quality of the format.Acting and dialog are great, keeping the viewer pondering who the werewolf could actually be. In the end, the real twist on this plot is not the identity of the werewolf, but the all secrets kept and the final objective. I watch movies for content and story value, which this movie has plenty. If you don't mind a few jump scares and you are not into "eye candy" this movie is worth the look.

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 *****