ThiefHott Too much of everything

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

jmix66 For those who might not know, Dan Curtis created the classic Dark Shadows and Kolchak: The Night Stalker. Basically he "ruled" televised horror films during the 1970s and he influenced a number of directors whose work is popular today.This film, however, was not one of his better works. Joann Pflug (at her most radiantly beautiful) is under-utilized as the love interest. Clint Walker and Peter Graves play a surprising pair of nominally straight hunters who engage in a bromance that is slightly less homoerotic than Brokeback Mountain, Slightly.Everyone else is just along for the ride.Slow (even at 80 minutes, dull and predictable. If you cannot guess who the "killer" is after the first 10 minutes, you need to go back to Hardy Boys novels. When the end finally comes, you'll wish that the film had end 10-15 minutes earlier when your interest in it did.

Leighton Phillips This 1974 mystery thriller sets it's stall out very early on with a reasonably nerve-jangling beginning as a stranded motorist is murdered in a grisly manner on a mist-shrouded,isolated road by someone or something lurking in woods of rural Los Angeles.The plot quickly develops as the baffled police turn to an ex-game hunter (Peter Graves) to assist them with the search of an "animal", who leaves both four-legged and two-legged tracks (never seen by the viewer, by the way, and indicative of the budget restrictions that prevail in this film). One ex-game-hunter goes to an old friend who is still plying his trade as a hunter (Clint Walker) but he oddly backs off and refuses to help anybody track down the killer.At just over 75 minutes running time, the whole thing virtuously floes at a brisk pace, but saying that the early part of the film is rather repetitious in portraying the murders. Furthermore, some sequences are too short and/or choppily edited so the overall smoothness of what is being viewed is compromised.Budget restrictions place a heavy emphasis on mystery and suspense, rather than horror and gore, and with Dan Curtis (of Night Stalker fame) at the production/directorial helm, the whole thing was potentially in safe hands. Nevertheless, there is only decent nail-biting scene in the rest of the film: at the home of the leading character's girlfriend's house where the murderer tries to strike.The script also spends an inordinate amount of time building and playing on the cold-hearted, egocentric and humourless characterisation of Clint Walker's role: whilst Walker carries this off very effectively it becomes rather mind-numbing and tiresome as the film shifts towards its conclusion, even within the confines of the aforementioned running time. What this does is imply considerable guilt on the part of this character and puts all the film's "eggs in one basket." When the conclusion comes it comes with twists that are perfectly explicable in terms of what the viewer has seem beforehand, if not entirely satisfactory.Overall the performances of Peter Graves and Jo-Ann Pflug are merely adequate, but Walker merits more praise for his consistently poker-face portrayal of his character. The film itself carries an element of intrigue that makes it worth watching but many aspects of the script don't translate particularly well to the screen, so it's lasting impact is unfortunately rather Luke-warm.

sol1218 ++Major Spoilers++ Former big game hunter and now deranged lunatic Byron Douglas, Clint Walker, comes up with some far-out ideas about life death and the human condition as well as how to bring a little life and excitement into the lives of the people in town by savagely murdering them and at the same time making it look like some kind of werewolf did it.Even though the movie tries to be suspenseful and keeps you guessing to who the killer is as soon as you see Douglas and how crazed and unstable Douglas is. Just by listening to his off the wall philosophy by talking about how one is most alive just when he's at he moment of death. This makes you almost look over his shoulder to see if you can catch a glimpse of the men in white with stun guns and butterfly nets ready to grab and restrain Douglas in a padded room at the local loony bin. You watch the movie hoping that whats on the screen is not really happening. In that that those making the film are just trying to keep you off the track by making you think that Douglas is the killer when the real killer is really someone else in the cast that you don't suspect. Still you just can't convince yourself that there's anyone more certain to be the killer then Douglas is and you end up being right.Were told that Douglas was attacked by some super wolf some time back in Canada which almost killed him and left him in the condition that he's in now. Trying to explain his mental and emotional state and at the same time throws off suspicion about him being the killer but even that falls apart at the end of the movie.The only way I could follow the story is by realizing that Douglas is crazy, which wasn't hard to do, so whatever he said and did in the movie made sense only to himself not to anyone else. The end of the film ripped off the movie "The Most Dangerous Game" by Douglas pitting friend and former hunting buddy now writer Peter Graves, John Wetherby, against himself in a life and death struggle to see who's fit and strong enough to survive. Even then Douglas cheated by having a vicious wolf as a partner and leaving Wetherby with a rifle with no bullets in it.Wetherby had to run for some distance to find a box in the woods with only two slugs that Douglas left for him. When it came to the hand to hand combat that Douglas craved for Wetherby pulled out a gun that he secretly had on him a blew Douglas away. Since Douglas murdered six people there was no point for all that ridicules game playing with him. A major flaw in the movie was why the police never thought of arresting Douglas even though he was the most evident and conspicuous suspect in town. It was nothing but a waste of time trying to figure out Douglas' weird philosophy and sermonizing during the movie because it was just that, weird.

KDWms If any comments are recent, I usually keep my mouth shut. But, because the reviews of Scream of the Wolf are so few, I'll offer my opinion. I'd say that this is "not bad...not good" (purposefully put in that order): right down the middle. The "not bad" part, I thought, describes the acting. But there are parts of the writing and costuming that I found to be "not good," i. e., too illogical. The plot is suspenseful (and uncomplicated) enough: Catching the culprit(s?) responsible for what becomes six killings in a California town, which includes as its residents (1) a corvette-driving, used-to-be-quite-a-nimrod, bachelor/author (Graves); and his buddy, who he's spending decreasing time with - (2) a turtleneck-wearing, weird-philosophizing, big-game hunter (Walker). (He dresses that way even when splitting wood!) Pflug is Graves' love interest. I wonder if that's the relationship between Walker and his butler (McGowan)? Less veiled is Walker's crush on Graves, in whom the arm-wrestling Walker wants to restore the macho-ism and take to South America. A fifth main cast member is the sheriff (Carey), who would LIKE to benefit from the tracking expertise of BOTH Walker's AND Graves' characters. But only Graves assists. Is there anything supernatural to all this? You'll have to watch the movie to find out. It's an adequate use of your time. Just don't blow too much money.