UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Armand the only problem is the absence of its genre. is it a comedy ? a horror ? a form of publicity for Paris ? an uninspired remake? clear, that it is a great mystery. in essence, it is only a kind of joke. nice in few scenes, hilarious in others, who has not sense and, maybe, not script, chain of chaotic events without reason. Julie Delpy looks for right manner to solve the appearances. Tom Everett Scott is more confuse than the viewer. and the werewolves are only sketches. a horror for fun. that could be all. except the ideas about better solutions for a project who has not chance to convince. result - not exactly a bad movie but only waste of time.

utgard14 Crappy nominal sequel to An American Werewolf in London. It really has nothing to do with that movie besides the similar name and some ripped-off ideas. Pretty shameless cash-grab that thankfully was not well-received. It's a terrible movie with some awful performances, a script I wouldn't wipe my ass with, and some particularly shoddy CGI special effects. Tom Everett Scott has a very unappealing screen presence. I just can't with that guy. Julie Delpy is slumming here but we do get her obligatory topless scene. I don't know the names of the actors playing Scott's buddies. They were generic and forgettable so I won't bother to look them up There's very little time devoted to the werewolves, perhaps due to the poor FX. Most of the time is spent on the lame comedy. Avoid at all costs. A real waste of time.

limeyabroad I only wish there was a 0/10 option. It is difficult to comprehend just how bad this movie was. Not merely bad as a sequel to a classic - just plain bad.The actors have zero charisma. Tom Everett Scott has thankfully faded into obscurity and Julie Delpy...well, she must have improved as she has forged a successful career in European art-house romantic dramas.The transformation scenes are just...just so bad. Again, not even comparing them to Rick Bakers masterpiece, just to any werewolf movie. The Wolfman (1941) had a better transformation.The CGI werewolves look about half as scary as Sully in Monsters Inc.The plot and screenplay is lazy. It takes about half of the ideas from the original and redoes them - badly. The rest of the plot was, I would have to guess, written by someone who really hated his job.The comedy - the only stuff that works is the idea lifted from 'London' - namely the victims haunting the werewolf.The scares - um, someone forgot to add them into the movie. The scariest thing is that this abomination saw the light of day.Sequel elements - The love interest is the daughter of David and Alex from the first movie (Alex played in this movie by someone other than Jenny Agutter).In trying to steer others away from this garbage, I feel I have balanced out all of the bad things I have ever done in my 36 years.In closing, I would rather get a prostate exam from Freddy Krueger than have to sit through this steaming pile ever again.

WakenPayne When I saw this movie for the first time I did honestly like it. Now I could see why I did (and that was only at a few jokes - gimme a break I was 13 at the time, and plus it isn't the most embarrassing thing I liked when I was younger). This movie doesn't really have that good of a plot. The horror in this movie is completely absent. Maybe it is that the Werewolves in this movie look like things I'd see in a Prototype game or it's that is has a complete lack of atmosphere or suspense.Some of the laughs in this movie I still laughed at. Things like when Andy was arrested and the cop says that the possibilities were limitless for what charge he was arrested with. So this movie does hold up in entertainment value in that area. But these laughs are too few and far inbetween. Not only that but those times were the only part of the movie I thought were any good.There really isn't much value in terms of "why to watch this" unless you're a completionist, 13 years old (like I was when I liked this movie) or just bored.