IN: Review: Hi, I'm a friend of werewolf movies, and when i saw the title of Darkwolf hitting the shelves i was like "hmm, simple and nice name to it at least. Althou... i wonder why i haven't heard of it before."

First of all, the movie starts with tits. Lots of tits. Tits are pretty much all this movies budget went to. Who cares about a werewolf effect, just pay the actresses enough to get topless shots!

So, about the mysterious darkwolf character (a little spoilers ahead, but who really cares...) He's your average everyday biker. Not even super-tough looking, but like the old wise woman says in the movie "he is far more powerful and dangerous than you've ever faced before." Just by describing her a tattooed biker-type of a guy. Pretty original. I even had look twice when they first used the "red glowing eyes" SPECIAL EFFECT! I mean my god, that "lets-plant-red-dots-on-eyes-with-computer" effect has been used since the seventies. It looks plain ugly here! And don't get me started with the werewolf 3D-CGI. As said before, like an bad and old video game.

And finally, as i do like werewolf films, like i said. They prettymuch always build a werewolf-legend of their own. Darkwolf does build the werewolfworld as well, about some silly legends of hybrid-werewolves and the ancient bloodline. BUT. It almost instantly after creating the rules of engagement "the darkwolf kills anyone the girl has touched" starts random-slashing. Which just doesn't make any sense, why even bother telling us the rules of killing, when they aren't even gonna play by them... Aplus the wolf-point-of-view shots are made with a sony handycam or something, filming mostly the floor and walls. Just add growling noises and you've got a super werewolf effect. The gore is partially OK. But when the wolf slashes everyone with an open hand, just by basically laying the hand on top of the victims, it just doesn't do the trick for me...

Truly, WHO gives money to make these heaps of junk straight-to-video horrortitles, they aren't even funny-kind of bad movies, just sad.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I wasn't sure how to rate this movie, since it was so bad it was actually very funny. I'm not a Gackt fan by any means, though he is talented, despite the weird pseudonym that sounds like a cat coughing up a hairball. I always thought Hyde was talented though, Faith is an interesting album.

But on topic here folks. This movie is ridiculous. It's so over the top and nonsensical it's almost like a parody of supernatural action films.

The movie has almost no plot here, except it's just about vampires with gangster friends. In a way, this film almost reminded me of Spider-Man 3, with how there were too many ideas, which resulted in not enough time to pay attention on one of them.

The action scenes were laughable. Quickly edited, almost hard to understand, with choreography that's so laughably bad. Though Hyde looked very stylish during the action scenes, but that's this film's only such redemption. I'm a sucker for good action movies, but the action was horribly done. Though the final shootout was OK and the highlight of this otherwise depressing movie.

It keeps jumping between genres, not a good thing. It wants to be a drama, or an action flick, or a horror, or a romance... what the hell.

If this review is making you mad, why? Is it because Gackt and Hyde are your love? Don't fool yourself, this MOVIE IS BAD.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her.

That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.

The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).

Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I love science fiction, I am fascinated by Egyptian mythology and I appreciate digital animation. I figured a movie that combines these three would be at least enjoyable. I could not have been more wrong: The story (or actually the lack there of) was completely uninspired and lacks imagination - while imagination usually is the biggest component of any science fiction story. The dialogue and acting are even worse than in an average porno movie. Especially Thomas Kretschmann gives new meaning to the term 'bad performance'. Bad acting wouldn't have been such a huge problem if only 'director' Bilal didn't take himself so seriously; all the lines sound like they are supposed to be poetic, it looks like Bilal really thinks he has made a piece of art here. Well, there's no art or poetry to be found in this piece of junk, only pretentiousness! This man should really stick to making comics, since he fails on all possible accounts as a director. Worst of all is the terrible digital animation, which is so ugly that it actually turns watching this movie into a physically painful experience. The graphics look so fake they even make the werewolves in 'Van Helsing' look like live actors! And since half the characters are CGI-animated, it is quite a problem that the CGI-effects look so fake. If the Egyptian Gods actually exist then Bilal's a dead guy, since they will no doubt take gruesome revenge on him for the ridiculous way in which he portrays them in this disastrously bad movie.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative