The Wolves of Kromer (1998) User Reviews

Gay werewolves in love!

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 19 February 2002]

The movie takes place in a small British town. Seth and Gabriel are gay, in love and are werewolves. Meanwhile the townspeople are out to kill them because they're "different".

In this movie the werewolves are (very obviously) a metaphor for gay men. In fact the two actors are always in human form even when they're wolves (this movie was made on a VERY low budget). They just wear fur, have long claws for fingernails and have tails (a big mistake--they look laughable).

As you can tell, this is one strange movie. It's well done, beautiful color and scenery and a lush music score. Also, some of the jokes are quite funny but there are plenty of groaners too. The message is also very pro-gay. Unfortunately, this movie doesn't always work.

The acting is bad (it's obvious they hired models, not actors) and this is a cute idea but it's stretched out to 70 minutes.

So, it has its moments (especially if you're gay) but doesn't work as a whole. Still, I recommend it. When it does work it's great!

Had potential

[dirtychild · 5/10 · 17 August 2006]

The Wolves of Kromer tells the story of two wolves who, despite being persecuted by the villagers of Kromer, fall in love.

The Wolves of Kromer is a "modern-day fairy tales" with a bit of a gay twist. The persecuted wolves aspect is supposed to be a metaphor for gays being persecuted by the straight community. Also - to add some not so subtle hints - all of the wolves are male...! The Wolves of Kromer had some potential with its interesting ideas and fresh approach to gay cinema - but unfortunately - it gets bogged down with a boring story-line featuring two old ladies trying to murder a wealthy woman to get her inheritance. The subplot doesn't really gel with the gay wolves at all.

If the movie had of been a bit more focused on the gay-wolf story - then it could have been a whole lot better. Despite all the criticism - there were some neat ideas and a half-decent twist at the end.

One word: "Heaven"

[charcoalactivity · 6/10 · 1 July 2006]

It's entertaining but corny. It's funny but makes you say "what the hell?" It's witty but predictable.

This is a story about two werewolves (gay boys) falling in and out of love while dangerously hunted by the towns people.

Want SPOILER? No sex scene for the two main characters. There, I said it. But there is hetero sex between the gay guy and the girl >_> Very disappointing. LOL. There are plenty of hot gay kisses/make outs though.

Want to watch a low-budget film but with really very hot guy characters? Watch this! LOL.

The funniest about this movie is the bit about the dog and "dog heaven." LOL.

Charming and enjoyable

[tristeza-2 · 7/10 · 5 October 2005]

WOLVES OF KROMER is a low budget movie and you can see that all the time you watch it. Some may find the look of the wolves amusing (the furry tail sticking out of their pants in particular), but I think that's not the point. The director paid more attention to the case of two elderly ladies who kill another one -and this issue takes more time than the wolves actually. Another weakness of WOLVES is the lack of any deeper psychological attempt to explain why do characters act the way they do. But do we get that kind of stuff in fairy tales? No. Fairy tales are supposed to be enjoyable. And so are THE WOLVES OF KROMER. The movie is cute, charming at times, the music and photography are beautiful (and you'll love the landscapes). This is not a masterpiece, but just a nice and sweet fable. Don't expect to witness a great movie or you'll get disappointed. Expect to see simplicity, sweetness and beauty. And you'll have fun.

Metaphor for gay culture

[phoenixfyrs · 10 June 2012]

Loved Wolves of Kromer. Of course I have to say I watched it because of Lee Williams, who is always beautiful and a delight. This movie has the feel of a made for TV movie or after school special. Set in a small village in Great Britain, that is plagued by wolves. Now the wolves aren't really werewolves, or the 4 legged kind of wolves, they are people with claw-like finger nails, fangish teeth, and tails. Really the wolves are supposed to be gay people. The pretty young boys who want nothing but to sing, dance and romp with each other, harming no one, but are blamed for everything wrong in the town. a Metaphor for "somethings wrong and I don't want to look at us. So, of course, it's them!" My favorite relationship besides that of Seth (Williams) and fellow wolf Gabrielle (James Layton) is the relationship between the priest and a young boy. (No not in that way) The priest who acts like a closeted wolf himself, tries to convince the boy that wolves are evil, sent by Satan, and must be killed. The boy is always asking questions like, if the wolves must be killed why aren't they mentioned in the bible, and why can't we just leave them alone. To which, the priest just responds with non-logical rhetoric, while all the while looking more obsessive and more bent.

Nice Movie

[Rainey-Dawn · 5/10 · 16 April 2016]

The two "werewolves or wolves" are a metaphor for the coming of age and male homosexuality. The idea behind the film is "Basically we are no different than the rest of you." The strange part is, they didn't have to add the wolf part into the film - they could have left it as simply young gay love and it would have be basically the same movie.

There are parts of this film that could have been "spiced up" a bit because those scenes are rather boring really. A little bit of humor but quite a bit of drama. Overall a worthwhile film for young gay men.

I have to say the two "wolves" are very nice looking - Lee Williams played Seth and could easily play Dorian Gray - that is who I see when I look at him.

To be honest: I had to fast forward through some of the film because I found it boring - the middle lagged to much for me.

5/10

If it prowls like a wolf and growls like a wolf

[Tupper26 · 7/10 · 3 September 2003]

I really enjoyed the allegory and parallels between gays and wolves. It provided a wealth of intelligent, sensual comparisons to comment on sexuality and greed without being overtly crass.

And Gabriel, played by James Layton, is just plain irrresistable. *woof*

No bite, bad fur

[buchtelitemason · 2/10 · 10 January 2005]

This movie promised to be a modern fairytale with a strong pro-gay message. A story of ostracized wolves in love and wanting acceptance from society. It ended up being a film full of missed opportunities. The acting was fair to middling for most of the cast and the two leads(Seth and Gabriel) were definitely pretty, but the director missed the point. The metaphor of wolves as gay men was far too obvious. There was no subtlety in this film and while it seemed that the cast had a good time making the movie, it ended up barely watchable. The wolf motif was creative, but the fluffy tails were a bit much, as were the full length fur coats. The film seemed to be trying far too hard to have a moral and forgot to entertain the audience. So, the moral of this review is, skip the Wolves of Kromer and, if you want a modern fairy tale done right, try Beautiful Thing instead.

Beautiful little film.

[Siel_O · 8/10 · 4 May 2005]

I really enjoyed The Wolves Of Kromer, more than I expected even. It's a small and heart warming film which takes the werewolves as an allegory for young gay men who search their place in the world. The film had a lot David Lynch feel to it, it was comedy and romance combined with creepy undertones and unique-dark-bizarre shots using special lightning techniques. several shots were truly a masterpiece and got me staring for a while. The scenery was beautiful and very pleasant to look at, so were the actors. The acting was very good, the characters' lines felt like each is actually saying what they are feeling (I actually felt a bit like i'm watching a play at some of the parts). I loved the implementation of a modern fairy tale (seeing the couple once boating in the calm river and on the other hand riding a bike). I loved the atmosphere. I even loved the fluffy tales! it was so sweet and original!! (reminded me of anime cat boys) I loved everything about this film, it's not very common for me to give such a high grade but this movie deserves it. :)

Odd, odd, odd, but delightful fun.

[reviewerinoimdbino · 8/10 · 29 October 2007]

Odd, odd, odd. It's a little like watching Ken Russell seen through a prism of Alain Resnais. And the "wolves" of the title are not exactly "wolves" and not exactly "werewolves." You'll see what I mean when you see their costumes. Being a wolf, or becoming a wolf through inborn genetic or infectious disease or "contact" is a metaphor for homosexuality. (No, I'm not dissing what I am and what you probably are--it's just part of the film's wackiness.) Once you see it's from a play by Charles Lambert, it all makes sense. But it beautifully translates to film.

I love the old lady, Fanny, who despite myriad lines and wrinkles on her tanned old face still retains the remains of great beauty. Hearing the actress adopt a cockney or regional accent, puckishly enunciating her saucy remarks, is a delight. (She also played the incredible beauty at the end of "The Da Vinci Code.") This film is also a satire of the class war, reminiscent of Mike Leigh's "High Hopes." Catch Polly, a member of the Biffen family, with her ludicrous "county" accent as she wears her quilted jacket and complains that the minister won't allow her dog Parsnip into church.

A delightful film, helped by the fantastic beauty of the English countryside and the fantastic beauty of the lead Gabriel, played by James Layton. A melange of humor, beauty, and oddness.

Some Perspective

[CarPort1 · 9/10 · 12 May 2006]

I'm always dumbfounded when people equate budget with quality (think of all the high-budget/ low-quality Hollywood movies that dominate the cineplexes). So, yes, this is low budget -- thankfully -- there's no fancy make-up or special effects, and no CGI. This movie is based on a PLAY. And it's filmed that way (not "opened up" very much from the source). Regardless of how you feel about this specific film, please be aware that there are many fine films out there, of varying budgets, that are presented stylistically as more of a play. Most of the time it is an artistic decision having nothing to do with budget.

As far as the content (plot, performances, etc.), I can easily understand why there's much dissension in these areas of this particular film. Certainly this is not a movie for the unwashed masses, or even the washed ones! What I like about it is that it's part murder mystery (not a whodunit) with social commentary, and touches of black humour (I guess in many ways, stereotypically British), not to mention the charming and handsome leads. The Wolves of Kromer is to me what Brokeback Mountain is to many others. So if you want a big-budget flick with big American stars (that's also high in quality), go climb the Mountain!

Entertaining fairy tale, but not for kids.

[memfree · 8/10 · 20 July 2000]

The message is one we've heard before, but it is nicely, sweetly told in this parable. What was the message? Don't be mean to people who aren't like you. There was more to it than that, but that was the main point -- and one that is well placed in a fairy-tale form. Rather than a Rosa Parks-esque sort of saga that leaves you with the feeling that the author wanted to pummel their message into your skull, Wolves of Kromer was light... despite a mixture of sadness in it. It was also refreshing to see the main characters, the wolves, were petty thieves rather than unblemished icons. I'm sick of movies that make the downtrodden into martyred saints rather than admitting everyone has failings. Few people are Gandhi. As such I was happy to find that though the people were all story-book caricatures, no one was pure goodness. And while the wolves a bit 'bad', the movie's village folk are more unscrupulous towards each other than the wolves were towards them.

The actresses playing the old servants gave excellent performances. Interestingly, the film had trouble casting the 2 lead roles as few actors wanted to tackle the openly gay parts in this context. According to the director (who was at the screening I saw), this lead them to put models in the leads. They did quite well.

This could almost be a kids' film, but for a scene where a girl is too obvious about enjoying sex. I would like to have seen that scene toned down so the film could reach a younger audience.

Two beautiful boys and one beautiful scene redeem a truly terrible movie

[jm10701 · 18 March 2012]

There are three really wonderful things about this movie: James Layton, Lee Williams, and the very, VERY last scene. Most of the movie is irritating and very stupid; the story and all of the dialog are dumb; and all the other characters (especially the two old women) are nearly unbearable; but those two boys (oh my!) are so beautiful, and the very last scene is so... I don't want to spoil it, but I will just say it is very much worth holding on for; and it makes me like a silly old song for the first time in the 43 years since I first heard it.

That scene and those two beautiful boys raise a one-star movie to at least nine and almost to ten stars. The fact that the movie as a whole is so AWFUL actually makes those three lovely assets shine even brighter. I'm going to buy a copy of this movie, which I do not often do.

fur-tastic indie filmmaking at it's innovative best

[deeharris196 · 10/10 · 18 September 2002]

you know how sometimes you go and see a film, and you've got no idea what to expect, but something about it just grabs you and makes you watch it? well this film grabbed me, and i have to say, i'm so glad it did because i LOVED this movie. it's sexy, funny and SO clever, and has beautiful guys dressed up in wolf suits and falling in and out of love, and it's beautiful!!! okay, so the guy who plays the dad is a bit ropey, but the two wolves are gorgeous - they could bite me anyday! - and the old maids are just brilliant. so if you want something different, i seriously recommend this - but be warned - it's NOT scary (but it is funny, sweet and really sad too, so it doesn't matter!)

Weird, Wonderful, Beautiful

[henrybrealy · 10/10 · 5 February 2003]

unique, in the best sense of the word. say what you want about it (it's low budget, some of the acting creaks, it's not 'horror') but this is bold and beautiful storytelling. and it doesn't hurt that the boys are stunning :-)

Kinda cute but also infinitely boring

[RealBohemian · 18 December 2009]

Perhaps it's because I saw the movie listed as a werewolf genre film. It's very difficult to find good werewolf movies, most of the junk out there is just slasher-flick-in-fur. The good movies made decades ago are impossible to find, and the new ones cater to a jaded taste for sex gore and violence to such an extent that anyone with half a working brain gets rather turned off by them.

This is not, of course, a werewolf film; wolves are merely used as a substitute for another term. This is an allegory. It would certainly help if it were advertised as what it is, a silly political statement. Though sometimes funny, and certainly loaded with pretty boys (acting like stereotypical homosexual males), and even at some small points rather touching, the movie goes on WAY too long. I read a review expressing confusion at the subplot involving a murder; that actually made sense as the point of this political statement is to tell watchers that gay men are persecuted by the nonhomosexual population and having the psuedowolves blamed for something heinous they had nothing to do with fits that bill quite well. However, after 33 minutes I had reached my sugar and silly surfit and turned it off to move on thankfully to something else. Perhaps if I had been watching it for what it was, rather than what it had been misadvertised as, I would have watched longer. It seems to be a nicely made film with some good points; but both too heavy handed and too limited for my taste --ever notice how homosexuality and persecution keeps coming out to be the exclusive right of males in such flicks? At any rate, I suspect anyone into art films, male homosexual films, being made uncomfy by the pointing out mainstream societal wrongs, cleverly backdone pointed references, or eying male boody will enjoy this one. I have no idea what the play was like, but again....if advertised as an allegorical play about the perils of male homosexuality or of being nonmainstream rather than as a werewolf flick, it might have come across as a charming effort.

A sweet unconventional fairytale, kind of lacking.

[Shiveyuk · 17 April 2004]

Gay werewolves? emmmm ... a likely story. Though their shabby fur coats and sewn on tales, definitely shows that this film didn't really have that big of a budget, but its not totally unbelieveable considering the werewolves are suppose of be symbolic of gay males, and not actual monsters.

I'd recommend this film if your looking for a little eye candy, as the two main characters (Gabriel and Seth) aren't too bads on the eyes, considering their both male models! Which generally explains why they were a little lacking in the acting department.

In truth the two old ladies creep the hell out of me, especially Fanny, but there performance was a little better than the wolves, though they don't shine a very nice light on lesbian's.

This is going to sound really bad, but my favourite part was the credits. But only cause they look sooo gorgeous! But I don't want to give too much away.

To sum it up:-

Acting: 5/10 Costumes: 4/10 Plot: 8/10 Eye candy: 10/10