When directors go bad - Howling IV: The Original Nightmare Discussion

[–] vindicator19 16 years ago

He was horny. He wanted to make a jiggle fest slasher movie.

reply

[–] sean_98 16 years ago

This has nothing to do with a slasher movie LOL. Ugh you guys are killing me.

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 15 years ago

Hahaha yeah, agreed. This movie was garbage in every way. Turned it off after 45 minutes and NOTHING had happened. Bad acting, poor writing, worse directing, characters you want to die, and nothing interesting happening AT ALL... not even worth watching in any way shape or form...not even for camp value...

No fear. No distractions. The ability to let that which does not matter truly slide.-Tyler Durden

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Wuchak (8774) a year ago

This has nothing to do with a slasher movie LOL.

Actually, werewolf movies were the precursor to the slasher flick: Instead of people getting slashed with knives & machetes, they're slashed with wolfish claws & teeth. So there's some parallel.

reply

[–] ElectricWarlock 11 years ago

Oh, goodness. I didn't even realize it was him who directed this. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the film but it was a lot different from what I've seen from him.

Death lives in the Vault of Horror!

reply

[–] Doc110894 10 years ago

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jakemon45 (1141) 4 years ago

The trivia section on IMDb says that he was interfered with a lot by a producer who then went on to reshoot a lot of the movie without his knowledge after Hough had wrapped. It explains a lot.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8774) 4 years ago

C'mon, it's not THAT bad (of course, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement).

The movie's subtitled "The Original Nightmare" because it's more faithful to Gary Brandner's original novel, which doesn't mean it's better, not even close. The low-budget prevents it from being anything more than a decent sequel with a rushed, awkward ending. Unlike the classic "The Howling," werewolves are scarce, but it's superior to "Howling II" and "Howling III" in that it throws out Phillippe Mora's goofy camp and general eccentricities.

I like the slow-build mystery and the cast. There's some quality full moon ambiance as well; and Windsor & Severeid make for an effective female team. Moreover, Weiss is one of the few actors who could get away with a mullet. While the bulk of the movie was shot in the sticks of South Africa, and you can tell, it's not too bad of a substitute for the desert wilderness of Southern Cal. Actually, it makes for an interesting change of pace for the barely-connected series of stand-alone werewolf flicks.

reply

[–] MeYouFools (171) a year ago

"...it's superior to 'Howling II' and 'Howling III'"

It absolutely is not. Christopher Lee alone makes "Howling II" better than "IV" and Imogen Annesley and Ralph Cotterill make "Howling III" better than anything "IV" has to offer.

Jakemon45, that's correct. John Hough made a completely different movie and then when he turned in his cut of the movie, Clive Turner (who also called himself "Freddie Rowe" to make it look like he didn't write the movie alone) set about recutting the movie and proceeded to reshoot the ending (the original ending featured a sequence of the Coombs Werewolf leading the red-eyed wolf-werewolves). We have never seen Hough's version of the movie (which apparently was completed).

reply

[–] Wuchak (8774) a year ago

Christopher Lee alone makes "Howling II" better than "IV" and Imogen Annesley and Ralph Cotterill make "Howling III" better than anything "IV" has to offer.

"Howling II" is worthwhile in a so-bad-it's-almost-good way and the inclusion of Lee trying to keep a straight face is a plus, but the movie's generally tedious, and Lee's involvement isn't significant enough to change this. "Howling III" is more of the same, just extra-offbeat, while intriguingly switching the location from Transylvania to Australia. Imogen Annesley is winsome, sure, but nothing to go ape over; meanwhile Ralph Cotterill is a relative no-name in my book, but it's cool that you esteem him. Both flicks mix goofy camp with seriousness for an odd mix, with III shooting for more gravity.

I commend "Howling IV" for being relatively faithful to Gary Brandner's original novel, which makes the story more interesting than II and III, plus it wisely discards Phillippe Mora's silly camp and idiosyncrasies. Unfortunately, the lack of funds prevented it from being anything more than an okay sequel with a hurried, gauche climax, although I like the full moon atmosphere and slow-burn story, as well as the cast. Speaking of the latter, Romy Windsor & Susanne Severeid make for an interesting feminine partnership with Romy arguably rivaling Imogen from the previous film. Meanwhile Michael T. Weiss is a great male protagonist and Lamya Derval makes for a sharp lycanthrope, not to mention the sticks of South Africa (substituting for SoCal) are an interesting change, geographically.

So, IV may not be great, like the first film, but I prefer it to II and III. I place more importance on story and ambiance as opposed to favored actors. Lee's presence didn't change the relative dullness of II for me nor does Imogen's appeal in III lift that bizarre flick out of its mediocrity.

reply

[–] MeYouFools (171) a year ago

You basically just repeated what you'd already said and we heard you the first time, thanks. And most of it seems to boil down to "I hate fun."

reply

[–] Wuchak (8774) a year ago

You're right, but repetition with added detail. Reiterating points can be an effective device, but maybe I overdid it here, sorry.

As far as my "hating fun" goes, I appreciate fun horror flicks just fine and could cite many examples. Howling II & III are certainly fun; they're just strapped with dull storytelling. I'm assuming director Mora is to blame because Howling I, IV, V, VI and VIII are all superior to Mora's two installments, as far as compelling storytelling goes. I'm not saying they're worthless, though; they have points of interest.

reply