Saw it. Let me say that it would not have mattered what this movie was rated, it would have sucked! Granted, it had some funny moments, but the werewolf effects were some of the most piss poor I have ever seen in my life. The animatronic wolf looked like they stole it from just about any other werewolf movie, and the CGI was beyond bad. Hell, it didn't even have a decent transformation scene! At least give us a shot of Ricci growing a long hideous snout, or have some wolves actually appear in the climax.
I cannot help but wonder how much this was changed from the original version; I just have trouble believing both Craven and Williamson would allow such a wussy horror movie to land in theaters with their names on it.

I give it * 1/2 stars, and if it had an R, I probably would only up it half a star. It was obvious this movie's problems lay in the script.
Anyone have any insight as to how the original/scrapped version was supposed to flow?
FWIW, I am typically easy going on horror movies; I even found both House of 1000 Corpses and the newer Texas Chainsaw Massacre entertaining. But this was so bad that I couldn't find a redeeming feature aside from some eye candy from Ricci and a couple of good lines here and there.

I was pulling for Baio to be the head werewolf as well. The whole time I was thinking "Why would they list him in the opening credits if he only had like three lines in the middle of the movie? He MUST be the head werewolf!"

Oh, am I crazy, or did Jimmy's hairstyle change completely halfway through the film? At the start it was kind of blond and curly, and by the end it was straight and darker

A) He was before the reshoots. At least ONE of the head werewolves.

B) It was before the reshoots. You can see Ricci's wig very clearly too.

Honestly Scream wasn't that good anyway (and the second was only good cos it was funny) so teamup between Craven and Williamson isn't all that appealing to me and the comments here confirm that I was right in avoiding Cursed.

That said, I do hope Wes Craven makes a good movie again someday.

So Ricci was wearing a wig?

Does anyone have a little breakdown of which scenes and plot points were in the original and which ones were the major changes?

Also, That ending had to be the most anti-climactic since Jurassic Park III.

Here's the link for a CURSED script review.

Filmjerk link

The writer is a complete tool, but the plot breakdown really explains what was changed when production was halted. I'm sure there are better sites around, but this is a good start.

While I didn't think that the movie was as laughably bad as most people are saying, it wasn't particularly any good either. It seemed to me to be a typical, run-of-the-mill, no imagination, studio horror film. I guess I was more disappointed in the fact that this was turned out by Craven and Williamson. While the conscensus on these films has changed over the years, I still like the first two Scream movies and a couple of years ago when I heard that they were teaming back up for a werewolf picture, I was pretty excited. I'll agree that if they put a little gore back in this cut of the film to retain the R, the film wouldn't have been much better. I hope that one day we will get to see the original cut of the film (with the other characters and all) to see if the original test audiences were morons (as they seem to be these days) and all this current cut did was mess up a decent film. Whether a case of studio meddling or just a bad picture that nothing could save, this film will end up as a disappointment to me. At least I still have my Ginger Snaps disc if I want to experience a good current werewolf film.

After reading the link Shelton posted, they should at least include all the deleted footage as bonus material on the DVD (even if they don't go back to the original cut and put that on the DVD as well). And in all honesty, they should if they want this DVD to move some copies off the shelf. Mostly because everyone already knows that Craven nor Williamson are going to do commentary for the DVD now.

I want to see Scott Baio is a werewolf goddamnit.

WOW, this really sucks! The trailer looked very cool and I was really looking forward to seeing this on DVD. I guess, I'll see it in the theater if I can and save myself the $15 on release day if it's as bad as it has been made out.

Waiting for this movie to end was painful. Glad I only spent $5 to see it, but would still like that 90 minutes back.

Why can't studios make some good old 80's style horror movies with blood, T & A , and an " R " rating ?!!

Well, seems like this movie was a lost cause from the get go.

What does Craig Kilborn do in the movie? Feel free to spoil it for me I doubt I'll be seeing it. In fact just tell me who the werewolf is.

There are two,

Craig Kilborn does little more than pop up and play Craig Kilborn.

Which in the end, he just ends up playing a jerkoff with no personality and the ability to have no comedic timing.

I can't believe he left his talk show for menial roles in crappy movies. Can't wait to see him in The Shaggy Dog as Tim Allen's jerkoff next door neighbor.

Given the fact that I couldn't believe this was a Wes Craven movie, I like you found certain aspects of the film enjoyable bad, add to the mix a few girls in the row in front me having a blast, this wasn't completely a waste of time (say like Constantine).

This movie was worse than that Uwe Boll movie I saw... terrible. Absolutely terrible. *vomits*

I saw this last night. While it was far from 'great', I didn't find it nearly as terrible as others have. As far as the laughable scenes are concerned, wasn't the point that it was supposed to be a joke? This was clearly a horror comedy, I don't know why everyone is up in arms about stuff like the middle finger, Scott Baio, etc.

I will admit the werewolf looked terrible in most of the scenes. More like an evil teddy bear.

As for comments along the lines of "what was Wes Craven thinking", I love his movies but he's hardly had a spotless record. Vampire in Brooklyn, anyone? Yeah, I expected more after such a long hiatus, but oh well.

i heard so many bad things about this movie, and it didnt do well in the box office i was expecting a awful movie, but i rented the unrated version and i thought this was a really good werewolf movie, one of the best ones i have seen. i dont understand what was so bad about it, it felt like old fasioned werewolf movie or monster movie (with the kid and the comics with werewolf) i thought the visual effects were pretty good for a smaller movie. and liked that the werewolf wasnt just all cgi. it must be doing pretty well on video cause hollywood video and family video were all out of copies. but i dont know why everyone was hating on this movie, i know its the the greatest movie ever but i thought it was a very fun movie.

as a comedy I enjoyed it- but as a horror film from Wes Craven - no.

It was a cute movie that had a lot of promise but failed to deliver on just about every level. I bought it in spite of all the Neg reviews and found that I "liked" it in spite of its many flaws. As it has already been said, it's a good comedic werewolf film but not so much a horror movie. There were some great parts, namely the underground parking garage sequence and Wednesday Addams' brother but othert than that, it was fairly predictable and nowhere near as good as it could have been. But hey, I liked it anyway so go figure.

I thought it was enjoyable enough. But I like most of the Scream, IKWYDLS style movies.

Since this is discussing the movie, not the DVD, this should probably go in the movie forum.

I was thinking the review forum.