​What’s a niche picture to do?
 
Have you heard of a niche picture?  Basically, a niche film is a product that’s made to satisfy what could arguably be a somewhat limited demand or reasonably specific audience.  By definition, a niche is one piece of the whole pie.  So, when making a niche film, you’re not angling for the whole pie of the possible viewing audience but only your individual piece – only those interested in your particular subject – so targeting that piece becomes your strategy.  Which piece is bigger?  Which piece offers the best return on investment?  Though I’ve read some academics who classify an independent film as a niche property, I’ve always pushed back against that because my experience has shown that more folks are interested in good drama as opposed to whether or not a motion picture was made in the studio system or not.
 
At its core, a niche picture is one made to solely capitalize on the interests of sub-section of the total moviegoing audience.  For me, workable examples are often identified as novel adaptations: if a book becomes a bestseller, why not adapt it into a film?  Certainly, Twilight (2008) and The Hunger Games (2012) have shown the potential of mining the Young Adult book genre for profits, and Peter Jackson’s adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord Of The Rings proved that there’s big money mined from Middle-earth.  Another example (albeit smaller in scope) is the slasher movie: while these flicks are generally classified as horror, their respective audiences tend to be a subset of the wider horror audience as not everyone appreciates their thrills and chills in so conventional a fashion.
 
Still another niche market are video game adaptations.
 
As these works have only been around for a few decades, I suspect the data on their box office potential remains a bit suspect, but Hollywood mathematicians have been fudging data since before you and I were born!  Consequently, producers have been more easily lured with the promise of big returns on a small investment, thinking that everyone who has played a certain game will likely want to see it brought to life on the silver screen.  Were that truly the case, I suspect even 1972’s Pong would’ve been delivered in light and shadows – likely starring Russell Crowe facing off against Nicole Kidman with direction from Steven Spielberg – but I’m still waiting for that project to materialize.
 
In the meantime, Ubisoft has ponied up a little something something called Werewolves Within – an adaptation of a 2016 virtual reality game of the same name – and I’m delighted to give you my thoughts on it after the break.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessarily solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the product packaging:
“New forest ranger Finn arrives in the snowy hamlet of Beaverfield to find the townsfolks divided by a proposed gas pipeline.  He befriends mail carrier Cecily who gives him a tour and introduces him to the quirky cast of neighbors.  When a snowstorm cuts the power and traps the residents inside the local inn, it falls on Finn and Cecily to try to keep the peace and uncover the truth behind a mysterious creature that has begun terrorizing the community.”
 
Oh, the struggles of the monster movie!
 
There used to be a time and a place for them.  Back in the days of the Universal Monster Movie Universe – very, very close to the dawn of motion pictures – audiences flocked to them.  Dracula.  Frankenstein.  The Mummy.  The Werewolf.  Alas, the phenomenon didn’t last but a decade and one-half, until it was miraculously revived when mildly reinvented for a cinematic mash-up with the popular comedy act of the era, Abbott and Costello.  This re-introduction brought the monster movie back to life, true, and it continued to evolve in ways that pushed the boundaries of what was possible for the next generation or two.
 
Somewhere along the way, the monsters waned again in admiration.  These things that go bump in the night went out of style, but filmmakers have tried over and over again to bring them back to life in any number of ways.  Big budget makeovers – like The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001) – certainly added a bit of studio gloss to the equation, but their successes have been the exception and not the rule.  In fact, box office mega-star Tom Cruise’s The Mummy (2017) may very well have put this beloved phenomenon back to sleep for tentpole efforts, leaving the properties ripe for smaller(ish), quieter, independent efforts to pick up the baton and run with it.
 
Enter Werewolves Within (2021), a $6.5 million budgeted ensemble that was released in the summer of 2021.
​

In all fairness, Werewolves clearly struggled to sink its teeth into the box office, not even bringing in one million dollars in ticket receipts.  There could be a dozens of reason why it failed to re-ignite the passion for the monster movie, but I think it’s biggest problem is that it stayed in its niche – as an indie film (which traditionally doesn’t perform all that well with wider audiences), its comic sensibilities largely played to the usual indie-crowd … and, so far as this reviewer can assess, those viewers have little interest in horror releases.  That’s a shame because the cast here does work some small wonders with the material provided: Mishna Wolff’s script makes good use of its characters and the overall whodunnit construct, but it largely ignores the fact that there’s supposed to be a werewolf in here … somewhere.
 
Again, don’t get me wrong: as a critic, I make a concerted effort to evaluate what any storyteller provides as a finished product instead of rushing down that rabbit hole of what could’ve/should’ve/would’ve been, but I can’t help asking “Shouldn’t there be more werewolf in a Werewolves Within movie?”  The usual trickery about hiding the beast for the big reveal offers shockingly little payoff here; when we’re finally treated to the creature of the title, it is almost laughable … and those of us who tuned in taking our monsters seriously are apt to be disappointed.
 
So if your indie feature doesn’t play to the usual themes indie viewers expect AND your monster movie serves up so little monster as if to insult the monster lovers, then what audience is your movie catering to exactly?
 
Therein lies the problem of Werewolves Within.  It’s a film without a crowd, so it’s no wonder this one came and went from theaters as fast as it did.
 
This isn’t to say that I, personally, had no fun with the flick because I did.  The funny and affable Sam Richardson makes great mileage here in what I think may be his very first leading role; his nice guy ranger Finn Wheeler fits in perfectly with the material provided, and I rooted for him to excel both professionally and personally just as he was put through the comic pacing.  The fetching Milana Vayntrub gives a wonderful performance as the quirky postal worker Cecily Moore; she balances girl-next-door charm and effervescent flippancy here like a true master of her craft, and her work here ought to open doors for more roles (if any execs with brains are watching).  And this handful of local yokels embrace their respective eccentricities with increasing delight, even up to the point of shaking off their scripted mortal coils.  This is smart, character-driven comedy; and it works.
 
Still, I can’t shake the fact that what brings me to a werewolf movie is, alas, the seminal howler … and Werewolves Within was strikingly deficient in that respect.  A bit of a miss.
 
Werewolves Within (2021) is produced by Ubisoft Film and Television, Ubisoft, Vanishing Angle.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled by IFC Films.  As for the technical specifications?  The film looks and sounds fabulous from start-to-finish.  As for the special features?  Wow.  Nothing.  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  An insulting miss.
 
Recommended.  As imperfect as Werewolves Within is, there are enough good, solid laughs in here to divert your attention away from the missing monster moments; and I suspect the cast and crew had a lot of fun putting this particular mystery together for audiences.  Though I’ll always be disappointed with the payoff, I can appreciate the small world charm of increasingly bizarre characters just trying to get out alive … and this cast delivers with the material provided.  I just wanted more creature.  Does that make me … a monster?
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at IFC Films provided me with a Blu-ray disc of Werewolves Within by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

​As regular readers here know (and I’ve often made abundantly clear), I don’t cover films I consider pure Horror in this space … but I’m known to make exceptions.
 
When will I do that?
 
Well, the easiest answer to that question is, of course, when I feel like it, but I do try to keep in mind a few personal rules.  First, penning a review for something that strays outside the boundaries of SciFiHistory.Net must be reserved for seminal flicks only: it should be for films that have both stood the test of time and are worthy of addition to the site.  Second, the features should still have some element or two that flirts directly or circumstantially with ‘the truly bizarre.’  Lastly, it should be reserved for films that have left an indelible footprint on yours truly!  (As Mel Brooks once gleefully professed, “It’s good to be the king!”)
 
So in the days of my youth, pay cable was just getting started.  Back then, when the channel obtained what they thought to be a new, hot property, schedulers might typically play that film more than once-a-day in rotation, and this gave the audience an opportunity to really experience something they were promised to be a sensation over and over and over again.  Sure, it may’ve been spaced out by a few hours, but theoretically (and if you were that interested) you could start and end the day watching the same motion picture on rare occasions.
 
And I distinctly remember being warned by everyone around me to avoid watching Wes Craven’s The Hills Have Eyes.  Though they had never seen it, they had friends who had; and they were cautioned away from the flick because it was the scariest thing ever captured on film.  It’ll scar you for life, they promised, or it’ll make you have all kinds of nightmares.  It was violent.  It was bloody.  It was the stuff of pure Hell.
 
I was just breaking into my teen years, so obviously the next thing I did was sit down and watch it … not once … but twice.  I think I even watched it a third time over the weekend.
 
Over four decades later, I still don’t see what all the hubbub was about.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the product packaging:
“Taking an ill-advised detour en route to California, the Carter family soon run into trouble when their RV breaks down in the middle of the desert.  Stranded, the family find themselves at the mercy of a group of monstrous cannibals lurking in the surrounding hills.  With their lives under threat, the Carters have no choice but to fight back by any means necessary.”
 
The minor quibble I made above – the point at which I wrote that I don’t see what all the hubbub was about – isn’t meant in any way to insult these Hills.  Craven and company built this tidy little thriller to succeed – arguably one of the best of its kind – and the film has deservedly earned its place in history.  Released in 1977, it didn’t exactly sprint to the top of the box office charts: it made a splash in its debut but disappeared fairly quickly as other features gained prominence.  The way ‘cult’ flicks do, this one proved it had legs when home video entered the marketplace, giving small towns across the fruited plains wider access to titles they had missed … and history was made when Hills became a fast favorite of the corner video palace.
 
My issue is that I’m usually disappointed in Horror films, mostly because I find so few of them truly scary.  They might be thrilling (as this one definitely is).  They might be bloody (this one has its moments).  But it’s just very hard to legitimately ‘scare me’ the way these features do others.  I distinctly remember seeing this one on cable; and other than giving me a mild adrenaline rush in the second half, I found it more ‘fun’ like a carnival attraction than I did a ‘fright.’
 
What works in Hills is the feature’s overwhelming blue-collar mentality.  The Carter family could be any family.  It could be yours.  It could be your neighbors.  It could be the guy across the street.  And when any story can present characters that commonplace and relatable, it’s extremely likely that the wider audience of regular folks is going to be affected by it.  I think that speaks, largely, to the film’s reputation: it posits a somewhat extraordinary set of circumstances befalling the ordinary American, and that has a way of giving any tale added weight.
​

Beyond that, I’d also argue that Hills plays out almost like a parable about survival.
 
One-by-one, the Carters play victims as they allow these horrific outsiders – monsters of a type by any definition of the word – to dictate the terms of their kinda/sorta captivity.  The tools the family have of our (snicker snicker) advanced civilization are essentially useless when matched against the instincts of primal man.  They’re continually outmatched and outsmarted not because they’re inferior but because they’ve grown cozy in life, never had to fight for food or territory.  Once that innate instinct to survive kicks in and the Carters rise up to the challenge, then they become not so much a threat as they do ‘an equal’ on this playing field.  They’ll have to now prove themselves superior.
 
In this regard, it’s easy to see the everlasting appeal of one of Craven’s earliest features.  The low budget approach – an almost guerilla-style experience – gives Hills a grounded center despite the presence of some larger-than-life adversaries.  Monsters needn’t always be crafted in laboratories because sometimes – in the words of a Jeff Goldblum character – “life finds a way” to make them out here; and that’s some fertile stomping grounds in which to set characters at odds with one another.  When your attacker doesn’t want your wallet, your keys, or your car, and all he seeks to take from you is the meat off your bones, what other course of action is there but to rise up, refuse, and fight to the death?
 
You may not believe in this world … but if you ever find yourself in it you’d better hope and pray you’re more like the Carters than you might like.  Your life might depend on it.
 
The Hills Have Eyes (1977) is produced by Blood Relations Company.  (FYI: the film’s original working title was ‘Blood Relations.’)  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled via Arrow Video.  As for the technical specifications?  With this 4K restoration, the film likely looks better than it ever has: I do remember thinking some of the night scenes definitely needed a bit more light (back in the day), and I’d make the same argument today, though there’s thankfully more to see here than before.
 
As for the special features?  Well, this is Arrow Video, and they continue to impress with each opportunity.  Besides the restoration, there are a solid handful of mini-documentaries, the best of which is the previously released 2006 doc on the making-of the film: Craven and his crew sit down and reflect on their time together and even offer theories about why they believe the flick continues to resonate all these years later.  There are also the usual galleries, trailers, and outtakes (a few good laughs in there surrounding the dogs); and the press materials include postcard art, a poster, and a booklet with essays.  But the best plus?  THREE commentaries.  (That’s right!  THREE!!!!)  I’ve only made my way through one-and-one-half of them thus far (the cast one is very fun though occasionally strays a bit too far beyond the focus), and this is just a remarkable assortment of goodies.  Well done, Arrow.  Well done.
 
Recommended.  If you’re seen The Hills Have Eyes, then the best reason I can offer you to check it out again is the fact that this new restoration is very, very good.  (Yes, there are still some scenes shot in a bit too much darkness, but it is what it is.)  If you’ve never seen it, then now is the best time … though I’ll admit right up front that this gritty, surreal experience is not going to be for everyone.  As a master of the genre, Craven would go on to some high marks, but I suspect this rural chiller was probably as much fun for him to make as it is for audiences to endure.  Definitely a bit dark and occasionally a bit depraved, it remains a one-of-a-kind flick.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary 4K UltraHD disc of The Hills Have Eyes by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ