Fúria Animal

This is a fairly good movie that doesn't try to overwhelm the viewers with non-stop action, chase scenes and loud, hysterical goings on. However, I do feel that the movie would have been better with a little more action and sharper dialog. For much of the time, the dialog was spoken so softly that I had to keep turning up the volume on my TV just to be able to hear what the characters were saying. The finale, where the protagonist and antagonist meet to resolve the issue is just as low key as the rest of the movie.

A pretty good suspense film especially the beginning. It tends to lose steam, however, when Julie recovers and teams up with a retired trooper to hunt down the killer. All performances are excellent.

The film has beautiful photography of the northwest and animal scenes.

The best reason to watch this sleeper hit is for the duel of wits and wills between Amick's character and Pasdar's. They are more than just characters in this movie. They each represent values. Pasdar re- presents the cold-blooded, calculating ruthlessness of the hunter- competitor; Amick represents the compassion and thoughtfulness that blunts his unreflective violence. You don't have to be an animal rights activist or a feminist to be rooting with all your might for Julie Clayton as she struggles to outwit the trapper Hanaghan.

At the beginning, Julie is admittedly at a disadvantage in her battle with Hanaghan. She has been through the trauma of an attack in the woods and is wounded and weak. She's not only weak physically. She's weak psychologically as well. She has to overcome her own fear and co-dependency. She would nearly have died herself, were it not for a chance encounter with a veteran police officer, played well by Greene. He helps her marshal the courage necessary to outsmart Hanaghan.

To its credit, this movie resists the strong temptation to degenerate into a series of explosions and wanton gunfire once Hanaghan has found

Julie. He must outwit her. He must prevent her from having her say.

But he cannot afford to kill her. He is in her world and out of his own wild element. So it remains a battle of wits all the way through this movie. This is not John Rambo vs. the Establishment in the wilderness!

The movie succeeds on another level as well. Although Julie Clayton becomes more like Hanaghan as she confronts him, she doesn't become exactly like him. That is, she doesn't become the mindless killing machine that he is. She retains her compassion, her humanity and her sanity. She's as strong as he is on her own terms. This is a victory not just for herself but for human dignity, which she represents.

The year 1997 seems to have been a good year for movies, especially sleeper movies like this one. This is a little jewel of a movie! Whoever can should catch it on cable. It's worth three stars!!

On the surface, this is like the hundreds of other movies I've seen. There's a psychotic killer who kills the partner/sibling/best friend/S.O. of the main hero who then avenges his/her death. But this is not one of those films. This is different.

Granted, the main plot is familiar. Julie and Don are living in the wilderness tracking bears when a poacher kills Don and almost does the same to Julie. With extraordinary luck, she survives but has lost her will to live. The poacher, however, is a well-paid professional hunter who has no plans to leave any witnesses alive so when Julie is sent to the city to recover, he follows her to finish what he started. Meanwhile, a suicidal Julie must find a will to live with some help from an alcoholic cop, Rollins.

So that's the setting. Sounds simple? It is. On paper. But surprisingly enough, not in the movie. You see, the film is NOT just a revenge action-thriller. It's more of a character study. In a "normal" film, the death of a friend would cause the hero to grieve for about 30 seconds (possibly accompanied later by a few flashback-scenes). In this film, the main thing is Julie's recovery - especially mentally. The objective is to show what Julie goes through after the death of the only person she cared about. Revenge is not a clear course of action. It's not something this film takes lightly. But as things move along, it comes apparent that the officials can't help and she can't start a new life until the nightmares of the old one has been taken care of.

It's important to notice that the setting and the characters really aren't as black and white as the basic plot would have you believe. Julie doesn't go from happy to sad to happy again at the flick of a switch. She knows that even if she gets her revenge, things will never be the same but has decided to cross that bridge once she gets there. For now, revenge provides her the strength to move on. Also, Rollins is a flawed character who has some skeletons in the closet but still has found a will to live – he's not a generic loose cannon.

Technically, the movie is very low-key. There are no explosions, no big chases, nothing like that. Still, the film was never boring to me. Everything was there for a purpose. The production values are flawless, rivalling those of big budget theatrical releases. Lots of beautiful scenery shots, nice editing, brilliant directing. The score by Ross Vannelli is excellent, including beautiful, atmospheric and aggressive moments. I'd buy it in an instant but of course it isn't available. And this is probably only the second film I've seen where you actually can randomly use freeze frame and at least 9 times out of 10 you'd see a beautifully composed shot which wouldn't look out of place in a lobby card (the other film is "American Dragons/Double Edge", a Michael Biehn-actioner directed by Ralph Hemecker which was also elevated above it's standard material because of some unique stylistic touches).

If you allow it, this movie raises some interesting questions. What would you do in a similar situation? Revenge won't bring your life back but could you ever find the balance if you knew that the man who ruined your life is out there? Is the character in a true no-win situation? If the only person you cared about would be murdered and you had the opportunity to either kill the murderer or to walk away knowing that the case would soon be forgotten by everyone but you and you'd never see the murderer brought to justice? After I had watched the film a few times, I realized that there really should be an instruction manual with films like these indicating who it's for and the best way to watch the film. I don't know if the filmmakers would agree with me, but in my opinion if you just keep it in the background or watch it with some friends over pop corn, it'll never work. You only want to see action? Forget it. You're the type of person who always watches films with friends, talking while watching them and making fun of them in MST3K-style? Don't see this one. But if you like reading dark novels, staying up late at night listening to the rain while doing nothing but thinking, this is the one to watch. Open-minded, emotional people will like this.

I have to mention that I still adore those straightforward revenge-actioners where a flawless martial arts-hero kills everyone in sight in the most violent way imaginable without ever getting hurt himself and which you forget 5 seconds after the movie is over (coincidentally director Richard Martin has also directed `White Tiger' which is a great example of that kind of a film). But "Wounded" is a more ambitious film and one which succeeds in everything it sets out to do - and that's no small feat! Highly recommended.

This film, while not Oscar material by any means, is an enjoyable Saturday night movie. As many others have commented, the cinematography is creative and pleasant to the eye, enticing one to become a game warden in the northwest. It also has an impressive cast that does the best it can with a script that bounces around at times and is, for the most part, predictable.

The beginning of the film does a fine job of illustrating the setting of the northwest, with sweeping landscape shots that really gives the viewer an idea of vastness of the wilderness. Mountain fans will be inclined to rewind and play the aerial shots again just for the view.

Regarding the predictability of the story, there are a few surprises that keep it from being clichéd. There is also a subtlety about it that prevents it from looking like a female on a Rambo rampage. Unfortunately, this creates some lagging spots where the story must develop. Still, it does move along, recovering from those moments and jumping back into the story with both feet.

Amick's performance as Julie Clayton has some rough spots, but is otherwise enjoyable. However, the most notable performance is given by Graham Greene, as Nick Rollins, an SFPD officer with issues. The interplay between Amick and Greene is not over the top, keeping the film on an even keel. Graham's smooth delivery is what keeps the story afloat at key moments. If the movie had not been about Julie Clayton, Nick Rollins would have had his own story to tell.

One gets the feeling that WOUNDED would play well in book form, but it holds its own as a film due to its cast. Adrian Pasdar, of HEROES fame, does his best work as a voice on a phone line. He has an eerie tone that is taunting and cold. His dialogue could have used a little streamlining to increase the threat, but one could argue that it is not the character's way. Hanaghan is a very focused character, and perhaps the dialogue is that way to keep in line with that.

Overall, this film is worth picking up as a rental. It holds a viewer's interest long enough to see it through the end. Yes, there are some nitpicking points that could be made regarding the story or the actions of the characters, but that can be said of just about any film. There are no major sins against real life policies or physics that cannot be overlooked in the name of entertainment. If anything, check it out for the great wilderness shots. They are eye candy in and of themselves.