User Score
8.2

Universal acclaim- based on 106 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 85 out of 106
  2. Negative: 14 out of 106
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jan 31, 2011
    10
    I thought this movie was a awesome horror and comedy film. Jesse Eisenberg and Christina Ricci were great.
  2. Dec 4, 2010
    4
    Although not without its moments, Cursed is a disappointing horror comedy of appalingly weak performances, repulsively cheesy VFX and a wildly predictable script.
  3. Sep 12, 2014
    6
    This movie deserves three stars for at least somewhat making sense (yes, there is a plot in this one), and for Milo Ventimiglia being there, totally awesome & gay - that always deserves an extra star in my book!

    I watched this movie purely because of Milo. And of course, I'm interested in supernatural, but I don't like horror flicks. From the few little previews I had seen, I knew this
    This movie deserves three stars for at least somewhat making sense (yes, there is a plot in this one), and for Milo Ventimiglia being there, totally awesome & gay - that always deserves an extra star in my book!

    I watched this movie purely because of Milo. And of course, I'm interested in supernatural, but I don't like horror flicks. From the few little previews I had seen, I knew this movie wasn't going to look very realistic, though. The werewolves made me smirk, and oh, no one told me this movie is pretty comedic at places! Werewolf flipping a bird; now that's not something you see every day.

    Comedy aside, there is a plot in here, which thickens by the end. Of course some of the plot twists are predictable, and some just plain silly. Like werewolves popping up randomly for no apparent reason, other than a rather hollow plot point...

    The acting isn't brilliant, but not bad either. I did love Milo's role as Bo, though.

    As a horror movie, there are the usual elements of surprise. The gore is hinted at but not shown.

    All in all, a decent movie, but nothing better than that.
    Expand
  4. LevisO.
    May 4, 2005
    7
    I really enjoyed this and if you don't take it too seriously, you could too.
  5. jarredb
    May 10, 2005
    2
    This movie was extremely bad. the film was horrible the acting was horrible and so was the story line.
  6. MarkB.
    Jun 25, 2005
    6
    Horror legend Wes Craven once gave us Vampire in Brooklyn; assisted by genre-bending coconspirator Kevin Williamson (of the first two Scream movies) he now serves up what could be called Werewolf in Hollywood. This diverting offering is more funny than scary; in fact, the gory eviscerations in the unrated DVD edition are so over-the-top that it's hard to see how anyone could be Horror legend Wes Craven once gave us Vampire in Brooklyn; assisted by genre-bending coconspirator Kevin Williamson (of the first two Scream movies) he now serves up what could be called Werewolf in Hollywood. This diverting offering is more funny than scary; in fact, the gory eviscerations in the unrated DVD edition are so over-the-top that it's hard to see how anyone could be offended or even grossed out. (In fact, the movie's most amusing line is uttered by a cop who, after demolishing a werewolf in a truly spectacular way, wonders if it's really necessary to cut its head off.) Christina Ricci, Jesse Eisenberg and Joshua Jackson learn that (as Lon Chaney Jr.'s mopey Lawrence Talbot never did) that becoming a werewolf can increase one's physical prowess, social standing and sex appeal, although Ricci doesn't really need much help in the latter department. Typically amusing Williamson dialogue and enjoyable performances (especially a sparkling comic one by Judy Greer as Ricci's rival and an admirably good-sportsmanlike one by Scott Baio, playing himself in a role that comments frankly on his C-list status, as if his appearance in Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 didn't say it all) and Craven's equal facility with light comic as well as horror sequences make this an almost-guilty pleasure...but it loses points for a wishy-washy ending and a long mistaken-meaning riff that correlates lycanthropy and homosexuality, but was done better on Buffy the Vampire Slayer over a decade ago. Worst of all is the fact that this movie is an example of an ever-increasing trend in horror movies that show up in theatres in butchered, PG-13 versions...and then appear a few months later in uncut DVD versions so that viewers, in essence, pay for them twice...an act of corporate chicanery that almost makes certain pyramid schemes shut down by the government seem honest by comparison. Normally I believe that movies are made for theatres and should be seen in them whenever possible, but I'll make an exception here: whenever you hear of a PG-13 horror film, wait to rent the DVD. If the DVD's uncut, you're seeing it the way the filmmakers intended and only shelling out once; if it's still a PG-13, you haven't lost anything. By golly, somebody's gotta teach these studios that double-dipping doesn't pay! Expand
  7. uberstupid
    Jun 26, 2005
    0
    Pros: cant list any. Cons: too many to list. Overview: Wes Craven, save the American public and save yourself, stop making movies.
  8. Sam
    Jul 7, 2005
    2
    Excuse me because this review will be rather short because i must sacrifice cow flesh to send this movie back to hell for all eternity, and i also must vomit and crap out some of my own blood for a little while, this movie is cheesy and it sucks, that's it.
  9. joe
    Jul 9, 2005
    2
    Predictable, bad,bad,bad and lame beyond belief. Wes Craven - go somewhere and hide your Bad self.
  10. NickH
    Jul 31, 2005
    1
    Ugh... this movie bit the big one. Much like other Wes Craven films, lately. I hope "Red Eye" restores what respect we had for him.
  11. joshh.
    Oct 17, 2005
    9
    I thought this was great. dont watch it excpecting a clever movie. its a freakin horror movie after all. The scene in the carpark wtht eh werewolf was quite scary. very well done. watch it, laugh and be scared.
  12. BlakeM.
    Feb 24, 2005
    10
    A great film.
  13. ChadS.
    Feb 26, 2005
    3
    The only way to save "Cursed" from utter worthlessness was if the numero uno werewolfo turned out to be one of the two celebrities that play themselves. For a minute there... But, no. The filmmakers stop short of utter camp, which is unfortunate because "Cursed" stops short of being scary. Christina Ricci is not Tara Reid so I don't understand why she's trading excruciating The only way to save "Cursed" from utter worthlessness was if the numero uno werewolfo turned out to be one of the two celebrities that play themselves. For a minute there... But, no. The filmmakers stop short of utter camp, which is unfortunate because "Cursed" stops short of being scary. Christina Ricci is not Tara Reid so I don't understand why she's trading excruciating twentysomething-romance-on-the-rocks dialogue with Joshua Jackson. "Prozac Nation" has got to be better than this. Expand
  14. BobbyS.
    Feb 26, 2005
    7
    I thought it was a cute, campy movie. It was nothing to great, but it had some nice moments, and really ended up feeling like a comedy in the end. I recommend it to anyone who just wants something where they can sit back and enjoy themselves without having to really think about the plot or anything. Oh, and I loved the scene with Mya and the parking garage/elevator. Good stuff!
  15. KeithM.
    Feb 27, 2005
    3
    Cursed?! Yea, they're cursed alright! Cursed with a bad script!!! This movie was a complete let down. Avoid at all costs!
  16. VinceH.
    Feb 27, 2005
    3
    I was really looking foward to this film, but then again who wouldn't be with these credentials? Kevin Williamson wrote a lot of good movies and TV shows (the Scream trilogy, the first 3 seasons of Dawson's Creek) and directed by Wes Craven, a true American master of horror. Unfortunately, something must have gone terribly wrong during the making of this film for it to be so I was really looking foward to this film, but then again who wouldn't be with these credentials? Kevin Williamson wrote a lot of good movies and TV shows (the Scream trilogy, the first 3 seasons of Dawson's Creek) and directed by Wes Craven, a true American master of horror. Unfortunately, something must have gone terribly wrong during the making of this film for it to be so poor. The dialogue for most of it is like some out-of-touch old man's illusion of what twentysomethings in 2005 talk like, and the satire and meta-commentary on celebrity is toothless at the least. I mean come on...taking shots at Scott Baio and Craig Kilborn? PULEAZE. Wes Craven went from "Last House on the Left" and "Nightmare On Elm Street", two of the most influential and enduring horror movies ever, and gone onto this TV-movie quality material. Craven still knows how to conjure up a good scare, and in the scene where the Craven magic truly comes out (an excellent show-down in an empty parking lot), we see just how good Craven can be. He is still a decent director and with better material he can always return with a better movie. There are worse ways to waste 90 minutes, but for the price of movie admission nowadays, I recommend you hold on to your dough. Expand
  17. RobertG.
    Feb 28, 2005
    4
    Wow. This has got to be one of the worst movies I have seen in a while. First off the script is horrible. Especially the beginning and end. Secondly, it has very predictable scenes, but a not so unpredictable script. I think this is more of a comedy than a horror.
  18. johnp.
    Mar 6, 2005
    7
    It was a more clever film than i thought it would be. not a great film but still an entertaining film that is worth shelling 7 bucks for.
  19. MitchellM.
    Mar 10, 2005
    10
    Good movie!! Similar to good 80's horror movies like The Lost Boys.
  20. kevins.
    Mar 19, 2005
    9
    Not a perfect movie but probably one of the most entertaining movies of the past year. Don't expect Oscar worthy and just have a good time.
  21. wossname*
    Apr 26, 2005
    1
    A shoddy and predictable, paint-by-numbers 'horror' movie with appalling dialogue, no scares and awful CG effects. The movie is so bad that I found myself counting down the minutes until the inevitable conclusion. Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson should be ashamed of themselves.
Metascore
31

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 21 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 21
  2. Negative: 12 out of 21
  1. It's hard to tell who is more Cursed - the pretty young people who turn into werewolves on screen or the people who buy tickets for this slow, witless, predictable horror flick.
  2. 25
    Unlike Cursed, which resorts to blatant but unconvincing gore and violence, "The Wolf Man" (1941) gets its point across through suggestion, makeup and spooky sets.
  3. 20
    The film vacillates between inanity and flat-out lameness, and the decision to recut from an R-rated version to a PG-13 sucked out whatever life might have been left.