Wolfman-The Offical Thread

[javphonic]

2 Q's Is it good? (and if so what film would you compare it to) and Was it scary? or atleast a bit thrilling,

I wanna see it... it's been a while (years) since I've been scared in a movie theatre, but read on wiki reviews have generally been mixed to negative

 

[DACrowe]

Well I saw it today and here is my review...

SPOILERS BEOLW. THIS IS MY ONLY WARNING SO AS TO NOT HAVE A LOT OF SPOILER TABS.


Well Wolf Man (1941) has always been my favorite Universal horror film and as I was growing up, my one of my favorite movies ever. Yeah, it is not as polished or prestigious as Dracula or James Whale's Frankenstein movies from the previous decade (Avatar to Wolfman's District 9 for a half-assed analogy). But man did I think it was perfect story that was both tragic and fun. Funny thing, I'm not sure it ever scared me, even when I saw it for the first time when I was 7 or 8.

Anyway, with that said I went into this movie with cautious but hopeful expectations. I have been following it since the script was announced. When I heard about the big twist (ONE LAST SPOILER WARNING) that Sir John was being turned into Pappa Werewolf...I was suspicious to say the least. But then I found out about Del Toro's absurd love for the original and that Hopkins was cast as this Sir John. Then the biggest selling point, that Rick Baker was going to do a faithful re-imagning of the original with prosthetics, I was bought.

Despite all the production flaws and problems I have remained hopeful. So about 3 1/2 years since I started following it, I have finally seen the Wolfman.


Okay. I think this movie did a lot of things right. Like a lot of good choices were made. The cast of this movie is superb. Ironically while I was most excited about Del Toro and Hopkins, I much more enjoyed seeing Blunt and Weaving in their roles. Blunt provided the movie with the only tragic heartbeat in it. Her heartache was believable and sympathetic. Her suffering gave the ending some of the weight that it demanded.. Weaving meanwhile was flawless as always in his small but enjoyable part. Seeing his turn from skeptic to true believer (and werewolf hunter, if that is a term) was very satisfyingly done.

Hopkins got a hammy part and hammed it up. Some say it was lazy performance and that may be partially true. But that is also because the character demanded scenery chewing as written and Hopkins had himself a meal with it.
Del Toro had the most difficult job of being the tragic protagonist who also had to be proactive for modern commercial audiences. I appreciate his passion for the part and the legacy. His embodiement of the werewolf in the make-up only enhances Baker's work and is truly a menacing performance. But as Talbot he fails to live up to the iconic and unforgettable turn by Lon Chaney Jr. He lacks the everyman pathos needed for the part. There is never a moment where the audience is invited to mourn about his lost life with his own misery.



...But that may come from the flaws of the movie.

The biggest is pacing. This film is quite uneven. I am not saying that because I felt the werewolf should have appeared earlier or later or that I want a longer movie just because I want more. I think the movie has a rather breathless pace. The beginning where we see half a second of him playing Hamlet on stage and then in a carriage while we hear Gwen's letter and then in Talbot Mansion in a matter of 45 seconds is just too fast. What should have been a rising build-up of Lawrence traveling home by train and carriage and the dread that comes with it is lost. The build up of seeing his father again is wasted. Think about the sequence of Jonathan traveling via train to Castle Dracula in Bram Stoker's Dracula or when Ichabod travels by carriage to Upstate New York and walks through the ghastily town at the beginning of Sleepy Hollow.

I think the movie is in such a rush to get to the violence, it doesn't attempt to savor the build-up. And I realize 17 minutes were cut from the film and they'll be back in the DVD and Blu-ray. I hope it fixes it, but this is a problem throughout the movie. While there are a lot of scenes before Larence sprouts fangs, most feel short and abrupt. There is no breathing room to savor the tension or, ultimately, the tragedy. And I think that handicaps Del Toro. It also handicaps the third act. The asylum sequence also goes by far too quickly and while it is satisfying in how surreal and bleak it is. There is not a moment to feel Lawrence's hopelessness. When Sir John visits Lawrence he just cuts into the spill about how he became a werewolf and murdered his family. It really feels like there is some stuff missing here. If there was just some breathing space of Lawrence (and the audience) to understand he is there and what is going on...the scene would WORK SO MUCH BETTER.

And while the ending rises to epic in tone and size, emotionally we just aren't invested in this variation of Lawrence enough for it to have the full effect. And this is sad as the original is still so beloved due to the wayward tragedy of Chaney's brilliant performance.

But I don't want to just sound like a whiner. There was a lot to love about the movie. There are sequences and scenes that work so well. This is due to the technical achievements reached here. Rick Baker's make-up is superb and IMO the finest looking werewolf ever seen on screen. It has the classic retro bipedal werewolf that I love, but the modern viscousness and scariness we expect. It is a perfect update of Jack Pierce's legendary creation. Meanwhile the cinematography steals the show for me. It is visually so slick and gothic. It feels like a colorized 1940s or '30s Universal horror flick. Every shot is brilliant. The entire film is pure eye candy by this classical approach. Just seeing the woods or moors lit by white full moon light would cause a giant grin to stretch across my face.

And there are moments that would just make me gleeful. All three werewolf attacks in the first two acts work out wonderfully. The gypsy rampage is both a bit campy in its speed and gore and completely enthralling in its entertainment value. Lawrence's first two transformations into the wolf an are awesome. I particularly like the first one. While seeing him kill those bastards in the asylum and running through London was exhilarating and I appreciated the Werewolf in London homage (with my favorite attacks, of the poor victims in the tram car) his killing of the would-be hunters in the first sequence stole the show. The barely illuminated attacks and pulling people down or getting the guy in the bog...I was just speechless about how awesome it was.

The only part that had me actually nervous was Lawrence hunting Sir John in the house at the end, but the original was never scary and I still loved it. My only other complaints are just changes that I think led to lesser returns. Marginalizing Meleva who had the best relationship with Lawrence was a mistake. In the original she stole the show and had some of the most memorable scenes. Here she is rather generic.

The other is I just can't get on board with werewolf Sir John. I enjoyed Hopkins in his role, especially in the scene where he shoots at the villagers...but two werewolves felt like a bit much and too campy. Also, the ending of the original was not improved upon. The arrogant, but griefstricken father played by Claude Raines who unwittingly kills his own son at the end is perfect. In the remake having Gwen kill him just does not match the father who proudly wanted Lawrence to carry on his name, kill his son and bloodline and live with the grief. I would have preferred that they kept the Oedipal angle, but he wasn't the original werewolf (why not a generic gypsy?) and at the end he saves Gwen by killing Lawrence with the cane. Revealing that he only did it, because he loved Lawrence who shouldn't have suffered like that or lived with killing Gwen. Two werwolves kind of worked...but not that well and surely not as well as the original film.

7/10.

Deep breath. That was my 2 cents.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Yeah the pacing and editing was a bit crap. One of my friends who is by no means a film buff or interesting in pacing or editing said to me afterwards that the film was trying to be a roller coaster ride with lots of ups and downs, but all we got were ups and stops.

 

[DACrowe]

For the record, top werewolf movies:

1. The Wolf Man (1941)
2. An American Werewolf in London
3. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man
4. Howling
5. Wolfen
6. The Werewolf of London
7. The Wolfman (2010)
8. Wolf

I haven't seen Curse of the Werewolf since I was a kid and have never seen Dog Soldiers, so I can't comment on those. Every other werewolf movie I've seen has been bad though.

 

[WarBlade]

2 Q's Is it good? (and if so what film would you compare it to) and Was it scary? or atleast a bit thrilling,

That's three questions...

Anyway:
1.) I don't think so, and I have yet to meet someone personally who thinks it's good. Everyone I've talked said they didn't like it. Curiously, it has a supportive fan base here on SHH defending it at every turn, so this is another instalment of the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" line it seems.

2.) What I would compare it to would be, Wolfman (1941) for it's inspiration, Harry Potter 3-5 for it's imagery and Species 2 for it's broad genre and entertainment value.

3.) It had a nervy start and a few jump scares in the first half hour but otherwise doesn't tread much into "scary" territory.

I wanna see it... it's been a while (years) since I've been scared in a movie theatre, but read on wiki reviews have generally been mixed to negative

Save your money. I've seen Shutter Island and there really isn't any contest. put your money on Shutter Island instead.

 

[DACrowe]

Shutter Island was a good book (though not Lehane's best) and I'm sure Scorsesse will make another great film, but to be fair Shutter Island isn't a horror. From the book at least, it is suspenseful, but never scary.

With that said I don't think The Wolfman was scary, but it was very entertaining if you like gothic horror. It has a lot of problems. But if you're not a fan of classic Universal or gothic horror, you may be turned off by either how retro it is or just see the problems and flaws in the film. I wouldn't say it is a very good movie, but it is quite entertaining if you have the right mind set.

By the way we thought it was only okay, but the people around us after it ended loved it and given its rise in B.O. on Saturday, I think the GA liked it more than critics or the Internet fanbase are giving it credit for.

 

[TheFuture]

I am a fan of old school monster movies and I welcomed the look of Johnston's of the film, but other than that it was a poor film. It felt very choppy and butchered in the editing room. I mean take for example the relationship between Lawrence and Gwen, how the hell did that happen? One moment they are barely having a conversation with each other and the next he's telling her that he couldn't live with himself if she got hurt. There was no proper development from one point to the other.

Johnston quite clearly has a lot of love for the character (everything from the character concept of the Wolfman to the general vibe was loyal to the old films), however he wasn't up for the task at all. How this bloke get Captain America I'll never know, it's like Marvel saw Rockateer and said to themselves "This guy can do all American heroes." Yeah, well, what a pity in regards to the rest of his Filmography.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Yeah, you said that in the Captain America thread (and as such I'll post this response there too) but I feel you're being totally unfair on Johnson.

You do realise that the reasons you give for the movie being poor and Johnson not being up to the task where not down to Johnson right?

Johnson delivered his cut which the studio balked at, drafted two editors in (Walter Murch and Mark Goldblatt) who reportedly cut about 20 minutes of the film out (20 minutes of, I suspect, character development) and delivered the hatchet job that got served to us.

Is it a directors fault if a studio suddenly decides to adopt the Fox approach and go for speed over quality, rejects his cut and gets in someone who edits the movie to their wishes?

 

[Hannibal Smith]

It wasn't a Bad movie just well i think am use to a Werewolf and not a Wolfman. Well i know its the same beast and all but well The Wolfman in this looked like a Fluffy Puppy really. The Wolfman looks like a Man while think Werewolves as we call them today are more Wolf like.
The Lycans in Underworld is probably my resent favorite Werewolf look.
I liked the movies Silver Bullet and An American Werewolf styles.
I was kinda hoping they would give me something horrible looking at least make Sir John more Wolf Like then his son.

I did like the fact that Hopkins character knew what he was and did not see it as a Curse. Though was clearly evil by the power. He at least excepted what he was.
He enjoyed the Hunt which is fitting for a Hunter.

 

[MAN O STEEL]

I just got back from my 9:30 showing & I gotta say, I was not impressed. I been anticipating this since forever. I love the concept but have never seen the original ( I don't watch anything before 1972 ). Everything in the movie, from the effects to the action, to the horror was fantastic, I couldn't complain one bit. However the story, editing cuts aside just felt shallow. To me it was as predictable & hollow as a story can be. I honestly felt like I watched half a movie. I have never felt like that before & I have seen many a movie where ppl claim this feeling. When the final scene ended, I couldn't help but feel cheated. I simply just felt like it went nowhere & progressed nothing. Like I said, half a movie. For action, horror, suspense, effects, I give it a solid 8 out of 10, but story gets a low 3 outta 10 for me. So predictable, so shallow, unemotional. I think the perfect word would be simple BLAND. something to do if your bored & need a night out with the misses but that's about it.





Steve

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

For the record, top werewolf movies:

1. The Wolf Man (1941)
2. An American Werewolf in London
3. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man
4. Howling
5. Wolfen
6. The Werewolf of London
7. The Wolfman (2010)
8. Wolf

I haven't seen Curse of the Werewolf since I was a kid and have never seen Dog Soldiers, so I can't comment on those. Every other werewolf movie I've seen has been bad though.

You didn't like Ginger Snaps?

 

[Drz]

It was fairly decent imo. Atmosphere, enviroment, designs and especially the music was all great. I just wasn't fond with the last 30 minutes or so.

 

[redhawk23]

i hope that the added 17 minutes aleviates some of the problems

then again, wasn't there supposed to be some preposterous fight scene with the cg bear?

 

[DACrowe]

You didn't like Ginger Snaps?

I have never seen it, I regret to say. Though I hear good things.

I did watch on Youtube Curse of the Werewolf just now though. First time I've seen it in like 10-15 years. And in all honesty, I know the Hammer fans and lovers are going to hate me for this...I didn't think it was all that good. It is certainly nowhere near the caliber of the early Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing Dracula movies that studio made. While the werewolf design was nice and the ending was good (though stolen from the original Wolf Man) that movie just slow walked with a needless early 20 minutes of bad social commentary on the nobility system and a really creepy (not in a good way) rape scene.

Honestly, that would be below all eight movies I just listed, IMO. But I still need to see Dog Soldiers and Ginger Snaps. Worst werewolf award still goes to the movie Skinwalkers, btw with Cursed and American Werewolves in London not far behind.

 

[mclay18]

Anyway:
1.) I don't think so, and I have yet to meet someone personally who thinks it's good. Everyone I've talked said they didn't like it. Curiously, it has a supportive fan base here on SHH defending it at every turn, so this is another instalment of the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" line it seems.

No, it's not like that at all. I think the majority of the film's problems stemmed from Universal's constant post-production editing (like there's no character development and no real sense of geography/time frame throughout the picture). And Joe Johnson's love of jump scares really cheapened the movie. I think a good deal of the problems will be addressed in the director's cut DVD.

Other than those problems, I enjoyed the movie. Didn't love it, but did like it. And who that particular higher-up at Universal decided to redo the movie with a Paul Haslinger score should've been shot. It's a good thing the studio decided to reinstate Elfman's score, it was wonderful.

 

[DACrowe]

I just got back from my 9:30 showing & I gotta say, I was not impressed. I been anticipating this since forever. I love the concept but have never seen the original ( I don't watch anything before 1972 ). Everything in the movie, from the effects to the action, to the horror was fantastic, I couldn't complain one bit. However the story, editing cuts aside just felt shallow. To me it was as predictable & hollow as a story can be. I honestly felt like I watched half a movie. I have never felt like that before & I have seen many a movie where ppl claim this feeling. When the final scene ended, I couldn't help but feel cheated. I simply just felt like it went nowhere & progressed nothing. Like I said, half a movie. For action, horror, suspense, effects, I give it a solid 8 out of 10, but story gets a low 3 outta 10 for me. So predictable, so shallow, unemotional. I think the perfect word would be simple BLAND. something to do if your bored & need a night out with the misses but that's about it.





Steve

Look you don't have to see the original (it is very dated, but in my mind the best werewolf story ever told and very entertaining)...but you don't see movies before 1972? Why this arbitrary rule? So you don't watch film noir, most of the great westerns, screwball comedies, classic horror, Hitchcock's masterworks, etc. etc.? No...

Psycho, Rear Window, Searchers, Citizen Kane, The Third Man, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Night at the Opera, Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard, To Kill a Mockingbird, Bonnie & Clyde, Bridge Over the River Kwai, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, High Noon, Arsenic and Old Lace, Breakfast at Tiffany's, My Fair Lady, Singin' in the Rain, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Charade, North By Northwest, The Birds, Rebecca, The Big Sleep, In A Lonely Place, King Kong The Bicycle Thieves, Nosferatu, The Graduate, Cool Hand Luke, Fort Apache, Lawrence of Arabia, The Man Who Would Be King, The Grapes of Wrath, 12 Angry Men, It's a Wonderful Life, Shadow of a Doubt, etc. etc. etc.?

Man you really shouldn't limit yourself like that. You're avoiding a ton of masterpieces.


Anyway, the plot to the original Wolf Man while very stilted in 1940s horror, is much more emotionally investing and quite different to the one in the remake (I think turning Sir John into a werewolf in the remake was a bad idea from square one).

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Saw it on Saturday, I really enjoyed it, but it did have pacing problems, and they did have a detrimental effect on the overall movie.

The cast were great, and the wolf scene's were amazing, I thoroughly enjoyed it, 7.5/10 for me.

 

[cryptic name]

I have never seen it, I regret to say. Though I hear good things.

I did watch on Youtube Curse of the Werewolf just now though. First time I've seen it in like 10-15 years. And in all honesty, I know the Hammer fans and lovers are going to hate me for this...I didn't think it was all that good. It is certainly nowhere near the caliber of the early Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing Dracula movies that studio made. While the werewolf design was nice and the ending was good (though stolen from the original Wolf Man) that movie just slow walked with a needless early 20 minutes of bad social commentary on the nobility system and a really creepy (not in a good way) rape scene.

Honestly, that would be below all eight movies I just listed, IMO. But I still need to see Dog Soldiers and Ginger Snaps. Worst werewolf award still goes to the movie Skinwalkers, btw with Cursed and American Werewolves in London not far behind.

is this a joke? American Werewolf in London is THE werewolf movie

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

[/B]

is this a joke? American Werewolf in London is THE werewolf movie

True dat!

 

[SurfDUI]

Thirded.

...1972 huh..riot. lol. EVERYbody knows you cut off @ '69...kids.
Maybe the Wizard of Oz gives him bad dreams.


I'm seeing this mug 2nite!

 

[Doctor Jones]

I just got back from my 9:30 showing & I gotta say, I was not impressed. I been anticipating this since forever. I love the concept but have never seen the original ( I don't watch anything before 1972 ). Everything in the movie, from the effects to the action, to the horror was fantastic, I couldn't complain one bit. However the story, editing cuts aside just felt shallow. To me it was as predictable & hollow as a story can be. I honestly felt like I watched half a movie. I have never felt like that before & I have seen many a movie where ppl claim this feeling. When the final scene ended, I couldn't help but feel cheated. I simply just felt like it went nowhere & progressed nothing. Like I said, half a movie. For action, horror, suspense, effects, I give it a solid 8 out of 10, but story gets a low 3 outta 10 for me. So predictable, so shallow, unemotional. I think the perfect word would be simple BLAND. something to do if your bored & need a night out with the misses but that's about it.
Steve

Wow I don't know whether to do or . But I think you made me do both at the same time.

 

[Doc Ock]

I have yet to see an American Werewolf in London.

 

[Rac]

Worst werewolf award still goes to the movie Skinwalkers, btw with Cursed and American Werewolves in London not far behind.

I don't watch anything before 1972

This thread makes me sad...

 

[SWAT]

I have yet to see an American Werewolf in London.

You. Should. Be. ASHAMED!!!

 

[CrimsonMist]

For the record, top werewolf movies:

1. The Wolf Man (1941)
2. An American Werewolf in London
3. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man
4. Howling
5. Wolfen
6. The Werewolf of London
7. The Wolfman (2010)
8. Wolf

[/B]

is this a joke? American Werewolf in London is THE werewolf movie

DaCrowe, i'm positive, meant to say "American Werewolf In Paris". Which is truly one of the ****tiest films ever.