Wolfman-The Offical Thread

[TheBatman072]

Correction: It's not something you know, it's something you believe.

Believe what you like though. The average that has emerged with the RT reviews is right on the money IMO. The Wolfman is just not clicking with many, many people.

That actually doesn't mean dick.

And won't mean dick until the movie comes out across the board tomorrow.

 

[cryptic name]

Correction: It's not something you know, it's something you believe.

Believe what you like though. The average that has emerged with the RT reviews is right on the money IMO. The Wolfman is just not clicking with many, many people.

you've said your peace, you don't like the movie and that's fine. why do you feel the need to stick around the thread and bring the mood down for those of us who are looking forward to it?

 

[WarBlade]

Well, if people ask me a question, I might feel compelled to answer. If people misrepresent my post, or try to refute my opinion, then I might feel compelled to respond. Best of all are the claims in this thread that people (including myself) have missed the point...

After seeing this movie, hopefully even the the most ardent point-missing-hecklers will come to realise that missing the point is nigh impossible in this case. It's like being informed that I'm failing to observe an approaching train, while I'm tied to the tracks staring at the train and screaming that the train is coming.

So I may feel compelled to respond to that too.

 

[bullets]

The negative reviews don't seem to be enough to make me not want to see the film . It has to work on some level.

 

[CrypticOne]

Just got back a couple hours ago. I thought it was good. It actually made me jump a couple times, which was unexpected.

7/10

 

[rnewbz]

I saw the midnight showing last night. I give it an 8/10. I was quite pleased. It was pure fun and entertainment. I loved the retro feel it had. Also the cinematorgraphy was beautiful. Overall a great gothic horror film!

 

[Bad Superman]

8.5/10 details later on.

 

[Venom 1988]

I saw this movie last night and I give it a 8/10. There were flaws with the movie no doubt, but regardless I enjoyed it so much. Very entertaining

 

[cryptic name]

Well, if people ask me a question, I might feel compelled to answer. If people misrepresent my post, or try to refute my opinion, then I might feel compelled to respond. Best of all are the claims in this thread that people (including myself) have missed the point...

After seeing this movie, hopefully even the the most ardent point-missing-hecklers will come to realise that missing the point is nigh impossible in this case. It's like being informed that I'm failing to observe an approaching train, while I'm tied to the tracks staring at the train and screaming that the train is coming.

So I may feel compelled to respond to that too.

to be fair, i think it is accurate to say you may have been looking for something else than others of us in this movie. the sheer fact that you found rick baker's excellent wolfman makeup laughable demonstrates this.

 

[paranoidboy]

You can check out my review here

http://lovehorror.co.uk/?p=3464

 

[hame4479]

I havent seen this film yet, but compared to most horror fair it seems like it makes an attempt at having some kind of depth and real creativity on a visual level. I think most of the negativity being leveled on the film resides in its great cast and the hopes that it was to not only be a good horror film but a good film in general. Obviously the production was a nightmare, and the script due to the strike lacking in the depth it would take to give this film the punch it would need to escalate it into something truly great. But personally if you put an r rated gory gothic period wolfman picture in front of me compared to another saw film, twilight, underworld, or paranormal activity I cant help but think im going to appreciate the latter far more than any of the trash that comes after it on that list. I have heard comparisons to FFC's Dracula and if it is anywhere in that league even if there are plot holes and missing character development i cant help but think itll kick sum sort of ass!

 

[hame4479]

I don't normally say this but **** the critics! This is one genre where I will gladly head over to AICN an take in all of those opinions considering there absolute love of the genre, classics, and material compared to your usual critics. And the word there seems to be mostly good, and when the wolf is out and about in the film really good.

 

[Figs]

It's creepy and freaky for parts of the first half hour. Then the main character painfully contorts into a humanoid scottish terrier and the movie turns silly.

The homage is blatantly obvious. I knew nothing about it beforehand, but still the 'resemblance' was obvious. To be honest I wouldn't bother slinging the term "homage" around seeing as it's more of a "copy".

When you're remaking a classic and as you said it in your next statment below, that it's called The Wolfman, why would you drastically alter what he will look like? To use the term "copy", that would be more fitting to use in regards to a completely different and random Werewolf film that went for this look as opposed to a full on remake with the same title and story.

Wow, really?

No, I'm fine with a remake. Why would I want a quadruped? The title says it up front: "Wolfman".

I've seen the original. Your damn good feeling is incorrect as is the straw man argument about CGI.

Straw man my ass. You have clearly been making fun of the prosthetic work, especially by comparing it to Teen Wolf(which I've seen before).
If you didn't want it to be CGI what did you want exactly, especially when the prosthetic work is done by Rick Baker. Look him up if you don't know his previous Werewolf effects work as well as his work on other films.

You may not have wanted the Wolfman to be a quadruped but calling him a sheep dog is a ridiculous thing to say if you're trying to say you don't like that they used prosthetics.

I don't really care if someone doesn't like a film that I like or am looking forward to but I always tend to question someone about their comments if they seem ridiculous at times. So please, can you explain what exactly you think would have made the makeup work or overall design look better?

 

[chaseter]

It's getting SOME horrible reviews.

Don't be melodramatic.

AintItCool was stellar, Roger Ebert liked it a lot, sprinkled with good reviews here and there a few bad reviews from people who missed the point entirely. Coupled with all the fan reactions being overwhelmingly positive.

See it for yourself and decide for yourself. Don't let someone else think for you.

Did you not read my post I am going to see it, I just fear that it will suck because it is getting bad reviews. So if a couple of people give it stellar reviews then it is a great movie? It is at 31% on RT right now...yeah...I am totally being melodramatic and there are a few bad reviews

 

[ozziememz]

7/10 for me

 

[lime]

7/10 for me

Same here.

 

[chaseter]

Why are you listening to critics so much? Are you afraid to see a movie you will actually like? I mean is it some known law a movie must be critically like for you to like it?

Like I said before and I'll keep saying people put way entirely too much damn faith in critics!

Why do people praise critics when they agree with their opinions? Movies are nearly $10 a ticket. I am not going to go watch 10 movies a month. Critics help to weed out stuff I am not sure about. Have you seen me in this thread every day talking about how excited I am to see this? No. So that should tell you that this isn't a movie that I MUST see regardless of what other people are saying. The only reason I am going to see this is because I like the original that this is based off of. This movie had troubles from the beginning and they delayed the release to reshoot some stuff to change it up. That tells me that the movie probably isn't going to be top notch. So, I am going to see what critics are saying to determine if I should spend $10 and 2 hours of my life or just wait to rent it.

You don't know what I will like. If I knew I would like it before seeing it, then I wouldn't listen to critics now would I

 

[블라스]

What's the runtime for you guys?
Here in Canada, it's being listed as 125 minutes, at least in my local theatre.

 

[Hannibal Smith]

Why do people praise critics when they agree with their opinions? Movies are nearly $10 a ticket. I am not going to go watch 10 movies a month. Critics help to weed out stuff I am not sure about. Have you seen me in this thread every day talking about how excited I am to see this? No. So that should tell you that this isn't a movie that I MUST see regardless of what other people are saying. The only reason I am going to see this is because I like the original that this is based off of. This movie had troubles from the beginning and they delayed the release to reshoot some stuff to change it up. That tells me that the movie probably isn't going to be top notch. So, I am going to see what critics are saying to determine if I should spend $10 and 2 hours of my life or just wait to rent it.

You don't know what I will like. If I knew I would like it before seeing it, then I wouldn't listen to critics now would I

That's the problem though with listening to critics. That's basing a group of peoples opinions to make a choice for you. Paid movie critics and regular film goers enjoy the same films. Sometimes they come together and like a film but basically hollywood critics are stuffy and just don;t mesh with regular movie goers like myself.
My method is simple i make out a list based off information for the next year. I pre select all my films then fallow my list.
My method has never been wrong for me.

 

[redfirebird2008]

So, I am going to see what critics are saying to determine if I should spend $10 and 2 hours of my life or just wait to rent it.

If you rent it, you're still spending 2 hours of your life on it.

I'm pretty much in the same boat though. I'm skeptical about it. I will probably rent it because I am interested. I don't see movies in the theater very often.

 

[Wolfman]

How, how, hooowwwllll!!! Just got back from the cinema. Well, there it is then. The Wolfman remake. It accomplished everything it set out to do, in my opinion.
There was all the werewolf action I always wanted to see. Loved the scares, although they work only that one time, as you now know to expect them.
But they put a smile on my face. After the scare of course.
Benicio del Toro was as charismatic and soulful as ever. Emily Blunt, Hopkins, Weaving, all good.
I was a bit annoyed how quickly they ported Lawrence back to Blackmoor in the beginning, but that’s minor thing. I do look forward to seeing the extended cut on dvd tho.
I’m sure it will flesh out the characters even more and will show more tearing of the flesh by the main (wolf)man. I really hope it does, because I really enjoyed watching Benicio as Talbot and the hole premise. I want to spend more time in that world.
Loved the gothic look and loved the Wolfman himself, of course. Or is it “itself”? It’s hard to tell where man stops and the animal begins…
Anyway, so yes it was lovely to see Wolfman roaming around. The transformation sequences were fine, but I do think Baker’s practical effects would have brought something you can’t quite capture with pixels.
Because pixels aren’t really real. And talking about things that aren’t real, what the f*** was wit the bear and the stag? I mean really? They couldn’t use real animals? They could have used freaking trick photography or something, why the hell waste money making those cgi? Makes no sense.
Oh, the music. That was a drag. I wanted a grand Wolfman theme, but sadly there was none. That bugs me. I really hoped Elfman had composed something epic, like Sleepy Hollow’s theme. Maybe it was because of all the post-production mess or whatever, but the music doesn’t really deliver much.
I guess in conclusion… this theatrical cut is good, but the extended cut will be waited. And I’ll state the obvious, no matter how good that cut is, the original Wolfman will always have a bigger place in my heart.

7/10

 

[chaseter]

I go see movies that I must see and then I decide for myself. I let critics decide what movies to see for ones that I would like to see or are iffy about but can wait. This isn't a movie that I would go to a midnight showing or stand in line for so I will let critics tell me if I should spend my money or not.

Without critics, there would be some great movies that I wasn't sure about seeing that ended up being fantastic movies. I never had any motivation to see No Country For Old Men or The Hurt Locker and critic reviews told me to go see it and damn am I glad I did...because they got stellar reviews.

So this double standard with critics is stupid. We use them all the time. If a movie is doing great, people will note the RT score or certain reviewer's opinions. If a movie isn't doing so well, suddenly critics don't count and only this or that critic's opinion matter. If you must see this movie, see it! Don't let anybody stop you. If you are iffy about a movie...then there is certainly nothing wrong with gauging other people's opinions to see if this movie is worth seeing. I personally have 2-3 critics that share my taste in movies. If they like it, then I will probably like it and vice versa.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

Just got back from it. I really enjoyed it. It may be a remake, but it was different enough to call it, it's own.

Werewolf scenes were fantastic. The story did drag a bit, but there was so much they nailed right with it.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I'm surprised to be hearing that it drags. Being that it's 102 minutes.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

I'm surprised to be hearing that it drags. Being that it's 102 minutes.

During the middle, your waiting for the transformation, and there is scene after scene of talking.