Just finished watching the remake of The Wolfman and was wondering what you guys thought about it? I am still a huge fan of the original and watching the new version has not changed my mind at all. No amout of special effects can beat good old Lon jr as Larry Talbot!
Still I would like to hear your comments.
Well..I haven't seen it, and more than likely never will...I refuse to watch it due to the idiotic storyline ;D
My problem is...if yer gonna remake a movie,then follow the dang storyline, if not..then change the title..
The original is still better, but I do like the new one a lot! The things they changed in my opinion really didn't hurt the story, but kinda made it really good. But I still love the original and would watch it first before the remake.
If one views them as two entirely separate films, each can be appreciated for what they are, and contain.
I like both.
I agree with Opera Ghost.
You have to judge both films on their own merit.
Each has their + and - .
Personally I enjoyed the DVD Directors cut of the New Wolfman much
more than the theatrical release.
63monsterkidd
Quote from: 63monsterkidd on September 01, 2010, 01:43:44 PM
Personally I enjoyed the DVD Directors cut of the New Wolfman much
more than the theatrical release.
63monsterkidd
back atcha 63MK....I like the Directors cut better.
The original is far better with more sympathetic characters, but the remake is definately worthy of a viewing or two. I agree with the others, the directors cut is superior.
Quote from: Dr.Teufel Geist on September 01, 2010, 12:09:10 PM
Well..I haven't seen it, and more than likely never will...I refuse to watch it due to the idiotic storyline ;D
My problem is...if yer gonna remake a movie,then follow the dang storyline, if not..then change the title..
You are cheating yourself. Obviously it can never replace the original. It idnt even try, hence the new storyline. But it is an alternate take on the Talbot saga. Give it a look. After all, you wouldnt shy away from Curse of the Werewolf, Steven Ritch's Werewolf, Werewolf of London, American Werewolf in London, etc.al just because the story was different. C'mon--from one mad doctor to another--give it a go.
You may be surprised that you enjoyed it Doc. No, it's not the original, but it's pretty close with some new flavor and a vicious Wolf Man as well.
Red Box has it for a dollar a night.
looking at it as a remake I dont like it
but when I look at it as a werewolf movie...its good
I have the directors cut version and like it alot. It kinda reminded me of a big budget hammer film in some areas. The only slight drawback is when seeing the deleted scenes ,they should have left them in.
The werewolf battle was a bit too "superheroish" looking but still cool.
The original is one of my favourite movies, so I was very interested in seeing the remake.
And it's not bad, IMHO. Some cool gory moments, an effective gothic tone throughout, and if you watch the director's cut, a great cameo by Max Von Sydow.
Quote from: Opera Ghost on September 01, 2010, 01:26:48 PM
If one views them as two entirely separate films, each can be appreciated for what they are, and contain.
I like both.
What he said.
Quote from: Opera Ghost on September 02, 2010, 01:14:35 PM
"Just me....and my Shaaaaaaaaadow!"
I'm luuuuuuuuurking. Always luuuuuurking.
I enjoyed it immensely.
I was disappointed in having correctly half-guessed from the trailer that Larry's dad would also be a werewolf; I'd hoped I'd be wrong and surprised. But I also understand there was no other way for them to come up with today's requisite slam-bang, fx-overdone ending (imo).
I was surprised they showed so much innocent blood during the rampage through London. Not complaining - it fit and removed all possible sympathy for the monster itself, but increased sympathy for Lawrence when he realizes what he's done.
Sorry if I spoiled anything.
I loved everything about this movie. Everything.
Acting and actors were great, fight scenes were great, not too much gore, but enough to satisfy...great story, plenty of head nods to the original..and quite frankly...just what the genre needed.
I will go as far to say that if every monster film got the Wolfman treatment--our little "scene" would be in awesome shape as far as recruiting new fans and getting some awesome new merch goes.
While I agree with your assesment of the film, I think it's commercial failure might discourage further developing classic monsters properties and products. As beautiful as most of the Wolfman toys were, they just sat around on the clearance shelves forever. I just don't think kids can relate to the classic, old-fashioned-style monsters anymore. I can't explain why a dull, lackluster film like "Twilight" is soooo popular, and the fast-paced, dynamic Wolfman remake bombs. I guess Larry Talbot didn't show off his 6-pak enough. Well, I guess he didn't have one to begin with.
Mord I hear what you're saying and I agree with the stuff on the clearance shelf and maybe "lack of enthusiasm" from the younger crowd.
Having said that, I think if Universal were to continue with the "line" so to speak--Wolf Man was a great starting point.
It's gonna take us a looooooong time to get the..kids to see what the classics can offer. I think the only way to really do that is to saturate them with it.
That in itself is tricky business. As much as I want the younger crowd to understand and love the Universal stuff....I don't necessarily want it cheapend up. If it ended up becoming a novelty franchise...almost like Twilight has become...I think it may lose something "special".
I'll say this in closing, I loved everything about the Wolf Man film. If Creature From The Black Lagoon becomes a reality...I'll be thrilled if it's on the same level Wolf Man was.
Whether it captures the imagination of the Twilight crowd is a different story...and if it does, I gotta think it'll only be because we plaster it everywhere and ram it down their throats.
Amen!
Wolfman got bad press. I read a number of articles stating the filming wasn't going right and the studio wasn't satisfied with the finished product and the film had to be reedited a number of times. The film received medicore reviews when it was released. Parents didn't take their kids to see it because it was rated R. A number of things were against the movie at the start. It's no wonder the toys or the movie didn't sell well.
If Universal wants to get a younger audience into the Universal monster franchise then they need to get their product out. Show the films on TV. That's how I was introduced to them.
Quote from: judd on September 07, 2010, 09:23:04 AM
If Universal wants to get a younger audience into the Universal monster franchise then they need to get their product out. Show the films on TV. That's how I was introduced to them.
I agree 100%...but it's not that easy.
If they put the movies out there and make them as accessible as say...Twilight, whose to say we won't get Twlight-ified versions of the classics?
This was my point before--it's gonna be hard to walk the line here. Do I want everyone to know about the greatness of Creature From The Black Lagoon? Absolutely!!....Do want everyones hand in it? No pun intended--but
watering it down? Nope.
I don't want to see a Barbie Doll version of the Gillman...and I don't want a PG rating on it just so kids can see it.
They made a Godzilla for
everyone a few years back...and it lost almost everything that made the originals great! I don't want that to happen to the classics.
Our films and characters may not be able to run with todays Twilight, mass media friendly teeny bopper movie craze--and thats ok by me. They
can run with today's Terminators, Star Treks and Predators though--if those movies can get the glossy make over while keeping the core of it
fantastic and real to itself (for the most part...I'm talking to you Alien Vs Predator)....I'll take that.
Wolf Man was the 1st...we have a ways to go before our franchise becomes a house hold name (again)--and again I think Wolf Man was a movie for
us.
Keep plugging away at it...and we'll force them to notice the rest. Catch my drift?
Good points BlackLagoon, good horror will never be mainstream. A good example of this is Let The Right One In. It just doesn't fit a profile to make a large profit margin.
The Wolf Man was one of the best monster movies to come out in a long time. Does it replace the '41 version? No. But it offered a real update that wasn't blasphemy to the source material. I am thankful it didn't go the Van Helsing/The Mummy routes.
Quote from: BlackLagoon on September 07, 2010, 09:33:39 PM
I agree 100%...but it's not that easy.
If they put the movies out there and make them as accessible as say...Twilight, whose to say we won't get Twlight-ified versions of the classics?
This was my point before--it's gonna be hard to walk the line here. Do I want everyone to know about the greatness of Creature From The Black Lagoon? Absolutely!!....Do want everyones hand in it? No pun intended--but watering it down? Nope.
I don't want to see a Barbie Doll version of the Gillman...and I don't want a PG rating on it just so kids can see it.
They made a Godzilla for everyone a few years back...and it lost almost everything that made the originals great! I don't want that to happen to the classics.
Our films and characters may not be able to run with todays Twilight, mass media friendly teeny bopper movie craze--and thats ok by me. They can run with today's Terminators, Star Treks and Predators though--if those movies can get the glossy make over while keeping the core of it fantastic and real to itself (for the most part...I'm talking to you Alien Vs Predator)....I'll take that.
Wolf Man was the 1st...we have a ways to go before our franchise becomes a house hold name (again)--and again I think Wolf Man was a movie for us.
Keep plugging away at it...and we'll force them to notice the rest. Catch my drift?
Actually....
when I saw 2010 Wolfman in Threatres, I was the Old man in the room. 95% for teens. There was I think one or two other guys about my age there. BUT I will say to that I went to the 1st show of the run on Midnight Thursday 11th/12th
OG
I watched the movie last night. I thought there was too much gore for me. I was watching the unrated version. I thought parts of it were boring. I did like the action scenes and the make up effects. I didn't think it was a bad movie it just fell a bit short. It was worth watching. I thought it was just too long and had too much padding in the script.
BTW: I rented it from one of those Blockbuster vending machines. I had a number of family members ask me how those machines work. I found out by using one. The DVD is enclosed in a square, black plastic case and slids out of a slot. Your credit card is charged a dollar a night.
Quote from: BaronLatos35 on September 08, 2010, 07:17:13 AM
Good points BlackLagoon, good horror will never be mainstream. A good example of this is Let The Right One In. It just doesn't fit a profile to make a large profit margin.
The Wolf Man was one of the best monster movies to come out in a long time. Does it replace the '41 version? No. But it offered a real update that wasn't blasphemy to the source material. I am thankful it didn't go the Van Helsing/The Mummy routes.
Baron, Let The Right One In is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Now they've gone and made a version that the
masses can understand and enjoy--and to us old school and
real fans, the commercial alone already looks like crap.
The Wolfman would have been considered a moderate hit if it hadn't cost so much to make. Why did it cost over 150 million to make? If they could make these for less money and forego the name actors they could have profitable franchises of classic reboots. The Wolfman spent too much time and money on reshoots and re-edits. Have a finished concept before you start and consult with experts in the field (like Bob Burns and the UMA).
Quote from: Mord on September 08, 2010, 06:23:30 PM
consult with experts in the field (like Bob Burns and the UMA).
I love it!!!
Although I did like the fact Del Toro is a Wolf Man fan. The suits still needed to take Mord's advice and consult the UMA!
Quote from: BaronLatos35 on September 08, 2010, 07:52:18 PM
I love it!!!
Although I did like the fact Del Toro is a Wolf Man fan. The suits still needed to take Mord's advice and consult the UMA!
Actually, I think you might be on to something there. We've already had Rick Baker make an appearance here.
Not to toot our own horn or anything, but if this place isnt one of the major if not
thee spot for all things monster and horror related on the internet. I don't know what is.
Maybe we should be pushing the UMA to the writers and film makers before they push something to us--that may not be up to par.
Just sayin'.....
As far as thr younger croud goes, when it comes to the Universal Monster I consider myself of the "younger croud" being only 26 and I absolutely love the movies. Age has a lot to do with it because of culture in the 50s but taste has something to say as well. I like to think that I have better taste in movies then most people my age. ;D
I thought the remake was, in one word, HORRIBLE!
JP
i was watching the film again after i read a post that said it was the worst movie ever, my question to that person would be have you seen terror toons or American werewolf in Paris?
i loved the movie and a also loved the original. i grew up on horror movies with my favorite being wolfman/werewolf movies, i loved American werewolf in London and am an avid fan of rick baker i have a bit an aversion to the over use of CGI and enjoy when both make-up and cgi are married with a balance. the wolfman seems to have been made by fans of the original and i saw many scenes were Del Toro channeled the same weary sense as Chaney Jr and conveyed a similar emotional depth. i know this new versions was more violent and ferocious but you could say that the newer generation has grown up with torture porn films like saw and hostile and would not see the wolfman as a horror film without a large body count. the films are different yes but i think i would have resented a shot for shot remake and feel that the integrity of the original is preserved by the variations in story. i love both films and feel happy to see that special effects make-up is still used in a world were CGI is overused.
when the movie first came out i read post after post on other sites, were the criticisms of the film were very generic and some just said it sucked with absolutism no articulate reason for their response. it makes me like this forum even more to see that many of you that did not like the film gave intellectual and compelling reasons for your feelings and even though i disagree i can respect a well stated argument ;) thanks uma.
I stand by the two-star rating I gave it in VideoScope (http://www.videoscopemag.com) magazine last year. It was a well-intended effort that ended as a muddled mess because of studio interference and an ill-prepared director. The "twist" was no surprise at all to anyone over the age of four, and Maleva and the wolf's head cane were treated like afterthoughts.
Quote from: Count_Zirock on February 18, 2011, 02:09:30 PM
I stand by the two-star rating I gave it in VideoScope (http://www.videoscopemag.com) magazine last year. It was a well-intended effort that ended as a muddled mess because of studio interference and an ill-prepared director. The "twist" was no surprise at all to anyone over the age of four, and Maleva and the wolf's head cane were treated like afterthoughts.
i think your review is totally respectable and appreciate your articulate reasons for your review, that is why i love this forum intelligent debate, my issue is when other site reviews like the ones displayed on rotten tomatoes say nothing more than it sucked or the story was lame with no reasons why they feel that way. i may have a difference of opinion but i cam appreciate a well reasoned negative review. at least we can all agree that we love monsters ;)
Quote from: werewolfwoman on February 18, 2011, 02:28:41 PMat least we can all agree that we love monsters ;)
And I WANTED to love this movie, too. It was a bigger disappointment to me than John Badham's 1979 remake of "Dracula" -- and what a blown opportunity that turned out to be!
I need to watch the new one again as the original has about a 6/1 advantage! I did like the new one but definitely not nearly as much as the original. I don't know how exactly to explain that. I found the setting in the original so creative for its' time and so original. There is a quality about it that rises far above the special effects laden movies of late. Cheney's tortured character was perfect and the gypsy segments were so good in the original. And as I said, while I found the new version good the bloody rampages and the psychiatric treatment just went too far for me. I am not out for gore and special effects extravaganzas, I like effects in their place while actually played down somewhat. But I believe these days the studios have a psyche that you have to blow the audience away with effects and they become primary to the story. What they should think about is that many hugely successful movies these days are much more story based than effect based.
Bob K.
I am a die hard fan of the original. Next toe Bride of Frankenstein, it is my favorite Universal horror film, and is one of my all time favorite movies in general. I tend to always be very skeptical of remakes, especially when they are on some of my favorite films, I think the best example of remakes on great films not working out is the recent do-over of Day The earth Stood Still. That was just plain painful to sit through. On the other end of the spectrum is Peter Jackson's King Kong, which was absolutely mind blowing. To me, the originals of classic horror and sci-fi films will always have an advantage simply because they were first, and usually had a stronger story. What made Kong work so well, is that Jackson not only loved the original as much as the rest of us, but paid very true tribute to the original story and even the style that story was told in. Day the Earth Stood Still... not so much. As for The Wolfman, this one is a bit of a grey area I think. I personally really liked the remake. I like the new spin on the story, I like the cast in it, I LOVED the make up (but come on, who didn't??? I think that's one thing everyone can agree on! It's Rick Baker!!!) I didn't even mind the CG and the goriness and I LOVED the addition of Blackmoore Asylum to the story. On that same note, I can see why some people didn't. In the end, I blame Universal for the shady decisions made on the film (i.e. to go so gory, etc.). I like Joe Johnston, I think Rocketeer is one of the most under appreciated films of all time! I liked what he did with Wolfman, and I feel that he really cared about it and tried to do what he could to pay tribute to the original. Read any behind the scenes article and it becomes VERY clear that all involved really do love the classic Universal horror flicks (I've heard several stories about DelToro bringing in his old boxes of Famous Monsters of Filmland to the makeup chair and thumbing through them with Baker little the monster kids they both ones were... and still are!) I think the issues people have with the film lie at the hands of the studio trying to make the film as flashy and hip as they possibly could to get asses in the seats the don't belong to just the hardcore fans of the old school films like us. Unfortunately, we are a niche market, and the studios only see dollar signs, so they have to take steps to get the average moviegoer in the theater that doesn't care who Larry Talbot is and just wants to see heads getting ripped off. Did it lessen the film? A bit, but hey, I was just glad to see a new Universal Monster movie!
A well-made horror film will get butts in the theater seats, period. Johnston is a good director, but he was brought in as a last-minute replacement and didn't have time to properly prepare for such a huge film. Unfortunely, "The Wolfman"'s failure at the box-office is the main reason Universal ultimately scuttled "At the Mountains of Madness." They didn't want another $150+ million, R-rated horror film that could drag down profit margins if it flopped. Which is why it's not looking very hopeful for del Toro's "Frankenstein" remake, either.
I agree that given more time to prepare he could have done a better job, but if a good horror movie alone is what it takes to get butts in the seats, then why did the Saw movies do so well? None of those even come close to being a well made horror movie! Frankly, I don't think there are many well made horror movies coming out anymore... I think thats why, in spite of a few of it's "flaws", I really liked the wolfman remake, because as far as horror movies go, i think it's the closest we're ever going to get to the classic horror films anymore. Everything else is sparkly vampires and shirtless werewolves. Even darker horror movies have gotten really weak I think.
Quote from: creaturerevenge on April 02, 2011, 08:12:51 PM
why did the Saw movies do so well? None of those even come close to being a well made horror movie!
Tobin Bell, and Billy the Puppet. I stopped watching after "Saw III."
Quote from: creaturerevenge on April 02, 2011, 08:12:51 PM
I agree that given more time to prepare he could have done a better job, but if a good horror movie alone is what it takes to get butts in the seats, then why did the Saw movies do so well? None of those even come close to being a well made horror movie! Frankly, I don't think there are many well made horror movies coming out anymore... I think thats why, in spite of a few of it's "flaws", I really liked the wolfman remake, because as far as horror movies go, i think it's the closest we're ever going to get to the classic horror films anymore. Everything else is sparkly vampires and shirtless werewolves. Even darker horror movies have gotten really weak I think.
I agree i am so sick of shirtless werewolves and brooding sparkly vampires, the archetypes these monsters represent are totally lost when bad teen books have become the norm for the depiction of monsters. I really enjoyed the wolfman and was thankful for the gore i really liked the darkness of the film and am glad they went for the R rating.
as a wolfman fan i have a hard time seeing teen girls wearing i heart werewolves with a picture of that lautner kid, on a side note i think it is super creepy that middle aged women lust over these teens too it's kinda creepy that moms and teens are drooling over these guys, talk about sexual repression. Sorry for the tangent i just really hate the twilight flicks and miss the good old days when people were scared of monsters :'(.
Just watched this again, and there was so much unrealized potential there. If only there had been enough prep time so Baker could've done some kick-ass transformations. The script could've used a bit more polishing, too.
Still a pretty good flick though in my reckoning. Pretty much every movie these days has to compromise its potential to get made. Just have to enjoy them for what they are I guess.
I of course love the original, but I enjoy the new one a lot as well.
Can't stand The Wolfman remake!!! Grrr... I'd rather watch The Mummy remake than The Wolfman remake again
in an era of twilight waxed chested werewolves and Hostile, torture porn movies make big box office hits, the Wolfman had a hard time finding a happy audience. I think the new werewolf fan, who is into twilight hated the feral, monstrous wolfman and had issues with the graphic violence and gore. In contrast the fans of the very popular torture porn flicks, seemed to feel there wasn't enough gore and violence. The wolfman seemed to have a cult following but had a hard time connecting with today's audiences. Lets face it folks the modern Werewolf has been tamed and it seems like people didn't know how to handle the return of the werewolf as a tragic monster rather than a brooding love sick romantic figure.
I for one loved the movie, i am a fan of the original and was originally very cautiously optimistic about the remake. I found the film refreshing in an era of the tamed loved sick (neutered werewolf) a brutal monster flick returned the wolfman to a place of dark bestial horror. I think the wolfman is a cult film but failed the expectations of the studio, which hoped for a box office smash. Monster movie have always been looked down upon by critics at large and if we look at the wolfman for a niche audience i think it could be appreciated. A great example is American Werewolf In London, which had initially be panned by critics due to the introduction of humor into horror. The movie now is appreciated by many and considered a cult classic. I hope that the wolfman will one day be considered the same and i think a loyal cult following is better than being part of a passing trend. I know the twilight fans say they love werewolves but will they still love the franchise in 10 years? I would take a small but loyal cult following any day.
i was happy to see the return of the classic Gothic horror story and a werewolf with some serious bite.
When i saw it in theaters, I was so happy with it. I know the film struggled with rewrites, delays and budget cuts but i felt the final product was still well done. The makeup was solid, the set design and cinematography was fantastic.
what can i say i like my werewolves tragic, with practical makeup effects and as what they originally depicted as monsters
Quote from: werewolfwoman on February 12, 2012, 03:51:11 PM
in an era of twilight waxed chested werewolves and Hostile, torture porn movies make big box office hits, the Wolfman had a hard time finding a happy audience. I think the new werewolf fan, who is into twilight hated the feral, monstrous wolfman and had issues with the graphic violence and gore. In contrast the fans of the very popular torture porn flicks, seemed to feel there wasn't enough gore and violence. The wolfman seemed to have a cult following but had a hard time connecting with today's audiences. Lets face it folks the modern Werewolf has been tamed and it seems like people didn't know how to handle the return of the werewolf as a tragic monster rather than a brooding love sick romantic figure.
I for one loved the movie, i am a fan of the original and was originally very cautiously optimistic about the remake. I found the film refreshing in an era of the tamed loved sick (neutered werewolf) a brutal monster flick returned the wolfman to a place of dark bestial horror. I think the wolfman is a cult film but failed the expectations of the studio, which hoped for a box office smash. Monster movie have always been looked down upon by critics at large and if we look at the wolfman for a niche audience i think it could be appreciated. A great example is American Werewolf In London, which had initially be panned by critics due to the introduction of humor into horror. The movie now is appreciated by many and considered a cult classic. I hope that the wolfman will one day be considered the same and i think a loyal cult following is better than being part of a passing trend. I know the twilight fans say they love werewolves but will they still love the franchise in 10 years? I would take a small but loyal cult following any day.
i was happy to see the return of the classic Gothic horror story and a werewolf with some serious bite.
When i saw it in theaters, I was so happy with it. I know the film struggled with rewrites, delays and budget cuts but i felt the final product was still well done. The makeup was solid, the set design and cinematography was fantastic.
what can i say i like my werewolves tragic, with practical makeup effects and as what they originally depicted as monsters
What she said.
But, but, but you guys are....wrong :P
Look, I love the original Wolfman, as well as An American Werewolf in London and The Howling. My problems with The Wolfman remake have nothing to do with the gore. I understand Rick Baker's reluctance about using that much gore in the film...and I semi-agree (the original films weren't gory afterall) but this is a new era, and you can't just have The Wolfman politely strangling his victims. There needs to be real carnage to show just how monstrous the Wolfman is.
No, my problems with the film reflect my feelings with Jackson's Kong remake. Both have some pretty decent designs for their titular monsters, and both have awesome production values but the stories, and the characters themselves are flat and dry...barren deserts devoid of life or fun. What makes matters worse, is that both of these films try to heighten up the human drama but throwing in a bunch of unneeded baggage. Did we need two Wolfmen?? Did the male lead in Kong need to be a naunced poet instead of a iron-jawed man of action?? In both of these films, the changes added don't do anything but slow down the narrative pace of the film and draw attention away from the reason we all payed to see these movies, monsters.
Yes, we should care about the humans in these stories, and no they should not be stock characters. Kong suffers from too much characterization...too much substance and civility. Kong is supposed to be the best adventure story of all time( and the original still is), not some boring, period piece melodrama! The Wolfman suffers because its human characters are bland and borderline unlikable, the story in which they opperate is also not compelling and the film lacks humor, which is essential in making us like Talbot. The audience shouldn't want for him to turn into a werewolf. He's a nice a guy, and someone we shouldn't want to see suffer. Also...there really should have been more drama and thought involved in the transformations themselves....the first one just starts to happen. It needed a build-up. But most importantly...we're never given a reason for us NOT to want Talbot to change. That's the key to a good werewolf story. Sure, just like the primal side of Talbot, we want to unleash the beast on some level, but a good dramatic film also makes us regret that feeling as it means the people in his life will suffer. The female in the Wolfman is about as bland as can be...the audience doesn't think she's ever in real danger, and even if she was, why would we care??? There's no sense of attachment at all!!
Finally, there's the monster himself. Kong 2005 features a neutered version of Kong. A giant ape that's a vegetarian, love-sick puppy, is a distant shadow of the original, part ape, part man, carnivorous, primal beast that was the original Kong. Again, the film-makers opted for realism and they only ended up watering down the mythic qualities of what made the original Kong so special.
In the Wolfman, the beast is a beserker, which is great visually as it allows us all sorts of gory visera, BUT...it's not really keeping with werewolf myths and common sense. If werewolves always killed 10 plus people a night, there'd be no one left in Europe as something that viscous would continue to kill, and continue to spread its curse to others. I feel that the Wolfman remake is closer in spirit to the original Wolfman than the Kong remake is to Kong, but it would have been nice if the Wolfman only killed a person or so a night. The lack of kills would make each one more powerful, and would have allowed for some very suspenseful moments as the Wolfman stalks his prey. Now, I know there'd still need to be a big finale...so why didn't they have the hunters trying to kill the Wolfman as the finale?? It'd allow for a big scene of carnage, while still staying a little more true to the character. The original Wolfman WOULD attacks his pursuers when provoked.
All in all...these films are gigantic disapointments to me. Maybe I like The Mummy remake more, because I've always found the original films to be boring, whereas, I LOVE the original versions of, The Wolfman and King Kong.
Quote from: king_ghidorah on February 12, 2012, 05:06:05 PM
... you can't just have The Wolfman politely strangling his victims.
I still think the original Wolf Man is digging & ripping his claws into his victim's throats as he puts the strangle on them! At least, in
my monster world! :)
Quote from: Unknown Primate on February 12, 2012, 07:34:19 PM
I still think the original Wolf Man is digging & ripping his claws into his victim's throats as he puts the strangle on them! At least, in my monster world! :)
In my world too Mark!
;)
Mine as well...but anways, I was just trying to say that type of shot wouldn't work so much in today's movies.
Oh, you're absolutely right! It would look just so tame nowadays, audience goers would be like, "What? Where's the gore?".
i loved the original wolfman and feel the new one doesn't take away from my of the new one. Where you see the characters as boring, i saw the performances as subtle, no overacting or hokey one liners. The new Mummy film was more like an action movie and had even less character development. I felt invested in the new wolfman's character. Del Toros's Talbot was controlled and sad which served to contrast the rage and brutality of the werewolf.
I also like the twist of having two werewolves, they showed the doomed tragic fated characters. The battling estranged tragic family held all sorts of resonance in dealing with the sins of the father and fear of becoming our parents. The new wolfman was a modern take on Gothic horror. I also felt the final werewolf battle was fantastic and brutal.
The back story of the wolfman was that Sir John got infected by a feral boy in India or somewhere like it and so it would seem like he could possibly be the only westerner werewolf. People weren't killed in droves because he used to lock himself up but due to the fact he murdered his son he lost what was left of his sanity and refused to lock himself up after that. That is why he killed so many people in the beginning of the movie and yes i guess overtime if he lived many more people would have died. Laurance's transformed in the middle of london and went on a rampage and didn't have the opportunity to lock himself up like his father had for years before.
In the original Wolfman, the wolfman would kill whoever he came across, that wasn't very many people. In new movie the body count was upped due to the fact the wolfman attacked a gypsy camp and a hunting party.
I think the acting was subtle and Del Toro mad many expressions that reminded me of Chaney Jr. I thought the wolfman had a good build up and i like the contrast of a man who desperately tried to maintain control versus the berserker nature of the werewolf. The werewolf is the id embodied and wouldn't the Id be incredibly monstrous?
as far as the new Kong movie i wasn't a really big fan of it. I don't think the wolfman needed humor it would be hokey or out of place with the gothic horror elements of the film, it was supposed to be heavy and dark. The new Mummy was all flash and superficial one liners and don't get me started on the god awful sequels. I think the new wolfman is leaps and bounds better than the Mummy which i think was an action movie with Mummy window dressing. Also the wolfman practical effects were amazing compared to the fully CGI Mummy. :P back at ya
There always was two werewolves. Still, it seemed pretty clear to me that the film was, while truly a remake of The Wolfman, deliberately borrowing elements from Werewolf of London.
The Wolfman's characters were so subtle as to be non-existant my friend lol.
And yes, The Wolfman is an id but I'll disagree with you in that I don't think it's compelling for the Wolfman to kill whole swarms of people each night. Yes, rage is part of that Id we mentioned, but so is just wanting to be left alone, to run free through the night. The Wolfman would certainly kill you if he came across you...and he has to hunt at least once each transformation...I just think that it's a little much when he destroys a whole gypsy village in one night.
And I think the whole sub-plot revloving the elder Talbot was just stupid. I groaned in the theater when ol' pa werewolf started to change. And I also HATED the sub-plot revolving around Talbot Jr. growing up in an asylum, being tortured ect. He was already messed up to begin with before the werewolf bite!! I prefer what the original film did...taking a charming, good natured man and then showing this primal side to him.
I can go on forever...I HATE this film. Pure Garbage, and I mean...even the director admited this recently. I'm just confused how any of you can like this film, but to each their own I guess.
Quote from: king_ghidorah on February 13, 2012, 10:09:26 AM
I groaned in the theater when ol' pa werewolf started to change.
It took you that long to groan!? It was obvious that that was where this film was headed way before pops started changing!
Lol I knew someone would raise that point. No, it was very, very obvious the entire film. I was just hopeful that when they finally revealed it..that it wouldn't look so bad or cheesy. I was wrong. BIG TIME
Quote from: Big Bad Wolf on February 13, 2012, 08:44:14 AM
There always was two werewolves. Still, it seemed pretty clear to me that the film was, while truly a remake of The Wolfman, deliberately borrowing elements from Werewolf of London.
I totally agree about the elements of werewolf of london, especially in the back story of the fathers travels instead of a search for a rare flower, he was hunting exotic game. I also thought the scene where Del Toro was walking along the moors on his way to the final confrontation with his father, had the look of Werewolf of london. And yes- there was two werewolves in the original
I don't know about this one. I do not see werewolf of London in the new wolf man at all.
the original is a masterpiece but the remake made for a great film. plus im glad the story is diffrent. i want to see a different take on the wolfman, not see the same story cause i have already seen that one. both great films
Quote from: Rich on February 14, 2012, 02:03:24 AMI don't know about this one. I do not see werewolf of London in the new wolf man at all.
I thought it was pretty obvious. Two werewolves, one "good" (doesn't want to kill) and one "evil" (loves to kill); the father being an explorer/hunter and getting bitten in Tibet. And the other points others have raised.