Universal Monster Army

What are you expecting from the new Wolfman?

(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk28/hildolf/werewolf1-1.gif)

This isn't a cop-out, but I'm going in with an open mind and not expecting anything but to be entertained.  I'm a huge, huge fan of the original Universal classics and didn't necessarily need all of those movies remade.  I understand the special effects and other production values are way better these days, but there's something special about those old black & white movies.

I can totally agree. So far I haven't been blown away by any of Universal's remakes of their classic monsters. I remember Van Helsing in particular got me very excited though I ended up being rather disappointed. So yeah, not going in with hopes of a movie that comes close to the original, but I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.

 Herr Vogel speaks for me as well. I'm not going in with high hopes, just expection to be entertained. If I get a nice surpise that's fantastic.

I thought both Van Helsing and The Mummy would reek.  I was pleasantly surprised when they were tolerable.  Tolerable...not reeking. Now, that being said, the Wolfman shows more promise. What I feel the film has going for it:

1. Rick Baker: he's a fan of the original, and an artistic genius.
2. Acknowledging Curt Siodmak on the marquee posters. Acknowledging the past, and not attempting to ignore it.
3.Benecio Del Toro is a huge fan of the original film. He has also proven his merit by winning an academy award. He can be scary as is evidenced in the film "The Hunted".
4. Anthony Hopkins is in it. This reminds me very much of casting of the 1940's version having an established thespian like Claude Rains playing Talbot Senior.
5. Maleva. I dunno who the lady is playing her, but this is a nice nod to Maria Ouspenskayas elderly gypsy character.
6. The initial storyline seems intact. You have the cane, the return home after the brother's death, the gypsy woman, Siodmak's poem, etc.
7. The Wolfman is a lot of fright film fans's favorite characters.
7. The film is being played as straight horror. The Mummy and Van Helsing came off as high adventure pictures. This film doesn't seem to have that feel from the trailers.

I am going into this film with excitement. I hope I am not disappointed. Let's keep our fingers crossed that Universal has finally remembered what put them on the map and saved the company from bankruptcy many times. Monsters. Maybe they won't be asleep at the wheel this time. ;)

Hoping for the best , but after Van Helsing, I cant say I have a lot of faith in Universal.

This IS a Universal monster movie and the year IS 2010. I am expecting to be blown away by this movie. The talent is there, the history is there and the story is there. Why should I EXPECT anything less than awesome?
Weither the movie will deliver remains to be seen.

I think the move has already proved to be amazing just be the adds and hard work there putting into it. I'm confident that this move, to me, is gona be amazing!!!!! I don't think the wolfman has looked any better! ;D

I am a big fan of the original too, so my hope would be that the remake is a great film.  My expectation is that it'll be competent, scary fun.  The trailer stuff I have seen certainly looks good...the images look good.  And there are some fantastic people involved with it.  I think it'll be entertaining at the very least.

Looks great to me! The only thing i have seen that looks a little weird are shots of the Wolfman running- there is a video game essence about them (obvious CGI). But otherwise it looks like a terrific film.

I'm off to a preview this evening. I'll let you know.

I can see the videogame influence a lot in many of the remakes. I think what has made Universal's revivals of the monster franchises so tolerable was the fact that they weren't trying to make the same movie cut for cut. That being said I'd like to see a more atmospheric rendition of the classics. Like you said Anton, I think it's important to play them for straight horror rather than big adventurey type of film.

Thumbs up !! This is not a film to knock AVATAR off its perch but it's well made and a heckuva lot of fun.
You never thought a man-headed werewolf could be scary again did you? Admit it. I didn't. But this version of Talbot is terrifying - massive, fast and powerful. There are a number of set-pieces that will blow you away, along with nods to AMERICAN WEREWOLF and WEREWOLF OF LONDON. Several carry-over detail elements from the original are barely seen let alone explained, but it doesn't matter. Blackmoor has other fish to fry, stuff that genteel, conservative Llanwelly never dreamed of.

I'll be interested to know how the rest of you find it over the next week or so .....  

From what i've seen of it on documentaries and trailers, i'm very excited...Friday can't get here fast enough!    >:D

So are you saying depressedlarrytalbot was a happylarrytalbot?  Glad to hear you enjoyed it and that we have our first official UMA review.  I'll be going to see it Saturday with the wife for Valentine's, can't wait.

Glad to hear a good review! I'll be excited to get to see it when I can. I have to plow through all this snow in my neck of the woods though >.<

QuoteSo are you saying depressedlarrytalbot was a happylarrytalbot?

   :D 
He is a less-depressedlarrytalbot - put it that way. Once he was out of the cinema, the real world rushed back in. But while he was in there .... ah !

By the way, I wouldn't worry about the CGI. It's used sparingly enough and judiciously. You've seen its 'worst' already in the trailers. Personal opinion, it doesn't quite measure up on his face, in the medical school scene, but again, you've already seen that, and it's quick enough to be good enough.

All the other stuff you've read about ... the early Joe Johnson comments ... it might have been in the way he said it at the time, but bottom line, none of VAN HELSING's 'Wolf Man' issues remain here. I think you'll have fun.

Actually there is this one annoying, derivative thing involving a silver cricket bat, and some glittery gypsies ... you see, Maleva is the matriarch of a tribe of v

Glad to hear that there is at least one thumbs up so far. I hope  all of the monster kids know that I tried my best to honor the original movie and Jack Pierce's great work.
For those who can't wait there is a clip of the entire first transformation and kill on line. It is dubbed in french but still fun to watch. see it here
http://www.lyricis.fr/cinema-serie-tv/wolfman-un-long-extrait-de-la-bete-en-francais/ (http://www.lyricis.fr/cinema-serie-tv/wolfman-un-long-extrait-de-la-bete-en-francais/)

I am curious to hear what you all think of the film.
I too am not a big fan of remakes of the classics and have worked on some bad ones myself.
I figured this one was going to be done with or without me .I thought at least with one monster kid on board it might have a better chance of honoring the original source material.
This movie practically killed me fighting the fights that I fought to do just that. I will see the final cut tomorrow at the premiere.  I am looking forward to it.
It is always scary to see a film that you worked so hard on. You see all of the thing that aren't in the film, things  that you built and shot ,you say to yourself why did they use that shot instead of the one that was so much cooler. It takes a few viewings before you can totally dissociate your self from it and just watch the film.
I for one am really glad to see a big budget gothic horror film with 'A" list actors being made.
I just did a two day press junket this last weekend and the response over all has been very positive. People seem to be embracing a classic gothic horror movie . I hope it starts a new wave of gothic horror. I personally cant get too excited by a brooding teenage wimp vampire movie or another movie about teenagers getting killed by yet another knife wielding masked psycho. Give me a man cursed that changes into a kick ass monster any day.

I like the fact that this offering has an Oliver Reed-style werewolf vibe to it BUT the excessive use of CGI is a major turnoff for me. Waaay too much computerized transformation footage is being shown in the trailers . . . not a good sign IMO. I'm afraid that a great cast and nice production values will not save this.

February releases are usually pretty underwhelming.

Rick Baker, everybody !! Rick Baker !!! [applause!!!!]

Hi Rick ! Welcome to the UMA.

I think I can safely say everyone is grateful you and your artistry were such a big part of the process.
None of the CGI was bad and most of it was excellent [I never even noticed the legs in that context when I was watching, so effectively are they married to the actor running] but your Wolf Man makeup is awesome and the only thing that would do.
You did Pierce proud, mate.

I'd like to re-state also that thanks to Rick, this Wolfman is pretty terrifying. There've been a lot of hair-on-face wolfmen across the years and most were not even competent, let alone scarey. I really thought only towering dog-headed-boys could even work since the 80s and there would be no going back. We could love the classic Wolf Man but never again would he scare us. Well, this is a classic Wolfman, and he's death on legs. He's a freight train with teeth. The UK critic Kim Newman has already posted a review in which he says he hopes this version makes at least enough to get a FMTWM sequel greenlit.  :D  Why not? but the Frankie we know and love is gonna pee his pants if he has to take on this horror ... there'd be none of that cat-scratch-from-the-top-of-the-lab stuff goin' on here .....      [sorry Lon]

Hmmm ... the imdb seems to think that the CGI lower-legs I admired so much in the running scenes were Rick's work and CGI was only used in the transformation.
If that is true, I'm doubly-impressed. It would be like mastering a full-on sprint on stilts.

I also loved the film.   There were some in our little band of preview-screening attendees that didn't care for it, but even they all agreed that the scenes with the Wolfman were all good stuff.   

Nice to see your medium-close up cameo too, Rick.  :)

Now to look forward to the 17 added minutes that Joe has said will be back in for the extended DVD cut...

I really have no problems with the way this new Wolfman looks. While the classic Wolfman is a wonderful film- let's face it- he looked like a puppy with an underbite.

I am excited to see this after the mostly good reviews. Rick, your work does indeed look fantastic! :D

I had a private screening last night and loved it.
Respectfull to the cource material and great work (and a cool cameo) by Rick "they made the Oscar category for me" Baker.

This is my favorite film of 2010!

Welcome to the group Rick and hope you poke around this forum for other things that may interest you! 

I plan to see it soon (as soon as my daughter's schedule is free) and will give you my review on it.   

Brian

Profanity?? Sexuality?? I want to take my 9 year old MonsterKid and need to know if I should. Thanks!

BTW Mr Baker.........I involuntarily genuflect every time your name is uttered. Honored to have you in our little crypt!

A happy Early Birthday to Lon Chaney, Jr.  The only Wolfman in town!

I'll stick with the REAL thing...

Elisabeth  ededed  <VBEG>

Quote from: Scatter on February 09, 2010, 03:39:34 PM
Profanity?? Sexuality?? I want to take my 9 year old MonsterKid and need to know if I should. Thanks!

My 3yr old daughter said something about the family going to see the new wolfman movie and I had to say,  "Sorry pumpkin I don't think you'll be going to see this one.".  Both her and my 2 1/2 year old get to watch the trailers though and the love it.

Quote from: Scatter on February 09, 2010, 03:39:34 PM
Profanity?? Sexuality?? I want to take my 9 year old MonsterKid and need to know if I should. Thanks!

Very minor on both counts.   No 'harsh' swearing, and only the barest hints at sexuality.

That said, the film is much gorier than I expected.   So judge accordingly depending on how desensitized they are.  :)

Thanks guys!!

Welcome to your 1st post at the UMA.  I hope you can use this place to unwind and be yourself when time allows.  There are a lot of fans of yours here (followed your career for years myself), but we're all monster kids like yourself and I'd love to see you enjoy yourself around here.  I'm sure your monster collection has some special pieces.   ;)

Rob

I did not see Van Helsing of the Mummy re-make.  I don't plan to see this or any of the other planned re-makes.  All the CGI and blood doesn't do anything for me. 

Don't get me wrong about gore - I like all the pre-CGI slasher movies.  It just doesn't seem to fit with my tastes in Classic Uni Monster movies.

I am glad that the Woflman is stirring up so much interest in the basic mythology.  I hope there is an audience spillover into renewed interest in Chaney movies.

Yeah, the new Wolfman is exquisitely gory. Claw and fang action galore!  ;D
It's got a really effective, brooding, gothic tone throughout, too.

I'm very encouraged by the comments from Mssrs. Baker and Del toro - both true classic monster fans that "get it", up date without "reimagining". The comments coming from early previewers sound promising too.
Can't wait!

BTW, thanks for posting Mr. Baker!

I'm trying not to watch or read anything about this movie.  I want to see it without any preconceived notions.   I'm hoping it will be better than Van Helsing, and I liked Van Helsing better than many did.  It's getting lots of hype, ads, etc.  Friday is only a couple days away and I'm there!

Quote from: monsterbaker on February 08, 2010, 07:35:42 PM
I personally cant get too excited by a brooding teenage wimp vampire movie or another movie about teenagers getting killed by yet another knife wielding masked psycho. Give me a man cursed that changes into a kick ass monster any day.

Here, here! I'll drink to that any day! And welcome to the UMA Rick Baker! So very cool to have you among us.

I watched it a few hours ago and I have to say how struck I was at how much Del Toro looked like Lon Chaney, it was mostly his the eyes being that of a tortured soul. The film is magnificent and I see the Oscar going to Rick for his make up, I won't spoil the film with any details but I enjoyed the Wolfman running and the first change was brilliant. Malvea was played by Geraldine Chaplin Charlies daughter a fine actress in her right. On a side note there was a murder trial in England today were the girlfriend of 16 years poisoned her former lover with Wolfsbane!

caught this on yahoo:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_en_re/us_film_review_the_wolfman (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_en_re/us_film_review_the_wolfman)



Bizarro Jeff

Quote from: monsterbaker on February 08, 2010, 07:35:42 PM
I will see the final cut tomorrow at the premiere.  I am looking forward to it.
It is always scary to see a film that you worked so hard on. You see all of the thing that aren't in the film, things  that you built and shot ,you say to yourself why did they use that shot instead of the one that was so much cooler. It takes a few viewings before you can totally dissociate your self from it and just watch the film.

We'll we get to hear your thoughts on the premiere when you have time?  I'm sure everyone here would love some of your insight on the final film.

I'll be amongst the first to see it when it's the screens up here in the great white north. The Wolf Man was always my favorite of the classic monsters, largely due to the believability Lon Jr brought to the role. I love how Rick revamped the look to make it a modern, terrifying monster while keeping enough of the classic look to make it instantly recognizable. With del Toro, an excellent actor with genuine respect for the original film, breathing life into Rick's creation I'm just excited to see it all come together.  I'm going into it with the attitude that, even if the film doesn't live up to my expectations, it'll be great just to see Larry Talbot on the screen instead of some unimaginative, generic slasher flick.

Just my 2 cents...
Lee

Oh Yay for me.  Yay Yay yay.

I'm excited and very positive. 
The talent involved, the straight horror, the gothic atmosphere, and Lawrence Stewart Talbot on screen (for the first time since Abbott and Costello met him in Florida!  LOL)  And played by Benicio Del Toro!!!  Perfect.
Fun Trivia: Benicio Del Toro can name (by memory) which monsters were on the covers of every famous Monster Magazine...in order.  (A trick he shared with us when he was in Austin for Sin City).

That kind of Monster Kid devotion earns my respect and admiration. 
Talbot just couldn't be played by anyone else.

And Rick Baker...well, I think we all know how much Monster Juice pumps through his heart.  I've read (with keen interested) his battles for the look of the Wolfman and his hardships in trying to work and remain true to what he knows it should be... with 50 chefs in his kitchen trying to tell him what they want.
I'm just thrilled that The Wolfman has ended up with clothes on and not a long canine snout....heck I'm thrilled that it's Benicio IN MAKE UP!

Bravo Rick.
You have once again proven yourself as a hero of horror.

Most definately... Yay!
I have my tickets for the 9:40 pm show tommorrow night and I'll be attending with a bunch of friends, a great group of us...all very excited and all ready to howl with delight.
The medical school scene alone (from the brief clips I've seen) have me excited to see what carnage Talbot will unleash.

So...with an eye to the future of our beloved Universal Monsters...I say bring on the next generation!
Oh...and Mr. Baker, IF Universal greenlights a Frankenstein project...and YOU are (once again) the Master Monster Maker, Pierce would approve.

With the moon full and bright,

Prof. Griffin

With regards to the Yahoo review, all I can say is "big fat hairy deal". Evidently the reviewer is not someone who "gets it". To give a film one and a half stars out of four is to rate it with the Grinch Who Stole Christmas with Jim Carrey. Whatever.  Its my hope that this film is the perfect amalgamation of Universal era and Hammer era Gothic horror films. To the reviewer's credit thoguh, they did pick up on one point that could be the very reason why the film could be come a hit among our tribe:



To their credit, Johnston, Del Toro (also a producer on the movie) and their collaborators use Lon Chaney Jr.'s "The Wolf Man" as a solid starting point rather than simply a hook for a modern jumble of action, digital effects and wisecracking characters.

To call the film funereal and not "fun"...cripes.  The original Wolfman wasn't fun either, if anything it was extremely sad.  I remember my late grandmother telling me stories about how she left the theater crying. Apparently it had hit a nerve with her. The film remained one of her favorites, but occasionally she would still tear up at it. I am still cautiously optimistic, and will share my opinions on it tomorrow after I view it. Spoiler free of course. ;D ;)

There's a showing here in Mpls late this evening at 12:01 am (Frid. morning).

* Close circuit to Packy and Scary Terry Beatty (AMC Southdale).

I will be seeing it tomorrow morning at 10:00 am sharp. Can't wait!

Will be joining the masses and seeing it tomorrow night!

Color me "cautiously optimistic". It certainly looks better than dreck like Van Helsing (the Batman & Robin of monster movies, IMHO), and seems to actually have the dark tone of the original. Remakes are always a dicey proposition. On the one hand, you have a classic that is beloved by millions, and that is sacred territory to some. On the other, you have to view it in the same vein as any sort of classic story. Reinterpretation is always a way to bring new life to an old tale, and the only way to keep some stories from disappearing into obscurity.

That having been said, a filmmaker must tread a thin line when remaking a classic. It must respect the source material, yet it can't just carbon-copy it (take a look at the pointless retread of Psycho). Not all remakes are bad: see Carpenter's The Thing, Scorscese's Cape Fear or De Palma's Scarface for examples of fine films that were remakes. In all of those cases, the directors involved were respectful of the originals, yet also put their own spin on them.

It certainly seems like this film has the right tone, and Del Toro has the same look of quiet despair that Chaney did in the role. Rick Baker's involvement is a MAJOR plus, IMHO, since he is truly a master of special effects. I truly hope this film IS the return to classic gothic horror that it appears to be, and that is sets a precedent for horror remakes. If so, then this could be the first film in a revival of the Universal Monsters!!!

There seem to be a lot of meh reviews in the press, and I can't imagine what the critics concerned were expecting. This is THE WOLFMAN  .... hello ??

As Graham Chapman once said, "There's no pleasing some people".

I've noticed a trend that both consoles and angers me, that the negative reviewers tend to be very poorly-informed about the subject both past and present. One party took the current version to task for its overuse of CGI and "stop-motion". Well I differ about the first and as far as I'm aware, the second is completely inapplicable. That makes the reviewer your basic idiot, but an idiot with influence, which is pretty galling.   

Well, after planning two vacations timing them carefully so I would be home during the previous supposed release dates I have given up and have no other option than to see it here in Kuwait.  I went to the theater and it is not released here on the 12th but next week, not sure which day.  I will go and see it, censored and with Arabic subtitles and do my best to enjoy it with those distractions. 

I am really looking forward to seeing it.  I am hoping for the best and think it should be awesome. 

Have fun for all you fortunate folks who get to see it today or who were fortunate enough to catch a sneak preview.  Have pity on us poor unfortunates who are stuck in the desert and have few viewing options. 

I plan to avoid threads or discussions until I get to see it so my posts will be late in the game (have pity). 

I am joining Depressed Larry Talbot, now just call me depressed Wolf Man. 

So me are thee and thee are me?

Wolf Man .... you complete me. :D

I will be viewing the Wolf Man in less than 2 1/2 hrs.

Dear Mr. Laemmle in the sky, please don't let this be Van Helsing all over again.

I'm gonna say Nay followed by a Yay.

I went to see it with my dad and 2 brothers last night at the midnight showing. We had our wolfman t-shirts and all and I for one have been looking forward to this movie for 2 yrs i think now.

The movie was awesome and the story was great BUT a word of advice: Do not go to this movie expecting it to be a remake! I did and was disappointed in that regard. The plot was so loosey goosey based on the original I was let down. There was virtually no scenes reminiscence of the old film. Sure he gets bitten by the beast in the woods, but the circumstance for why he was there was completely different.

I don't want to spoil the plot for any UMA members who haven't seen it yet. But in a week or so i'll post more details.

In closing i guess i was expecting this to be a remake like the latest halloween was. Halloween was a remake but stuff was added. Alot of scenes from the original were there - some had dialogue changes or details twisted a little, but it was the SAME MOVIE UPDATED! Thats what i was expecting from wolfman. I didn't feel like this was the same movie at all. I would have LOVED for them to use some of the melodies from the original score in the new score. After all it was all orchestral - it would have been so easy to throw in  a little "Bahh BUM Bahhhhhhhh!"

Not what i was expecting. :-\

Well I saw Wolfman in last night at 21:01 AM (Roch. NY) with my 3 sons. Our reviews are mixed. Ill hold off on my review as to not sway others. But I will say I really liked it a lot.

Because of all the massive amounts of clip leaks, production rumors, and our own expectations. I'd suggest that when you see it, try to remove any preconceived notions you may have about the film. Remember this is a retelling of the Talbot Wolfman legend and not a remake of Lon Chaney's Wolfman. Any attempt to remake Lon's version would be a disappointment to us true Universal fans.

I hope you all enjoy the film as much as I did

Dada   

Hope to see it soon....

Quote from: SirJon on February 12, 2010, 10:32:44 AM
I'm gonna say Nay followed by a Yay.

I went to see it with my dad and 2 brothers last night at the midnight showing. We had our wolfman t-shirts ....

WOW... I went to see it with my 3 sons, And I made us custum t-shirts also! That must mean you are my oldest son!!
"Lo and behold, the prodigal son returns."

Is there anything that watching a Universal Monster Movie cant make even better?
I had fun with you guys last nite.






   

Just got back from seeing the Wolf Man, and boy am I happy to say I loved it! Universal finally does it right! This is NOT Van Helsing - thank God! I'll be careful not to spoil the movie for anyone by divulging any story details. Let's just say there are some twists and turns that I didn't see coming. And I liked the surprises a great deal. A very nice telling of the original story mixed with some creative liberties. None of which insulted or weakened the original Siodmak story in my opinion.

There has been much said about this film being too gory. I disagree with this, and I hate gore in horror films. The blood that is in the film is necessary to the film and was not used to satisfy any blood lust with today's modern horror audiences.  C'mon, we're talking about a vicious wolf man who attacks it's prey. There's gonna be some blood. There was however one decapitation that I felt was unnecessary. The rest of the blood was only relevant to the story. Not a distraction to me in anyway. The film is dark, dreary, gothic, and depressing. Just like a good horror film should be.

And Del Toro is Lon Chaney Jr. with all the same pathos in his tortuous face! It was almost uncanny I tell you. I saw Lon all over Del Toro. The rest of the cast was solid with Anthony Hopkins giving his usual strong and enigmatic type performance.

Most importantly, the CGI does not overpower the film or the actors in anyway - unlike Van Helsing did. Rick Baker did a fantastic job in keeping the look of the original Chaney wolf man and yet keeping it relevant with today's audiences. That having been said, this wasn't a hyper jacked up werewolf that didn't even resemble a person unlike so many other werewolf films before it. This werewolf still looks like an inflicted human being turned lycanthrope. And that in my opinion was a very wise decision.

Go see it and forget about any of the negative reviews you may have read. Those reviewers are the same folks who have been weaned on today's cinematic excesses. They were probably looking for the next Van Helsing or something equally ridiculous like one of the Mummy sequels.

I'm giving this film two thumbs way up! The Wolf Man lives again! Chaney Jr. shall never die! Universal done good!

fmofmpls, Nice review. My sentiments exactly. 

Quote from: SirJon on February 12, 2010, 10:32:44 AM
In closing i guess i was expecting this to be a remake like the latest halloween was. Halloween was a remake but stuff was added. Alot of scenes from the original were there - some had dialogue changes or details twisted a little, but it was the SAME MOVIE UPDATED! Thats what i was expecting from wolfman. I didn't feel like this was the same movie at all. I would have LOVED for them to use some of the melodies from the original score in the new score. After all it was all orchestral - it would have been so easy to throw in  a little "Bahh BUM Bahhhhhhhh!"

Not what i was expecting. :-\

Not what I was expecting either, and thank God because of it! I felt many of the same ingredients from the original film were there though. Many things to recognize. Talbot Castle was there, Sir John was there, Larry Talbot was there, Larry's dead brother was there, Maleva the gypsy was there, Gwen Conliffe was there, even Conliffe antiques store was there!

Again, this is just my own individual opinion, but I felt it was a brilliant mix in paying homage to the spirit of the original film all while providing something fresh, new and relevant to the original story. I would have been the first one to cry wolf had they strayed too far from the spirit of the original film and storyline.

See my full review in my earlier post.

Ok, General, if you say so!  I'm seeing it this weekend with my wife & kids (19 & 25 years old).  After reading The Famous Monster of Minneapolis' review, I'm going in with a bloodlust! 

 I seen the new movie today, and iam pleased with it. Its not really a remake, but a new version of the Talbot story. We monster fans all know the story of the 1941 original, and after seeing the new movie, there is definetly some surprises and twists to this new movie. Some of the character names are the same, a few different additions to the characters storylines are not the same as the original, but all in all it was a good movie. For all new Wolfman fans who dont know the original version from 1941, lets just say it has its differeances. The wolfman scenes are great, and the way the wolfman is built in his upper body & shoulders are very muscular very  cool. Looking forward to the dvd release in the summer.

fmofmpls,

Yes, i agree the characters and overall sequence of events were all there (and i did notice the Conliffe antique shop was VERY similar to the original set). I think i need to see it again (maybe tonight) because like i said i went in expecting to see a more direct remake like Halloween. I guess some of the things they changed i wasn't expecting and they bothered me. I didn't like the relationship change between Sir John and Larry, as well as the fact that Gwen was his brothers fiance'/wife or whatever. I missed the Jenny Williams character and her crazy mother. I mean in retrospect some of the scenes were still there like Larry going back to see Gwen at the shop, the telescope scene w/ Sir John. I dunno maybe i'm just too closed minded but this is a remake of a movie I watched thousands of times as a kid and I feel like it should have been a more straight forward remake.

Hey Terry I.,

Just came back from seeing the Wolfman... LOVED IT!!!!!!! and your review!

I can't wait! Rats the wife is out of town til tomorrow night...and I have kids... But there is an 11:30pm showing tomorrow-  that's almost perfect! How much Mountain Dew would that take!

The thing is that as a remake it lets you have your cake and eat it too. Nothing detracts from the original, while the new one carries over sufficient elements to say that the filmmakers acknowledge and honour their creative debt to the Chaney film, but give us enough new stuff to make things interesting.

I haven't seen the more recent version of PSYCHO but the consensus among friends who have, was that it was pointless.

If you're a Marvel reader, it may help to think of this as 'ULTIMATE WOLFMAN'. That is, unless you detest the 'Ultimates' universe [I don't, and again, nothing invalidates the original which is still there. This is also literally the case with STAR TREK now, which even goes to the length of telling us the original universe remains]

     

     After seeing "The Wolfman" today, I feel more disappointed than anything else....I was hoping "Wolfman" will usher in a new era for the Universal Monster creatures, but aside from the special effects, which were excellent (I especially liked the scene with the Wolfman howling at the full moon), I was less than impressed with the story.

     Del Toro didn't display any of the pathos I associate with Chaney's Talbot, although the continuity with character names was a nice touch, but Anthony Hopkins is no Claude Rains either.

     Still, seeing a new werewolf movie is always good.


Bizarro Jeff

 I was surprised how they put Gwyen as a future Talbot  family member. The death of his brother, the telescope scene, the gypsy woman miliva, and the antique store was the only things they kept in the story from the original. I was glad they kept most of the original character names, but the other twists were very un-expected. I dont want to say too much for those who havent seen it, but the wolfman scenes, close up wit his snawrl, and roars were great. And his muscular build was great.

Just got back from seeing it.

The good:

The sets, atmosphere, costumes, special effects, and most of all the MONSTER were brilliant.

The soso:

The movie featured some marvelous actors, but I thought Hugo Weaving stole the show from Del Toro and Hopkins, even with less screen time and lines.   I never felt like Hopkins was fully engaged in the role, and Del Toro never seemed to achieve the proper sense of urgency, even though he had some exquisite moments.  Emily Blunt did a nice job too.  

The bad:

I'm usually a big fan of Danny Elfman, from his Oingo Boingo days and through his career in film scores, but this was not a good effort from him.

The spoilers (black on black text):




I thought the movie was boring.  It was just the gothic horror tale we want it to be, and it was boring.  There were exciting action sequences, not in the typical action-adventure sense, but in the classic horror sense...  it wasn't a roller coaster, it wasn't deep, the story was like a dark ride at the State Fair, where you pay $5 to get in a little car and see a couple of cool things before it spits you out the other side.  Certainly there are other gothic horror movies in Universal's canon which are more boring than The Wolfman, but there are also many better.  The place it failed for me is that it gave the characters rather complex interpersonal scenarios, and never developed them very well, aside from making it known that they exist.  And the part of classic horror that I think we all love the most is the struggle between the man and the monster in one person.  Del Toro arrived as a successful actor, only to be attacked and turn into a werewolf.  His humanity was never really established before he was attacked, and his struggle with the monster inside him was never fully explored, only his anguish at his situation.  Hopkins was at peace with his monster, but the relationship between him and his son(s) was not only never explained, it didn't make a lot of sense.  



To sum it up:
It had all the elements of a great gothic horror story, and it's a solid effort from Universal, but in the end... it's not a great movie.  A good movie, but not a great one.  I HOPE it's very successful so Universal will so some others.  It is a million billion times better than Van Helsing.  I liked it better than the Kong, the War of the Worlds, the Forbidden Planet, etc. remakes too.  

I had soooo much hope for this movie, but im disappointed. Iv seen it twice trying to find good in the bad but i just can't seem to not be let down. I think they made it to much of a bloody action movie rather then real horror. I thought the wolfman looked great! But the ending i thought was terrible and corney (the battle scene), really ruined it for me.

Quote from: Bizarro Jeff on February 12, 2010, 06:59:51 PM
I was hoping "Wolfman" will usher in a new era for the Universal Monster creatures,

I think it's too early to say it won't.  All it has to do is make a nice profit for Universal, and they'll make more.  Perhaps one of them will be a great movie.  The movies we remember and talk about from the classic era...  there were others that were utter flops.  Movies that got all the hype but didn't deliver.  Dracula's Daughter comes to mind right off...   if you were expecting a timeless tale and a great movie...  you probably had your expectations set too high.  I was hoping for better than Van Helsing or those Mummy movies...  and I'm happy that it achieved that.

I just got back from seeing it with my wife and daughter (almost 13).  I was concerned that there might be too much gore for my daughter, but after reading some, decided that it probably wouldn't be gratuitous.   I feel that it wasn't and would rather my daughter  (and myself for that matter) watch this 10 times over than watch 10 minutes of a Rob Zombie movie.  If anyone is looking for an exact remake, you're fooling yourself.  No one can ever capture the identical feeling of the films back then and still be financially successful. 

In THE WOLFMAN, the visceral attacks and the blood were quick and the camera didn't linger on it for shock value.  The coloring of the film (at least to me) at night seemed subdued giving it an almost black & white look to it.  The cinematography as a whole was beautifully shot and I thought a lot of attention was given to capturing the look of the period.  There were several times during the film when I looked at Del Toro and was quite taken by how much his facial expression really reminded me of Chaney.  As Bobby mentioned, Hugo Weaving was very good, but I always think of him as a stand out actor, so there was no surprise there.  Even the older woman at the pub/inn (I believe this was Mrs. Kirk played by Lorraine Hilton?) reminded me of Una O'Connor in THE INVISIBLE MAN, but not as campy. 

The transformations and the make up were great and it must of have been difficult for Rick baker to come up something different.  I was hoping that I wasn't going to see AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON retread, and I didn't.  Kudos to you, Rick. 

Probably the best part was my daughter saying how cool it was.  She watches an occasional horror movie, but is not totally obsessed with them, but it was a nice change from the werewolves she's used to seeing in her TWILIGHT films.

Rob

  IT WAS AWESOME !! Great acting ,action,music, Rick Baker outdid himself on the makeup !" and the coolest most scary Wolfman ever on the screen ! Very violent I must say" the wife did not like that" but it made the Wolfman even more beast like in my opinion. A true Monster flick ! 10 paws up !

Quote from: Toy Ranch on February 12, 2010, 07:49:17 PM
if you were expecting a timeless tale and a great movie...  you probably had your expectations set too high.  I was hoping for better than Van Helsing or those Mummy movies...  and I'm happy that it achieved that.

My feelings exactly. I went into this movie with one expectation - to be better than Van Helsing and the insipid Mummy sequels. And that it achieved hands down. This is a really decent monster movie. That in and of itself is something we haven't seen from Universal in a long time. This isn't a cinematic opus for the ages. Did anyone really expect one from a movie titled The Wolf Man? Seriously? It's not Casablanca, Star Wars with a brilliant John Williams orchestral score, or even a ground breaking fantasy film like Aliens. It's a decent monster movie and nothing more. Go out and enjoy it for what it is. And be thankful that it wasn't a cartoonish mashup like Van Helsing was.

I also loved that the Wolfman also have a lot of screen time ! Most Werewolf movies you see the monster halfway through the film and only a few times after that..in this version THE WOLFMAN IS THE STAR ! not Larry,not dad,not the love interest..THE FREEKING WOLFMAN IS !!! :) I got to see it again  :)

Tom

I am so happy that most everyone likes it!  I got tickets for Sunday so I have to wait darn it!  Boy, I really can't wait to see this!  But for tonight I will be viewing the original.

I thought Danny Elfman score was great ! Very much in the background but great.

I saw it today with my 8 year old son Wolfgang ...yes he's 8 ...   we live in a world of magic and monster 24 hours a day...and he is allowed to see violent films as long as the violence is over the top and  fantasy ... and this was !!   We liked the movie a lot but thought the intro/ beginning was a let down and the character stuff in the begining was very boring ... but when he changes ...look out ....what a ride . I loved the way he ran on 2 legs and then would switch over to 4 !!!  The make up .... perfect homage to Lon Jr and Jack P . The gore was top notch and I like the way the action was directed .  Was it just me or does Deltorro look a bit like LON JR?
A fun and exciting day for a monster lover !! All Hail Universal monsters !

 Fantastic in almost every way.

I'll go see it again..   A HUNDRED TIMES!  I thought it was fantastic.  I don't want to spoil the fun for anyone so I'm not going to comment on the movie.  But, it reminded me a lot of watching an old, classic Universal monster film... Updated for today's audience for sure, but it had that old "monster" feel...  I like that it was set in the Victorian era... PERFECT! 

I saw it here in the UK on wednesday night and i had the hugest smile on my face for the whole film.
Loved the setting, Del Toro was perfectly cast, the wolf make up shocked me at how good they mixed man and wolf. The Chase scene on the rooftops is awesome and THE fight scene more or less had me drooling haha

I liked the movie.  I didnt love it though.  The only reasons I didnt love it were the obvious "ooohh---lets do this w/Hopkins" part and the lack of interaction between Maleva and Lawrence. In the original film, Sir John is a radically different character and a tragic hero.  In this one, well...lets just say blah. The addition of Talbot's mother and lack of Maleva's son destroyed the relationship we experienced in the first film. But I walked away realtively pleased and hope we see more in this vein.

I also felt as though I was watching a Hammer Films remake of "The Wolfman"... I think the color,  gore and violence,  Gothic settings.... which I've always liked in a Hammer film... not to mention.. even the music had a Hammer feel..... Del Toro also reminds me of a young Oliver Reed... also the Wolfman's "stature"  is very reminiscent of the Curse of the Werewolf.  Broad, more muscular  and powerful.

I agree with Anton Phibes, he hit the nail on the head. I think if they would have gone in this direction it would have been a better movie. I liked it for the most part, but like Anton Phibes I Liked it but, did not Love it. And to tell you the truth when I got home from seeing it, I popped in the Original Wolf Man just to get the bad taste out of my mouth so to speak.
But the good thing is like a lot of folks are saying on other boards, at least it will expose the Young People to The Universal Monsters.

Saw it last night and LOVED it!!  It was just about perfect IMO...great balance of everything. Atmosphere, scenery, great performances, astounding make-up, and just enough action to keep it running on all four wolf paws!!


I'm going again today.

I saw it last night and left the theatre satisfied.  Not overwhelmed or blown away, but satisfied.  
The look is great, capturing that Universal monster vibe.  
Del Toro as the Wolfman was great, but as Talbot I found hima little flat.  In my opinion the best performances here were Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving.
I liked it, quite a bit actually, and will see it again.

By the way, and a bit off topic, but if this touches off a resurgence of Universal remakes, what do you think:
Hugo Weaving as The Invisible Man?

I am still waiting for it to arrive in Kuwait.  Opinions have been an interesting read.  I read a terrible review online from a guy who came to the conclusion while critiquing the original Wolf Man that he really doesn't like werewolf films and finds them boring.  That being said, why would they let this guy review the new Wolfman?  I must say that I value all your opinions much more than some idiot who is reviewing a film where he finds the genre boring.  Sheesh. 

Saw it last night. Not really impressed. The story went from fast paced to slow off and on. The visuals were good and I liked the aslyumn scene but after that that was about it. I had figured out the movie just from the clips like I have posted and it was that predicatable. The ending reminded me of the ending of Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I prefer the Claude Rains Sir John over the Anthony Hopkins version. As usual with  movies nowadays , the graphic gore and special effects were a little extreme. I did not feel that Del Toro and Blunt had the same chemistry as Chaney and Ankers. I did not feel sympathy for the character in this version. The only surprise I picked up on almost happened was in the scene of the first attack at the gypsy camp, they had a bear that was growling because of the Wolfman being near. For one moment I thought they were going to recreate the scene that was cut out of the original where Talbot wrestled a bear at the gypsy camp that got loose. It didn't happen but the idea was there. On a scale of 1 to 10 put me down for a 4 and I wouldn't want a sequel.

"A pint of bitter, please."  Hugo you are THE man.

I loved it. I don't see how some of you folks didn't find it to be very close to the original. I mean,

SPOILERS
The scenes in the Asylum almost clearly expand on Larry's attempts to restrain himself in the original. Heck, the medical school transformation was almost exactly like the transformation in the original where he's tied to a chair, complete with shots of his feet as he changes. The father/son dynamic was the most drastic alteration, really, and even then, it reminded me of Universal's other werewolf movie, "The Werewolf of London". The feral child thing seemed to be a pretty clear nod to an early draft of the original film's script, too.
SPOILERS

Hopefully it's successful enough at the box office that Uni decides to resurrect their other classic monsters. It's been too long since we last saw them, if you ask me.

And no, I don't count "Van Helsing" as the last time we saw them.

Quote from: Lord Blood-Rah on February 13, 2010, 12:16:10 PM
By the way, and a bit off topic, but if this touches off a resurgence of Universal remakes, what do you think:
Hugo Weaving as The Invisible Man?

I like that idea very much.

I thought it was excellent.  The production was simply  wonderful; great use of lighting and shadows...very atmospheric and gloomy...top-notch performances all around by the actors.

Watching The Wolfman wreak havoc in downtown London was fantastic!  This was easily the most menacing, lethal beast to hit the big-screen in years, imo...

Very happy to hear Del Toro is onboard for a sequel if this movie does good.

Thank you, Universal. Well done.    8)

Quote from: tv horror on February 13, 2010, 01:34:00 PM
"A pint of bitter, please."  Hugo you are THE man.

I liked that line too. In fact, it made me thirsty. I'm always ready for a good pint of bitter.

Another small morsel that I liked in the film was when Sir John was at the piano playing a short concerto while singing as Lon was confronting him about "certain matters."  It was twisted.

I wonder if Sir Lawrence...was going to eat Larry, with some fafah beans and a nice Chianti.. oh wait I think that was the man servant...:)

What is it with Hopkins anyways? He has a strange delivery as an actor. It's an enigmatic bit. Disjointed, detached at times, and even a little bizarre. He played this same shtick in Coppola's Dracula too. Personally, it's not my cup of tea. It works to his advantage though, and the film's advantage, in Silence Of The Lambs.

I just got back from seeing the film, so I can finally read the posts and comment.  I made the decision to not be involved in any discussion or read any reviews until after I actually saw the film.  I went in with no pre-conceived notions or expectations, and I am glad I did it that way.

My opinion is, as Terry said, "They finally got it right!"  This is as close to the classic monster movie as we can expect to see in this day and age from Universal.  I really enjoyed watching this movie, and in some way it has renewed my love and appreciation for the Universal Monsters.  I think Rick Baker did an excellent job at creating a modern-era film monster look while keeping a reverence for the original look of the monster.  Hugo Weaving was brilliant as always.  I was perhaps less impressed with Hopkins and Del Toro's dialogue - but I have to admit that Del Toro definitely had the look or maybe more appropriately the affect that Lon Chaney Jr. had in the original.  It's just nice to see a genuinely good monster movie again, and I am really thankful for the opportunity. 

Saw it a 2nd time today and brought my fiance' who HATES monster/horror flicks! I had to seriously plead w/ her like a little kid and promise to take her to dinner afterwards to get her to go.  SHE LIKED IT!! She had a tough time admitting it but she really liked it! I didn't even need to take her to dinner! HAHA. She said she was "thoroughly entertained" which is a real test for what the general public will make of this movie and for us monster lovers will hopefully mean more classic genre monster movies.

We'll like i said in my first post I was a little let down after my first viewing and felt it didn't stay true to the original and that the plot was too different. I felt differently the 2nd time through. I went in a little more opened minded and tried not to compare it as much to the original. I liked it! I really enjoyed it more the 2nd time. It is not a cut for cut remake and its important to understand that ahead of time. More of a twist on the original ( and they really did twist the crap outta it ) but It was good!

>:D

Saw it at 12:15 this afternoon, one thing I can say is it totally hooked me and took me on an adventure so much so that I was somewhat surprised upon exiting the theater and realizing it was still broad daylight!

What's not to like;  $5.25 for a SMALL popcorn?!?  Luckily the wife and I were being cheap and got our candy and sodas at WallyWorld.  Anybody else have to sit thru that friggin' National Guard spot!?!?  I swear it was longer than the film itself.  Also not to like, the fact that Stanley the Steamboat sat a few seats away from me, the whole first half of the film all I could hear was his breathing!!  And then him or his friend would shake something that sounded like a Kool-Aid packet every 10 minutes or so....WTF!!  I so wanted to turn into a werewolf and go all canine on their ass's but I didn't want to make a big deal and take everyone else's enjoyment away.  Oh, you want to know about the movie....

I was another "loved it", sure it was no Wolf Man from 1941 but then I didn't expect it to be.  Why would anyone want  it to be the same movie!?!  What would be the point?  The first part was quite slow but they had to establish some kind of story, this isn't a slasher flick or a Mummy adventure.  It's a period piece, a gothic monster movie.  Alot of what I've heard complaints about is acting, well maybe I'm not a good judge of acting but I personally thought the parts were played just fine.  Benecio was distant because that was what his character was supposed to be, his character had been estranged from his family for quite sometime.  Unfortunately in Hollywood there is a such thing as type casting and when you want someone to play an elderly deranged kook, Anthony Hopkins is one of your best choices because he plays it well.  Though after seeing him do it in a few films it's power suffers greatly.

Sorry but I really can't review without delving into a few spoilers. So if you haven't seen it skip to the spoiler end!!


SPOILER
Has anyone else here been bitten by a feral boy only to return home, turn into a wolfman, slaughter your wife, only to have your young son witness it??  Then you have to commit that son in order to get the memory out of his head and have your servant lock you away during every full moon for 25 years so you don't kill again.  Talk about a conflict of emotion.  It's no wonder Sir John is so aloof and, quite frankly, bat-sh*t crazy.

Next up alot of complaining about the relationship between Gwen and Lawrence; Why she fell in love with him?  Or how did they fall in love?  It could just be the travesty of it all.  Or maybe it's his enhanced pheromones that lured her in?  I don't really see where it needed all that much of an explanation; Did you come to see a love story or a horror movie?

And here again some of what people may be considering a part not acted well could have alot to do with the situation that Emily's character was in...maybe she (the character) wasn't even sure of why she was falling in love with Lawrence.

To many reviews have focused on the bear and stag being CGI.  That in my opinion is just nitpicking and I didn't see the big fuss.  It's not like they were a huge focus of the film they were barely on screen and in my opinion where actually done quite well.  And I hate when CGI is unnecessarily used.

Come on who didn't love that fight at the end?  Seriously?  Come on.  Come on.  You can admit it.  We're all friends here.  Yeah I knew you did!!  Only problem was it left me wanting more.  When Sir John went in that fire I was just hoping for a flaming werewolf battle.....but oh well.

The transformation into Talbot at the end, talk about a nod to the original.  Again CGI'd but very simple dissolve of the wolf's hair back into the Lawrence's skin.  Only problem I had with that was you didn't get him facing the camera, other than that it was a great homage.

SPOILER END

I don't know where anyone is getting that the transformations were a combo of practical/CGI, it all looked CGI to me.  Though I could be wrong.  Either way it didn't take me out of the enjoyment of the film and for the most part it was done quite subtly and in quick shots.

I did see alot of "Curse" in the Wolfman but the design seems to be a hybrid of Jack Pierce and Roy Ashton's and looks friggin' awesome.  Of course it was no big reveal since images and the toy have been out for awile.  Rick did an excellent job at retaining that classic Wolfman while adding his (& Benecio's) own style/ideas.  Again I had no problem with any of the CGI'd longer shots of the Wolfman in action, they all worked quite well in my opinion.  The beast moved as you'd expect a huge hulking carnivore to move.  The duplicity of his run was cool and something I don't really remember being done before, usually the two styles aren't combined.  If I'm wronged about that I'm sure someone here will let me know ;).

The sets again felt very "Hammerish" but that ain't so bad is it?  The last film that reminded me this much of a classic Hammer film was Sleepy Hollow.  The atmosphere was excellent; lots of night scenes, foggy moors, shadowy interiors and more candles than you see in a Catholic church.

The music never bothered me or felt out of place, so much so that I didn't even notice the score for the most part.

The gore as others have said was there in abundance but never focused on or used for shock value.  With all respect to the classics, this is so what a werewolf should be doing to his prey.  Vicious, wild, ferocious just a killing machine.  Beautiful.  I don't know maybe I'm just desensitized to it but I really can't see where anyone would find it as to much or over the top, especially with the given subject.

I think alot of people (especially here) who didn't like it, will enjoy it much more upon 2nd viewing.  I can't wait for the dvd release; behind the scenes, extra footage~

Can I just say that if I hadn't already worn the hell out of my UMA shirt I would gladly donate it to Rick, I believe he definitely earned his UMA colors!  That goes for Benecio as well!!

My husband and I  saw 'The Wolfman' this afternoon and had very different opinions, which didn't surprise me. I enjoyed it; I didn't think it was great, but over all, I was entertained. I felt it dragged in some places. Loved all the scenes with the Wolfman; he looks perfect, and I especially like this bulkier look. The attack in the gypsy camp was well-done. I thought Del Toro was nice, understated, but captured the anguish. My better half was bored with the film; only really enjoyed it when Wolfy was on-screen. He thought Del Toro was terrible with no range. So there you go.

One thing that bothered me was I had already figured out the surprise at the end just from watching the trailers. Although I still enjoyed it, it would have had more impact if I hadn't been so certain that it was going to happen.

Just saw it. Good, not  great. More like Hammer (which is cool) than Universal. THe CGI looked phoney in a lot of scenes especially when the Wolfman was running on all fours. Sort of looked like video game animation. Transformation was ok.  Liked Hopkins in the last scene.  Thought hugo weaving was kind of wasted. Nice Rick baker cameo.  Loved elfman's score. certainly worth a look.

Hammer fan, I also thought it had a Hammer look to it as well.

Just got back from a late showing....My wife, 16 year old son and myself all enjoyed it very much. My son wished there were more Wolfman scenes, which is only natural. I reminded him that occasionally they have to interrupt the action stuff to let you know that there IS a story to go along with all that. I really liked the plots twists that made it differ from the original film. I don't think anyone wanted to see a scene by scene remake of The Wolf Man. I thought Benecio did a fine job and reflected a lot of Lon Jr into the role. The asylum scenes were stand-out!  Hopkins was also terrific in providing a psychotic edge never dreamed of in the first film. It certainly isn't an instant classic, by any means which doesn't bother me any...Still a very enjoyable high quality horror flick chock full of  old school classic atmosphere that hopefully will do well enough at the box office to spur a sequel that [dare i hope?] will bring some of our other favorite Uni Monsters out of retirement.  I say GO SEE IT!

Quote from: fmofmpls on February 12, 2010, 09:19:42 PM
My feelings exactly. I went into this movie with one expectation - to be better than Van Helsing and the insipid Mummy sequels.

It was that. At least Universal had the good sense to keep Stephen Somers out of the picture. He thinks he knows classic movies but it shows he does not. I haven't seen it but I have heard nothing but bad things about G.I. Joe which was supposed to be a summer blockbuster but instead was a fast fizzler because of his directing. The Wolfman would have been a worse movie if he was involved. History will back me up on this.

Quote from: fmofmpls on February 13, 2010, 05:50:29 PM
I liked that line too. In fact, it made me thirsty. I'm always ready for a good pint of bitter.

What IS  that, exactly? Some type of beer?

QuoteWhat IS  that, exactly? Some type of beer?

As John Hannah put it THE MUMMY:

"A-mericans!"   :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


Now excuse me, I'm off for a Vic Bitter ....

Quote from: depressedlarrytalbot on February 14, 2010, 07:04:58 AM
As John Hannah put it THE MUMMY:

"A-mericans!"   :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


Now excuse me, I'm off for a Vic Bitter ....

Sounds yummy!

It is !!   ;D

I tried to avoid trailers and leaks and pictures and speculation and all that on this movie.  I ran into some of it anyway, but did my best to avoid it.  I didn't want to have preconceived notions or expectations about it.  I didn't want to obsess about it, because I knew I COULD and WOULD if I went even a few steps down that path.  And I felt like if I did, it would ruin the movie for me.  I would have expectations and build it up in my mind so that anything other than what I expected from it would be it's failure.  Even with that, I saw it with great anticipation. 

Last night I watched the original Wolf Man again, as well as Werewolves of London.  These were good movies, but not great ones.  They were silly, in the way movies were then.  The lighthearted moments were too lighthearted, and the scary, dread-filled ones didn't have quite enough of that.  Of course both are very good movies, especially The Wolf Man, but The Wolfman is not so incredibly outclassed by them.  I really like some of the changes they made to the story.  The criticisms I voiced earlier, are not diminished, but I could levy a similar slew of them at the originals.

Quote from: Toy Ranch on February 14, 2010, 11:49:53 AM
The criticisms I voiced earlier, are not diminished, but I could levy a similar slew of them at the originals.

I'm very glad you pointed this out Bobby. Coincidentally enough, I had been thinking the exact same thing! Over the passing of time, aficionados like ourselves tend to overlook the true shortcomings of these classic films all while continuing to romanticize them over and over and over. After a while, it becomes easy to label these films as "total perfection" when in fact many of them are anything but.   

I saw 'The Wolfman' and I liked it.  The film was very atmospheric, the acting was good and I really liked Rick Baker's makeup.  Del Toro did a good job with this version of the character (a valid interpretation given the back story I suppose), but had none of Chaney's great pathos.  I definitely didn't get misty-eyed like I do when watching the original classic.  Still, I enjoyed the film a great deal.  It  had its heart in the right place, and it was nice to finally see a decent gothic horror flick in the theater again. 

~Penny~

Saw this with my wife at a midnight showing. It is a good monster movie with great special effects. My wife and I both enjoyed it and I was satisfied that it wasn't a Van Helsing travesty.

Spoilers:


Positives:

- So what if CG was mixed in? It worked IMO. I liked how he would switch from 2 legged running to all out 4 legged running. It wasn't an overdose of CG and Baker's new Wolf Man had just enough of the classic look while updating him and the transformation successfully.

- It had loads of gothic atmosphere, foggy moors, dark castles and shadows through out.

- I really liked the look of the new Wolf Man, transformation and all.

- They kept true to a large part of the original source material, as a monster fan I appreciated it. It wasn't The Mummy remakes.

- I thought the acting was well done.

- I liked the new aspects of the story they put in. Something new for a new generation of monsters. It wasn't supposed to be a shot for shot remake.

Negatives:

- The build up in my own mind definitely detracted a bit. Toy Ranch and the General said it right. Sometimes as fans we put our classics on untouchable pedestals. This is a good monster movie. I am happy Universal did get it right (Creature musical?) and I look forward to a new generation of our favorite monsters.

I personally was blown away at the special makeup and story line of this new Wolfman! I loved it and thought it was better then I thought it would be. I give it two paws up!!

I went to see the movie on Friday too but i still like the old classic 1941 WolfMan better. I did not like this new movie because the story lines were change and i thought it stunk.Also what may me say this was and i gave some thought to this alot too while watching this new movie.We all know that Lon does not have his star on the walk of fame and that brings up a point about this remake that i dont like and that is this new actor who played the WolfMan if he happens to get a star on the walk of fame where does that leave Lon Chaney Jr and i can tell you that he will be cheated out of his star that he deserves to have.Its been a very long over due time that Chaney get his star on the walk of fame and being that we are monsterkids we should think about Chaney first and this new guy later on.That is what i think and feel about.

                                                                                                         Creeper

If Benecio Del Toro ever gets a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, it would not affect Lon Chaney, Jr.'s chances for getting a star.  There is a separate category for actors getting their star posthumously, such as Lon, Jr. would need.  They only give out one star a year for dead celebrities and there are other categories besides movies (TV, music, and radio).  The only competition that Lon jr. has is from other dead celebrities.  There is also the $15,000 fee for the star, and unfortuantely, I believe the Chaneys have only managed to get about half of that according to their website.  I hope that someday Lon Jr. does get one, as he certainly deserves one.

There are so many who don't deserve stars on the walk of fame who have them, and so many who do deserve them that don't have them, I am personally not even caring about that much anymore.  Del Toro won a Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his role in Traffic.  If he gets a star on the Walk of Fame thing, it won't be for The Wolfman. 

Well after leting the movie soak in for a couple days, i really do love it. not what i expected but still really good!

i did notice they left out the whole ball room masquerade scene you see in the trailer and there are a few shots you see in the trailers that arn't in the movie. Hope there on the DVD!

also wish they would have done a longer scene with Lawrence and Maleva, mabe did something with tarot cards would have been cool.

Quote from: Toy Ranch on February 14, 2010, 02:18:33 PM
There are so many who don't deserve stars on the walk of fame who have them, and so many who do deserve them that don't have them, I am personally not even caring about that much anymore.  Del Toro won a Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his role in Traffic.  If he gets a star on the Walk of Fame thing, it won't be for The Wolfman. 

The Walk of Fame is more about tourism these days than it is about honoring stars.  Sad but true.

Quote from: kreaturekid on February 14, 2010, 02:43:51 PM
also wish they would have done a longer scene with Lawrence and Maleva, mabe did something with tarot cards would have been cool.

They must have done a tarot card scene that got cut, because there was a mention of tarot in the closing credits, and I couldn't figure out what they were talking about.

Quote from: Monster Bob on February 14, 2010, 03:36:22 PM
They must have done a tarot card scene that got cut, because there was a mention of tarot in the closing credits, and I couldn't figure out what they were talking about.

I noticed that, but my wife said she saw some tarot cards in the credits or something.  Not sure... 

I know there have been a lot of shaky reviews of this film, but I gotta say that I LOVED it! They really captured the feel of the Universal Monster Movies of the 30s with just a smattering of modern brutality. I was so happy to see a Wolman that looks like the classic Wolfman, instead of a wolf head on a man's body. I can't remember the last time I was at a movie and saw women getting scared and gasping! VERY cool! Joe Johnston (director of the upcoming Captain America) made a brilliant period piece, classic monster movie here. Bravo!

My only complaint is that it was too short!

Visit me at http://www.statuemarvels.com/ (http://www.statuemarvels.com/)

Go see the movie and know that Universal did a great job to make this remake a HORROR movie. Unlike the Brandon Frazer Mummy comedies, this film is a serious movie with rock solid acting and just enough special effects to make it "modern". The story line is different from the Chaney classic, but basically follows a similar path. Be open minded and you should enjoy this film. It probably won't be a blockbuster, but so far it's the third highest grossing film of the weekend. My hat is off to Universal for having the GUTS to make a classic style horror movie instead of a Raiders Of the Lost Ark type money getter that may appeal to the masses. The acting is rock solid, the photography and composition of the film are very good. The story is a bit jagged and doesn't flow as smoothly as one might like, but I think as time goes on, this film will gain in critical acclaim. Good job Universal! Please no more classic remakes that mock the original's like the jerky "Mummy" movies of recent years.

I went and seen it today and I absolutely love it!  It's fangtastic!  Good job Universal!

I just got back from seeing The Wolfman, my Wife and I went for Valentines Day. In my opinion it is an excellent, respectful updating of our classic favorites. Like the General, I kept seeing Lon Chaney Jr. in Benicio Del Toro, he played the part wonderfully. For those who haven't seen it, I feel it is well worth your time and money to go to the theatre and catch it on the big screen.

The fact that they used many elements from the original story and credited Curt Sidomak's (sp) original screenplay as source material made me feel good about it from the beginning.

Also, the one thing that has irritated me to no end with modern fantasy and horror films, from Van Helsing to King Kong is their excess. The idea that more monsters, more effects more things make for a bigger better movie is utterly dis-proven with The Wolfman. We have been given an exciting, suspenseful, thrilling story without armies of monsters thundering across the screen. I hope creators of future films take note.

I agree that Del Toro did look like Lon quite a bit.  I really liked it!  I want it on dvd now!

I also watched the Wolf Man today, and I thought the film was really good. Great cinematography,
atmospheric, CGI not bad. All in all a good movie.

I saw it Saturday night with my wife, daughter (and her boyfriend).  My wife jumped countless times and even cursed once (s***)!  I liked the atmosphere, the sets, the monster's look, the transformations & the attack scenes.  I got a little too antsy in between the action shots and actually became a little fidgety.  There were several things that I didn't care for, but I don't hold that against the film makers - and it didn't really bug me that much...  I accepted it because it's just how most modern movies do things (I don't mean technically-just the way they present some characters & all).  I thought I saw a couple of nods to CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, WEREWOLF OF LONDON & even AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, though that might be a stretch on my part.  Overall, it was a fun flick, with a few "awesome" scenes, but, in my little ol' humble opinion, very predictable.  I wasn't really surprised by any of the "twists" and it's not because I am an awesome person - just too used to modern movies.

IMO, it is a good remake and a good monster movie.

Of course, to me, THE WOLF MAN with Lon Chaney Jr. is still King.  I really felt sorry for Richardson, the grave digger, as quick and un-graphic as that scene is.  Maleva is awesome!  Bela is awesome!  Gwen is awesome!  And Sir John...  yep, awesome!  And that score!!!  Did I mention Lon Chaney Jr. as Larry Talbot?!

So, I'm glad they made THE WOLFMAN and I'm glad I went and seen it.

Respectful update, I was pleased beyond my expectations. Maybe not for everyone, but an earnest attempt at an old fashioned (and I mean that in the most reverent way) monster movie.  Hurray Universal!

QuoteDel Toro did look like Lon quite a bit.

For me, never more than in that face shot as he struggles upstairs from the crypt during his first change. As I recall it, his mop of hair is swallowed up in background darkness and his face is just ..... Chaney.

QuoteI thought I saw a couple of nods to CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, WEREWOLF OF LONDON & even AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, though that might be a stretch on my part.

I am in agreement....no stretch. My wife and I surprisingly witnessed the same thing. Especially, the A.W.I.L. part,
(doubledecker steam-powered trolley)very Piccadilly Circus.

My Valentine gift to the mrs.We both liked it alot.Rick Baker had a very short part,but all in all I'll be gettin it on dvd.

There are one specific HOMAGE NO ONE has mentioned yet, I think!

Thiss CAN NOT be a coincidence. In the latter part of the movie he is WEARING A ROPE BELT!!!!!! Just like the AURORA WOLFMAN!

Quote from: gracebuster on February 15, 2010, 02:14:57 AM
There are one specific HOMAGE NO ONE has mentioned yet, I think!

Thiss CAN NOT be a coincidence. In the latter part of the movie he is WEARING A ROPE BELT!!!!!! Just like the AURORA WOLFMAN!

Thats right, the rope belt and, without giving too much away, the "shirtless werewolf" just screamed Aurora!  Also, a not so subtle nod to Universal's Frankenstein monster, with the asylum doc getting tossed through the window, a'la Daniel and Sandra, from "H of F" and "A & C M F".

I thought that doctor's fate was a nod to the fate of Charles Bronson's daughter in DEATH WISH 2.


No not really. Good call, sharp eye.

**SPOILERS !!**

The AWWIL lift besides the 'Picadilly' scene with the bus was at the end with those eye close-ups looming over Emily Blunt ... a lot like AWWIL just before the police opened up on him in the alley.

And the WEREWOLF OF LONDON nod was Sir John sustaining a bite on his forearm when attached in Bhutan..... same neck of the woods, broadly speaking, as Yogami when he attacked Glendon....

Quote from: gracebuster on February 15, 2010, 02:14:57 AM
There are one specific HOMAGE NO ONE has mentioned yet, I think!

Thiss CAN NOT be a coincidence. In the latter part of the movie he is WEARING A ROPE BELT!!!!!! Just like the AURORA WOLFMAN!

Missed that one.  I'm going to see it again, so will watch for that.  How cool!

I agree - the wolfman terrorizing the town was alot like AWWIL in picadilly circle - especially the bus tipping over just like in AWWIL - same camera shots.

I also saw alot of lon chaney jr in del toro - especially the opening scene when hes arriving at talbot castle when he pears out of the carriage - He had the look down pat in my opinion there - they must have kept him up all night or something because he even had the droopy eyes and lips - LOL

Again - i liked it much better the 2nd time - im a FLIP FLOPPER, what can i say.

Oh and by the way - in regards to the question of what bitter is - its a dark lager.

Took my 15 year old boy to see it yesterday and it was FUN!  Good atmosphere and scares  with superb makeup fx, soild performances.  (Hopkins chewed the scenery a bit , but that's what he does these days.)  Bravo to the suits at Universal for honoring the spirit of their classic monster movies.

Del Toro surely does evoke Chaney Jr., I only wish he was a tad more likeable.  I know he's from a highly dysfunctional family (to say the least), so he has real issues, but his fall into tragedy isn't as affecting to me as I'd like it to be. I didn't feel as though he lost anything; he was just hurtling toward his tragic destiny. Lawrence being an actor is an inspired idea but they didn't do a lot with that angle.


Spoiler in black text:

They showed a bit too much of Hopkins' makeup at the end and he was starting to come across more like Papa Bear than Papa Wolf.  Darker, more atmospheric lighting during that scene would have served it better.

One homage I THOUGHT was coming was in the final scene.

**SPOILER IN BLACK TEXT**
After Talbot lay shot, and he looks up at Gwen, I was expecting him to say.  "Thanks for the bullet, it was the only way."
An homage to Werewolf of London.  Came close, he said thank you.

Ok. STILL HAVENT SEEN THIS! WTF

Quote from: gracebuster on February 15, 2010, 02:14:57 AM
There are one specific HOMAGE NO ONE has mentioned yet, I think!

Thiss CAN NOT be a coincidence. In the latter part of the movie he is WEARING A ROPE BELT!!!!!! Just like the AURORA WOLFMAN!

Yes, I noticed it in a scene where he fell back and you could see the rope belt.  I immediately thought "AHI Wolfman"...but of course, the AHI style came from the Aurora.  Good catch - I'm sure it was a nod to the Aurora kit.

MAybe because I went in with low expectations but I LOVED IT!  The previews did NOT do this gem justice.  Benicio did a wonderful job of capturing both Chaney AND Oliver Reed with the pathos and dispair.  Hell, the entire movie was moody and dark.  I felt the pressure of dispair and the fear of teh victims.  WOw!  I mean WOW!  I was really impressed.

I did not know that Benicio was a producer--that may have explained the delay int he movie's release--he wanted it to be perfect.  And to this monster fan IT WAS!!!

QuoteOk. STILL HAVENT SEEN THIS! WTF

RUN, do not walk, to your nearest friendly kine-house !

Just got back from seeing it. Absolutely loved it. Loved it to the point where I think our classic monster forefathers are smiling down on this gem.

I loved the scenery and atmosphere, I thought Del Toro and Hopkins were fantastic and I loved the new take on our classic story.

If Creature From The Black Lagoon follows in the footsteps of this film I think we'll have another great film waiting for us.

Nothing but good things about this movie, cant say enough, I loved it!

I'm going back for seconds. Gonna see it again tomorrow morning - $5.00 early matinee showing.

Quote from: fmofmpls on February 15, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
I'm going back for seconds. Gonna see it again tomorrow morning - $5.00 early matinee showing.

I may have to do the same, I did a $6.00 matinee today and it was a crowded house due to the holiday. Now I need to see it again...in peace.

Agreed on all counts, really enjoyed it, as most of you did. Gotta drag my my bro out to see it on the weekend. Heres hoping the same team is on board for any future UM endeavors! Now to bust open that Mezco figure...

My daughter and I really liked THE WOLFMAN alot.  As others have said, the makeup and period look of the film was fabulous, and there did seem to be tips of the hat to both the Universal and Hammer films of the past throughout the film. The attention to period details was second to none. For the most part, the CGI worked well, and especially in the transformation scenes.

My favorite scene was in the lecture hall at the asylum when Talbot is tied to the chair- I knew from the previews that was going to be a good one, and it did not disappoint! The woods scenes, the castle interior, the London street scenes- all fabulous. Loved the steam-powered bus.

My criticisms- I wasn't all that nuts about the werewolf fight in the end; I think that was the part where the CGI was a bit bothersome. And unfortunately Mileva, Gwen, and some of the other characters didn't seem to have enough to do, their characters underdeveloped.

THE WOLFMAN is not a flawless film, but a really good scary one, and all things considered the best monster movie in ages. I am anxious to see the bonus reel on the DVD!

Just saw it for a second time and was more impressed than the first time!
I enjoyed it more I believe because all my preconceptions of how I'd do it were gone and I just rolled with the movie.
I felt, the first viewing, that Del Toro's performance was rather flat, I no longer feel that way.
Tell the truth, I'm tempted to see it AGAIN!
     LBR

Saw it with a large group of friends and everyone, includig myself, loved it.  Excellent acting, great gothic atmosphere, excellent wolf man make-up and transformation scenes and action scenes.  In my opinion it is the Best Hammer Horror inspired film since Sleep Hollow.  I must go back for a second helping.  I will very much be looking forward to the DVD release.

Hopefully the movie will garner a sequel and help to usher in more actual Universal horror movies, which the Wolf Man is (none of that Mummy and Van Helsing rubbish).

DocManj

Bring on the Blu-ray and all the extras and deleted scenes!!!! Can't wait!

Was it my imagination, or did I catch a glimpse of the pentagram in Del Toro's hand during his first transformation into the werewolf?  I could have sworn I saw it there very briefly. 

~Penny~

OK I think it is time for me to chime in again.
I am glad to her that some of you liked it. I am also very happy that you seemed to like the make-up. I hope it is not just because you all know that I am a lurker on this forum.
I pretty much agree with the general consensus here. I must admit when I saw the film at the premiere it didn't put me in the best of moods. Like I said before it is really hard to see a film that you have worked on for the first time. It has actually brought me to tears on more than one occasion. What disappointed me the most, besides all of the cool shots that we did that aren't in the film, is the use of un necessary CG "enhancements" on my make ups. Mind you I think the CG guys headed by Steve Begg did some really cool stuff in the film. I also think they are getting an undeserved bad rap .I personally thought the bear and stag were good. You should have seen the not so good bear suit that they rented for shooting. I also thought there was some really cool stuff in the transformations. I still would have like to have been more involved in the transformations and think I could have made them even cooler but that was not to be on this film. I do think it was the right decision to do the CG stuff as it gave them more time to make it better. We couldn't get anyone to talk about transformation stuff in pre production. Dave Elsey and I had our crew make things that we thought might be useful like change-o hands that bend in unnatural positions change –o feet that turn into wolf feet but, we did these in a few weeks while we were also really busy filming and trying to play catch up. If they were filmed they would have been rushed and I am convinced that they would not have been as good as the CG stuff used in the film. Mind you we could have made them in post and added them later. I must admit that I am jealous of all of the time that the CG guys had to do the transformation. They were working right up to the final release.
That is always the problem of doing stuff during production. First you have to get someone to decide what they want in pre production and I need the decision way before the directors or producers have their heads in the film. They are usually finishing up another film when I need the answers.  The other problem is our work is shot during principal photography usually left for the last shot of the day and rushed. You get a take or two and that is what ends up in the film. How nice it must be to do it, study it, fix it and continue to make it better right up until the end. Like I said I am jealous of that.
But, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. Fix it in post has become the way films are made. It has made sloppy filmmaking in my opinion. Mind you I think it is great that you can fix things in post but when they fix things that don't need to be fixed that bugs me.   
Ok enough of me rambling on about me.

Dave and Lou Elsey and I went to see the film on Friday night with a real audience and we liked it much better. Just like some hear have said. I do think it is the best monster movie that has been made in a long time. Yes it is not perfect, but when are they? It is an old school monster movie and I am really happy to see someone doing just that, making a movie with a monster ,with some atmosphere and making one with an A list cast and crew.
My biggest complaint is that you don't ever have the sympathy with Laurence in this film that you do have in the original. That and the fact that I wasn't used to my fullest ability on this film. I was more that willing, if fact you could say that I was obnoxious about it. I was begging to allow them to let me contribute more. Some day I will tell you all of the stories but I have already gone on way too long for now.
Let's hope that the film makes enough money so that Universal, and others, make more monster movies. It is kind of scary though, I looked up what Van Helsing did on its opening weekend and it made like 20 million more than the Wolfman.

Quote from: Penny Dreadful on February 16, 2010, 01:52:33 PM
Was it my imagination, or did I catch a glimpse of the pentagram in Del Toro's hand during his first transformation into the werewolf?  I could have sworn I saw it there very briefly. 

~Penny~

Yes!  I do believe it's there.

Thanks for taking the time out to give us your view on what I'm sure was a film that was very close to your heart!

Quote from: monsterbaker on February 16, 2010, 02:20:06 PM
Let's hope that the film makes enough money so that Universal, and others, make more monster movies. It is kind of scary though, I looked up what Van Helsing did on its opening weekend and it made like 20 million more than the Wolfman.

Van Helsing was also rated PG-13.  And though it didn't have the best opening date for a monster film it was still better than releasing it on Valentine's weekend when a huge "chick" flick was playing....How many  do you think had to set aside seeing the Wolfman to go see Valentine's Day!??  I just hope The Wolfman stays around in the theater for awhile boosting box office.

"It is kind of scary though, I looked up what Van Helsing did on its opening weekend and it made like 20 million more than the Wolfman."

While I can understand your concern Rick, do not lose sight on the fact that the hype of Van Helsing was greater than that of the new Wolfman.  The difference is Van Helsing was by and large abhorred by folks that went to see it.  Bad buzz resulted in negligible box office numbers following opening weekend.

The Wolfman, however (at least at this group) is receiving high praise on many fronts and is garnering repeat viewings.  I have all the confidence in the world that once the dust settles on the Wolfman's theatrical run it will fly by Van Helsing in final tally.

Thank you for your wonderful contribution, Rick.  As has been reflected many times, it truly is an honor to  have you among us - even if you are primarily a lurker.   ;)

Caught the Midnight show on the 11th(12th) and surprised to see only one other monsterkid in the audience (with his 17 year old!) More so, I was pleasantly surprised at the majority of the audience being 17-20 year olds. (Schools were closed in our area on Friday).

I loved it, but was a little urked at some UMA semi-spoilers. I would hope that everyone posts spoiler alerts beforehand. Loved the tie into Werewolf of London mythos and felt often that I was definitely seeing a combination of this, Curse of the Werewolf and the Wolf Man.

Thanks especially to Mr. Baker. Your werewolves always manage to really creep me out, and near the films closing with Gwen....made me so incredibly uncomfortable--in a great scared way. Your work, along with that of the Director and Mr. Del Torro re-ignited a childhood fear! Thank you!

*Spoiler comment* follows














Although I very much missed the Bela Character and the pity we felt with Lon Jr., the storyline's beginnings with Sir John certainly added to the storyline.

OG

I love starting a thread that gets linked to the homepage :D

Quote from: monsterbaker on February 16, 2010, 02:20:06 PMDave Elsey and I had our crew make things that we thought might be useful like change-o hands that bend in unnatural positions change –o feet that turn into wolf feet but, we did these in a few weeks while we were also really busy filming and trying to play catch up.

Rick,
I would have loved to see some of these things you mentioned in combination w/ the CGI. Any chance of seeing some of this in some additional or deleted footage on the DVD when it comes out?
Congratulations on the great job you did!
-Jon

Quote from: monsterbaker on February 16, 2010, 02:20:06 PM
OK I think it is time for me to chime in again.
I am glad to her that some of you liked it. I am also very happy that you seemed to like the make-up. I hope it is not just because you all know that I am a lurker on this forum.
I pretty much agree with the general consensus here. I must admit when I saw the film at the premiere it didn't put me in the best of moods. Like I said before it is really hard to see a film that you have worked on for the first time. It has actually brought me to tears on more than one occasion. What disappointed me the most, besides all of the cool shots that we did that aren't in the film, is the use of un necessary CG "enhancements" on my make ups. Mind you I think the CG guys headed by Steve Begg did some really cool stuff in the film. I also think they are getting an undeserved bad rap .I personally thought the bear and stag were good. You should have seen the not so good bear suit that they rented for shooting. I also thought there was some really cool stuff in the transformations. I still would have like to have been more involved in the transformations and think I could have made them even cooler but that was not to be on this film. I do think it was the right decision to do the CG stuff as it gave them more time to make it better. We couldn't get anyone to talk about transformation stuff in pre production. Dave Elsey and I had our crew make things that we thought might be useful like change-o hands that bend in unnatural positions change –o feet that turn into wolf feet but, we did these in a few weeks while we were also really busy filming and trying to play catch up. If they were filmed they would have been rushed and I am convinced that they would not have been as good as the CG stuff used in the film. Mind you we could have made them in post and added them later. I must admit that I am jealous of all of the time that the CG guys had to do the transformation. They were working right up to the final release.
That is always the problem of doing stuff during production. First you have to get someone to decide what they want in pre production and I need the decision way before the directors or producers have their heads in the film. They are usually finishing up another film when I need the answers.  The other problem is our work is shot during principal photography usually left for the last shot of the day and rushed. You get a take or two and that is what ends up in the film. How nice it must be to do it, study it, fix it and continue to make it better right up until the end. Like I said I am jealous of that.
But, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. Fix it in post has become the way films are made. It has made sloppy filmmaking in my opinion. Mind you I think it is great that you can fix things in post but when they fix things that don't need to be fixed that bugs me.   
Ok enough of me rambling on about me.

Dave and Lou Elsey and I went to see the film on Friday night with a real audience and we liked it much better. Just like some hear have said. I do think it is the best monster movie that has been made in a long time. Yes it is not perfect, but when are they? It is an old school monster movie and I am really happy to see someone doing just that, making a movie with a monster ,with some atmosphere and making one with an A list cast and crew.
My biggest complaint is that you don't ever have the sympathy with Laurence in this film that you do have in the original. That and the fact that I wasn't used to my fullest ability on this film. I was more that willing, if fact you could say that I was obnoxious about it. I was begging to allow them to let me contribute more. Some day I will tell you all of the stories but I have already gone on way too long for now.
Let's hope that the film makes enough money so that Universal, and others, make more monster movies. It is kind of scary though, I looked up what Van Helsing did on its opening weekend and it made like 20 million more than the Wolfman.

Sir...all I can is THANK YOU!!!!!  ;)

Rick, did Sir Anthony go into full makeup ? Settle my bet ... "let's split th'fee".  :D

I didn't notice the alleged unreality of the bear and stag and still don't [second viewing - thus informed , I took special note] and have since read the bear was the same CG from GOLDEN COMPASS. But some of my fellow viewers who clued me in, not only noticed, but found the critters lacking. This proves either (i) the CG was good enough for this to be an eye-of-the-beholder thing or (ii) I am an old nearsighted fart.

Of course that may make Rick an old nearsighted fart as well ....   ;D

As I told my sons on the way out of the theater last tursday night after catching the midnight show.
I dont have a blu-ray player yet, but I will when this is released. It may be my 1st Blu-ray disc.

MonsterBaker,  Ive been a big fan of your Z-Brush work for years.

(http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x242/dadabigalow/Count-Dracula-by-Rick-Bakersmall1.jpg)

Just saw it. FangTastic.  I didn't have a problem with the Bear (All though, I thought he looked weird When on all fours.) or any of the CGI.  I thought the gore was perfect, just enough for my taste and not over the Top. Anthony Hopkins was great as was everyone in the Movie. I thought the Anthony Hopkins Wolf Man was a lot like Curse.  Rick Baker, you are the man. Excellent Makeup.  On Tony and Del Toro. HHWolfman gives it 2 Paws up. 

Great to see Rick "Monstermaker"'s comments here! We just saw the movie and I was wondering what he thought of it now that its been completed.

Generally I really liked it. Nothing could ever replace the original, but I think this is quite worthy of annual rewatching, and carrys the torch quite well.

There were a few things that bugged me in the film... Maliva (the old gypsy woman).. I really disliked the new one compared with the original character. More the actress then anything else.. her face was too long, her accent never felt the same, and I really hated all the dirts and grime under her fingernails, and her long skeletal hands.

The original felt like a kind old wise grandmother figure to me.. this new one just felt odd.

One thing I really miss (which is kinda silly) is the fog style.. I LOVE all the old universal ground fog effects.. there was fog in this, but real fog, not the ground hugging variety.

I also thought it was odd having Larry be a high brow theater actor. I always just pictured him as a savvy man's man businessman, not a shakspearian theater actor.

I thought all the cgi was very convincing.. much better then in Van Helsing, and more like American Werewolf. The film's pacing seemed to drag in a few spots.. they had plenty of editing and reshoot time to correct that.

I loved the London chase scene, but the final werewolve battle seemed a little too staged. I did really like the ending death scene for Larry though, with the waterfall behind them.. that felt very classic universal to me.

I'm wondering if we'll see a Hugo Weaving Wolfman II in the future?

Oh! Rick.. any chance of you leaning on them to put in the shots you did in extended or alternate scenes on the dvd or blu ray release?

Monsterbaker,
     It's an honor to post on the same forum as you!  Wonderful work as always.

First off, I was not aware that Baker lurked on this forum. That is sooo very awesome!! I love the wonderful people that join this beastly group. I still think that the makeup is so far the best yet in The Wolfman, I am such a fan of Rick Baker. Ever since I saw An American Werewolf in London, I have loved watching how talented Baker gets everytime. He does put his heart and soul into his work!!

yay!i give it a B.i loved the make-up.thank you rick baker for bringing back so many good memories of the make-up we have grown to love.the sets were good and the atmosphere and mood were very good.the one thing that i think held it back was a little too much violence shown for my taste.could have done without the decapitation scenes.i much rather keep the imagination in it.the next time i see it i will listen closer to the music and dialogue.but over all i think it was very good{especially the make-up.}

 I thought the bear was noticable, but not distractingly so. I think it was better having it in than out. It also saved from utilizing a real bear.

Rick,
I, too, wish you had more to do with the transformations. As good as they are, I am of the opinion that your involvement certainly wouldn't have hurt.

Quote from: monsterbaker on February 16, 2010, 02:20:06 PM
Some day I will tell you all of the stories

Please do Rick!

Quote from: Penny Dreadful on February 16, 2010, 01:52:33 PM
Was it my imagination, or did I catch a glimpse of the pentagram in Del Toro's hand during his first transformation into the werewolf?  I could have sworn I saw it there very briefly. 

~Penny~

I though I saw that too!!!!!

Just got back from seeing it and liked it a lot.  My only complaint really is that the washed out color/blue filter look to a lot of the early scenes started to get tiresome -- my eyes and brain were thirsting for a little color on the screen.  The big surprise that we're all avoiding spoiling was something I thought was glaringly obvious from the previews -- but big deal.  I liked that element of the story.

I think we're astoundingly lucky to have gotten a film, that despite the liberties taken with the original, is still quite respectful to the source material -- and that is this stylish and moody.  And features a real Wolfman-style Wolfman (Thank you, Rick Baker!) -- not a cgi Hulk-hound.  I'm very pleased.

QuoteWas it my imagination, or did I catch a glimpse of the pentagram in Del Toro's hand during his first transformation into the werewolf?  I could have sworn I saw it there very briefly.

~Penny~

QuoteI though I saw that too!!!!!

I didn't, but if it's any consolation I know at least two people who did. It would be interesting to have it confirmed .... [hint]

My vote is YEA. The wolfman looked like a wolf man should.
I'm glad to see Mr Baker finally gets the wish he made on the
short feature included in the classic Universal Monsters dvd copy of
The WOLFMAN.
The movie was made with respect for the original material, what more can a Monster fan ask.

63monsterkidd

Quote from: depressedlarrytalbot on February 17, 2010, 04:17:00 AM
I didn't, but if it's any consolation I know at least two people who did. It would be interesting to have it confirmed .... [hint]

Yes, i saw the pentagram burning in his palm.

Quote from: lblambert on February 11, 2010, 12:43:41 AM
I'll be amongst the first to see it when it's the screens up here in the great white north. The Wolf Man was always my favorite of the classic monsters, largely due to the believability Lon Jr brought to the role. I love how Rick revamped the look to make it a modern, terrifying monster while keeping enough of the classic look to make it instantly recognizable. With del Toro, an excellent actor with genuine respect for the original film, breathing life into Rick's creation I'm just excited to see it all come together.  I'm going into it with the attitude that, even if the film doesn't live up to my expectations, it'll be great just to see Larry Talbot on the screen instead of some unimaginative, generic slasher flick.

Just my 2 cents...
Lee

These were my thoughts the day before going to see it. My initial reaction after seeing it the first time was that I loved having a good old fashioned monster movie in front of me. The creature design was fantastic and I loved the fact the Wolfman could drop to all fours when running...it just looked great. There was only one thing about it that I really disliked, namely [spoiler in black text] the whole concept of Anthony Hopkins being a werewolf and having the two werewolves battling it out...that scene really made me feel like I was watching Van Helsing 2. Aside from this minor gripe I thoroughly enjoyed it and liked it even more the second time I saw it on Saturday.

The one thing I really noticed when I went to the theatre was the crowd. Admittedly we don't go to see new movies that often but whenever we do there is never a line. We ended up arriving about an hour early and there were already people waiting in line to see it. By the time we were admitted the line was quite long and the theatre was full. When we got out the line for the next showing was lengthy as well. When I went back on Saturday to see it again it was the same thing. I just hope the numbers are good enough for Universal to revisit more of their classics.    

Benicio Del Toro did remind me of Lon Chaney Jr.

Will have to look for the pentagram next time, nice catch. Can't wait for the dvd/documentary, and extras!

That's what i call Lazy!

"After its attack in London, the Wolfman is seen drinking from the Thames, with Tower Bridge visible in the background. The bridge is seen to be complete. However, Tower Bridge was not completed until 1894, and a photo of Tower Bridge in 1892, after when the film is set, shows the Tower still incomplete"

This movie flat out rocked! I cant imagine universal can ever top this one! From one Baker to another Thanks well done indeed my friend !

I finally  got around to watch Wolfman 2010. I do have to say I really enjoyed it. I was pleased that the CG was not a factor in Wolfman for me. What was CG IMO looked great and didn't detract from the movie.
I think having Rick Backer might have help in that dept. Twisted story that I will not go into detail about. I like that this wasn't a frame per frame remake but instead they took the Wolfman and made it their own. Funny part of the movie for me is Hugo Weaving in his roll of the Inspector. I remember him in Priscilla Queen of the Desert & Lord of the Rings. After Priscilla he was so butch in this movie it cracked me up.
I enjoyed Wolfman very much. If you want to see it then GO. If you don't you're going to miss a pretty good Monster movie.

Quote from: kreaturekid on February 17, 2010, 10:02:25 PM
That's what i call Lazy!

"After its attack in London, the Wolfman is seen drinking from the Thames, with Tower Bridge visible in the background. The bridge is seen to be complete. However, Tower Bridge was not completed until 1894, and a photo of Tower Bridge in 1892, after when the film is set, shows the Tower still incomplete"

Thanks KK.....I thought that was wrong too, as I expected to see it uncompleted as well!

OG

never mind  ;D

I wonder about the prospects of a sequel/prequel. Would Universal ever consider doing one?

Quote from: furiousveggie on February 18, 2010, 09:16:50 PM
I wonder about the prospects of a sequel/prequel. Would Universal ever consider doing one?

If there is money in it, they'll do it.

I'd like to see a Van Helsing reboot, done more like Wolfman. The premise was sound, but the execution and style were lacking.

Brb crying forever:

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247 (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247)

O_o

Quote from: furiousveggie on February 18, 2010, 10:28:51 PM
Brb crying forever:

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247 (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247)

O_o

That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

If it's serious and not a p*ss-take, she represents a new high in dumb.

25 years from now Universal will be issuing some kind of anniversary release of The Wolfman movie on whatever it is people are watching movies on at the time. You can bet the farm that if you were to bring up ''Twilight'' at this time NO ONE would know what the hell you were talking about...the cream always rises to the top...

With regard to the scathing e-mail the girl posted claiming the Wolfman ripped off Twilight.......well, just when you think a person couldn't get more stupid there is always someone who jumps up to the head of the class.  Thanks for posting that, still laughing out loud. 

Quotethe cream always rises to the top ...

Alas, this is also metaphorically true of 'scum' .....

It was painful to read.

Quote from: furiousveggie on February 18, 2010, 10:28:51 PM
Brb crying forever:

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247 (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247)

O_o

OMG! that is the funniest thing I've read this week!

Quote from: furiousveggie on February 18, 2010, 10:28:51 PM
Brb crying forever:

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247 (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247)

O_o

Furious, that cracked me up.

BK

Quote from: furiousveggie on February 18, 2010, 10:28:51 PM
Brb crying forever:

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247 (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247)

O_o

This poor wretch should not be the one taking the brunt of anger, nah her parents are the ones to blame I say.  Hopefully one day she is exposed to something outside the world of Twilight and realizes that vampires do not glitter in the daylight.  Maybe the receiver of that e-mail should write back and inform her of Universal's rich horror history, maybe inform her of a little known novel by Bram Stoker, introduce her to the likes of Hammer films, etc., etc.

Hopefully with the DVD release, the classic monsters will be introduced to the kids and they will become cool to today's generation.

The real test will be this year's Halloween costumes. maybe instead of Scream and Chucky, some kids will run up to me saying how they want to be the Wolf Man or Dracula!

These comments were all posted on one of those bootleg movie sites after having viewed The Wolfman.  I don't know the ages of the posters that made these comments but I'm assuming they are all younger folk that do not have a true horror cinema education.

"Not bad but little on the boring side. Didn't like the "Teen Wolf" werewolf design either."

"I think that they tryed to make it a look like the movie Dracula from the 90s if so they failed"

"Hind legs like that of a beast, big claws, everything looks good until you see that he still has clothes on which doesn't look very appropriate, not to mention his John Travolta hair-do.  I was hoping for something like a werewolf from van helsing, those were just awesome and beastly, instead you get something like the title (obviously), which isn't very interesting for me."

Yay mates, alas, I finally got to see the Wolfman here in Kuwait.  Besides having to put up with being considered a bachelor here and having to sit in the nosebleed seats, quite the discrimination as families get the premium seats.  I did have to laugh at the Kuwaitis though as many of them brought small children.  What nightmares they will have tonight, eh.  Well mates, loved the fllm.  Riveting.  Do wish Maleva's part was more prominent as in the original and moreover the silver cane could have been more prominent as well.  That was a central focus of the original.  But overall loved it and hope they put out an extended version so we will have more to look forward to on the DVD.  I did not like the soundtrack and I might add I hardly noticed the music at all.  When are they going to learn that there are musicians who specialize in gothic style music like Midnight Syndicate and or Nox Arcana.  Either could have done better with that soundtrack.  Shame.  On a personal note I now have an extensive Victorian wardrobe with all sorts of antique accessories and would have fit right in to that setting.  Can't wait for next Halloween.

Quote from: furiousveggie on February 18, 2010, 10:28:51 PM
Brb crying forever:

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247 (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-letter-to-universal-your-wolfman-ripped-off-twilight-9247)

O_o

I'll be honest that letter was so incredibly idiotic I couldn't even finish it. Unfortunately I am one of those people who still get annoyed at really stupid sh*t.

I invite everyone to see my next film its called "Every Universal and Hammer Film character vs Twilight"...the film runs approx 8 seconds long. That includes a directors cut of deleted scenes and a gag reel.

QuoteI invite everyone to see my next film its called "Every Universal and Hammer Film character vs Twilight"...the film runs approx 8 seconds long.

:D

No need to pay all those other actors or their estates ......  Count Von Count from SESAME STREET could do it by himself.

Quote from: zombiehorror on February 19, 2010, 09:59:50 AM
This poor wretch should not be the one taking the brunt of anger, nah her parents are the ones to blame I say.  Hopefully one day she is exposed to something outside the world of Twilight and realizes that vampires do not glitter in the daylight.  Maybe the receiver of that e-mail should write back and inform her of Universal's rich horror history, maybe inform her of a little known novel by Bram Stoker, introduce her to the likes of Hammer films, etc., etc.

Ok, I think we should take it upon ourselves to contact this young misguided lass, and educate her in the old ways, and horror history. Who'll volunteer in this effort to introduce her to UMA???


OG

I can't believe the ignorance!  Just love it when people talk about something that they know nothing about!  Guess Twilight came out before The Wolfman?  She is clearly nuts!

Quote from: BlackLagoon on February 19, 2010, 03:33:39 PM
I'll be honest that letter was so incredibly idiotic I couldn't even finish it. Unfortunately I am one of those people who still get annoyed at really stupid sh*t.

Same here. She's probably never heard of The Beatles, let alone classic monsters. Twilight is flavor-of-the-month tween garbage IMO, so it appears is this young woman's taste in entertainment.

I finally got to see it tonight!  I will say that it is Universal's best monster movie in quite awhile.  While not a great movie, I do think it was very good!  Rick's makeup was awesome and glad he was involved.  I enjoyed the effects and the atmosphere.  I wished Maleva was used a bit more and a few questions are still running through my head.  I agree with most of the positive comments previously stated. 

I did notice myself looking for things from the other Wolfman movies and did see most of the things previously mentioned.  Also, when Benicio was going home, did he have on the Henry Hull type of hat?

One other note, I took my daughter (17), her boyfriend(18) and her brother(13).  All three love the movie and the makeup.  She is a big fan of Twilight, but she laughed when I told her about the Twilight's girls letter to Universal.

BK

Quote from: Opera Ghost on February 19, 2010, 05:41:08 PM
Ok, I think we should take it upon ourselves to contact this young misguided lass, and educate her in the old ways, and horror history. Who'll volunteer in this effort to introduce her to UMA???


OG

This looks like a job for Universal Steve. Stand back citizens!

Well, after a week of waiting I was finally able to catch a showing last night. I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed it! If I were to give it a grade, I would give it a solid B+. There were a lot of things that I truly liked about this movie, and very little that I did not like.

First and foremost, I must say that I thought Danny Elfman's score was brilliant. During poignant scenes it wasn't overbearing, but during the action sequences and climax it was intense and driving. Very reminiscent of his work on Sleepy Hollow and the gypsy violin reminded me of his work on Beetlejuice over twenty years ago.

The atmosphere created was incredible. One scene in particular was the gypsy camp scene. A forest shrouded in fog and lit only by the moon and campfires...perfect. I also thought that Lawrence's first transformation and initial attack on the group of villagers in the forest was extremely well staged. One shot in particular involved a man running through the forest, only to turn around to see the wolfman pursuing him through the underbrush. This is the type of image that nightmares are made of!

I also thought that Rick Baker's makeup was awesome. I'm not a fan of CGI so I was very happy when I heard that he was going to be doing real "foam-latex-held-on-with-pro-adhesive" prosthetics. I thought that the execution of said prosthetics was great, creating a memorable wolfman. However, I did not like how Baker's makeups were enhanced digitally. I understand the use of CGI when you're doing something that simply can't be accomplished on-screen with practical effects. I even understood why they wanted to go with CGI during the transformation sequences. However, it seemed completely unnecessary to enhance Baker's makeup. There were several shots showing the wolfman "roaring." Cool! These shots needed to be in the movie to show the wolfman's ferocity. However, the digital elongation of the wolfman's mouth and jaw and the protrusion of his teeth just looked stupid and cheap.

Those digital enhancements are about the only thing I truly did not enjoy about The Wolfman. I thought everything else was superb.

Wonderful job, Universal! Now go make some more.

- Andy   

Finally got myself and the lass the the theatre. The film hangs together far far better than it has a right to given the troubled production. The rewrites and reshoots stick out, but they do so for the betterment. The first misstep, Sir John in the asylum w larry, just tumbles further from there and keeps going.  Enjoyed seeing it, but because it came close it hurt all the more to be trampled under shoddy writing. The "everyone rush back to Talbot Hall and show up at the same time, regardless of how you're getting there" was mind-numbing, perhaps a masterstroke of boring us into our seats. And poor Scatman Coruthers, all that way through the snow to save the boy and he gets strung up in the hall. Off screen no less. Again, I liked it just fine, fun flick, but it had so much more to give, and they just kept swinging the stupid stick far and wide. Really wanted Lawrence to use the cane to beat John's head from his smoldering shoulders. All in all, it gets marks for clawing its way out of production hell, but serious dings for story which devolves in to being driven by the writer, rather than the characters.

AWESOME!! I loved it.

Quote"Not bad but little on the boring side. Didn't like the "Teen Wolf" werewolf design either."

"I think that they tryed to make it a look like the movie Dracula from the 90s if so they failed"

"Hind legs like that of a beast, big claws, everything looks good until you see that he still has clothes on which doesn't look very appropriate, not to mention his John Travolta hair-do.  I was hoping for something like a werewolf from van helsing, those were just awesome and beastly, instead you get something like the title (obviously), which isn't very interesting for me."

All the above made me mad!

Teen Wolf?? Are you kidding? How old are you, seriously? 13? He's a wolf man!

Bram stokers dracula? ... no comment...    ...idiot

"I was hoping for something like a werewolf from van helsing"  THEN GO WATCH VAN HELSING! THIS IS WOLFMAN! Now go finish your homework and get to bed. its 9:30!

Quote from: SirJon on February 22, 2010, 09:30:18 PM

All the above made me mad!

Teen Wolf?? Are you kidding? How old are you, seriously? 13? He's a wolf man!

Bram stokers dracula? ... no comment...    ...idiot

"I was hoping for something like a werewolf from van helsing"  THEN GO WATCH VAN HELSING! THIS IS WOLFMAN! Now go finish your homework and get to bed. its 9:30!

Who said this?

Quote from: slayergriffith on February 22, 2010, 09:35:38 PM
Who said this?

Some shmucks on a Bootleg Movie site.  ::)

I say thee, YAY!!

Loved every minute of it.

QuoteReally wanted Lawrence to use the cane to beat John's head from his smoldering shoulders.

Now THAT would have been brilliant!  An ironic reversal of the '41 original...Have Larry thwack Papa John to death with the cane.  And then Gwen comes in and shoots Larry with the silver bullet.

BTW, the cane is sadly underused in the film; it is shown to be Larry's, but what of its origins?  An actor's prop/affectation??  Does he need it to get around?? They should have said it was a family heirloom, making it more powerful emotionally if he were to kill his father with it.  They even show Abberline taking it with him to hunt Larry down at the end, but then it is ignored.

Quote from: GAKENSTEIN on February 22, 2010, 10:57:37 PM
Now THAT would have been brilliant!  An ironic reversal of the '41 original...Have Larry thwack Papa John to death with the cane.  And then Gwen comes in and shoots Larry with the silver bullet.

BTW, the cane is sadly underused in the film; it is shown to be Larry's, but what of its origins?  An actor's prop/affectation??  Does he need it to get around?? They should have said it was a family heirloom, making it more powerful emotionally if he were to kill his father with it.  They even show Abberline taking it with him to hunt Larry down at the end, but then it is ignored.

I imagine that Larry received the cane from his brother years earlier, and carries it with him because it reminds him of better times with his family, before the death of his mother.  Afterwards, Inspector Abberline hangs onto the cane, but when he does NOT turn into a werewolf, he decides it reminds him of a horrible period in his life and sells it to Gwen Conliffe's antique shoppe.  By this time, Gwen has too much tragedy associated with both London and Blackmoore, so she moves to Llanwelly, Wales and reopens the shop there, with her brother taking over soon after.  Her brother's daughter, also named Gwen, eventually sells the cane to another member of the Talbot family...

QuoteHer brother's daughter, also named Gwen, eventually sells the cane to another member of the Talbot family...

Oh Gods. Ivan, you must walk not run to

http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/talbot.gif (http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/talbot.gif)

and

http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/Talbot.pdf (http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/Talbot.pdf)

... assuming you haven't already, that is.  You will love it.

Quote from: depressedlarrytalbot on February 23, 2010, 01:24:20 AM
Oh Gods. Ivan, you must walk not run to

http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/talbot.gif (http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/talbot.gif)

and

http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/Talbot.pdf (http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/Talbot.pdf)

... assuming you haven't already, that is.  You will love it.

Seriously?? I WROTE that article!!

Huh. Really ? Well I guess that would explain it .... so I'll take your earlier post as a preview of your next update to same, now that the new Wolfman is upon us.

Aw feel right honoured, aw dew.

Actually, deja vu .... I believe you disclosed this authorship at a much earlier date somewhere hereabouts, but clearly, I forgot.  :P

Quote from: GAKENSTEIN on February 22, 2010, 10:57:37 PM
Now THAT would have been brilliant!  An ironic reversal of the '41 original...Have Larry thwack Papa John to death with the cane.  And then Gwen comes in and shoots Larry with the silver bullet.

Thanks. That's why they pay me... oh, damn.

Quote
BTW, the cane is sadly underused in the film; it is shown to be Larry's, but what of its origins?  An actor's prop/affectation??  Does he need it to get around?? They should have said it was a family heirloom, making it more powerful emotionally if he were to kill his father with it.  They even show Abberline taking it with him to hunt Larry down at the end, but then it is ignored.

The cane is in Abberline's hand at the end as he looks toward the moon with this ragged shoulder. I honestly think they were going for a continuation of the "which will he choose" theme which was heavily dampened or edited out of the film. There seems to have been a "love conquers curse" element in earlier drafts, but it's been so long since I read the write up of it I just don't fully remember

Hey, just saw it again.  Better second time around.  I recommend seeing it more than once. 

Crazy1van, on your Talbot family tree why did you go back to the 500's and Bodvar Bjarki?  He was the leader of the Bear clan born to Bjorn and Bera.  He was one of Danish King Hrólfr Kraki's men.  He and his clan were known as Berserkers.  Ulfhednar were the wolf versions of that.  The Berserkers wore bear skins and were thought to have bear powers and abilities.  The Ulfhednar wore wolf skins and similarly thought to have wolf speed and agility.  So I was curious if there was some other reason you chose Bodvar Bjarki? 

I am the leader of the Bear Clan, a Norse clan of warrior reenactors.  So this is kind of my field and traced the Bear Clan or using the Norse word "Aett" back to its inception in the 500's by Bodvar Bjarki. 

I found it fascinating though that there was indeed a wolf version called Ulfhednar.  Berserkers just got a bit more press I believe. 

Interesting read, the family tree.  I did not read your whole article yet but I will.  Thanks for writing it. 

QuoteThere seems to have been a "love conquers curse" element in earlier drafts, but it's been so long since I read the write up of it I just don't fully remember

Please, where did you read this write up?
Very interested in reading it for myself.

Thanks!
-sir jon

Just got back . . . gotta say "Nay".

Quote from: Wolf Man on February 23, 2010, 11:32:27 AM
Hey, just saw it again.  Better second time around.  I recommend seeing it more than once.  

Crazy1van, on your Talbot family tree why did you go back to the 500's and Bodvar Bjarki?  He was the leader of the Bear clan born to Bjorn and Bera.  He was one of Danish King Hrólfr Kraki's men.  He and his clan were known as Berserkers.  Ulfhednar were the wolf versions of that.  The Berserkers wore bear skins and were thought to have bear powers and abilities.  The Ulfhednar wore wolf skins and similarly thought to have wolf speed and agility.  So I was curious if there was some other reason you chose Bodvar Bjarki?  

I am the leader of the Bear Clan, a Norse clan of warrior reenactors.  So this is kind of my field and traced the Bear Clan or using the Norse word "Aett" back to its inception in the 500's by Bodvar Bjarki.  

I found it fascinating though that there was indeed a wolf version called Ulfhednar.  Berserkers just got a bit more press I believe.  

Interesting read, the family tree.  I did not read your whole article yet but I will.  Thanks for writing it.  

Thanks for responding, and congrats on getting to be the leader of the bear clan!

The reason that Bodvar is listed is that, in his massive article on the origin and condition of Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde, Dennis Power originally sited Lupe as a descendant of Bjarki, and as the originator of the THERIOMOPHISM condition to the Talbot family.  Dennis believed that the bipedal flat-faced "Wolf Man" came about as a combination of the quadrupedal werewolf of germanic legend with the typically bipedal werebear.  I do not agree with this, since Wulver, Cynocephali, and plenty of other bipedal homo lupis exist in legend and cryptozoology from earlier sources than the 1700s.  In fact, I believe that Rollo brought at least a few Ulfhednar with him to Normandy in 911, and that the Norman  surname Talbert was assumed by at least one of them.  From there it's easy to get the Talbots into England with William the Conqueror and across the British Empire.  However, I cannot refute the lineage Dennis Power produced, so I include it as part of the therianthropic ancestry of Lawrence Talbot.

Off topic, but what name do you use in your reenactments?

My Norse name is Erik the Bear.  I actually build the Bear Clan up from nothing about fourteen years ago and have a good group of Viking warriors along with several very attractive Norse ladies. 

It would make sense that Lawrence is descendant from Ulfhednar.  His father claims in the film he is heir to his kingdom. 

A couple (possible spoiler) questions regarding this film:

- Are we to believe that Sir John is dead at the end? He was decapitated and burned but was there silver involved?

- Aberline (who does precious little policework IMO) gets bitten but there's no resolution . . . sequel? He did wind up with the cane, after all.

I can't believe I'm admitting this BUT the single coolest moment for me was at the very end when Larry turns human before dying . . . awesomely subtle CGI work where you only see a small portion of his face from behind.

The final death scene (and dialog) was quite possibly the single most contrived thing I've sat through in ages. The young lady I was with laughed out loud and said "Jebus, how corny can you get!".

Quote from: SirJon on February 23, 2010, 12:14:55 PM
Please, where did you read this write up?
Very interested in reading it for myself.

Thanks!
-sir jon

I've looked around online for the script review and did not find it. The first daft of this film popped up sometime in 2006, so it's bee a long slog. I read the trades and browse websites like AICN, Latino Review and CHUD, plus dipped my toe in the industry some years back and still swap stories with some of those folks I knew from then who are still in it now. With all of that info poured in over all that time, I can't say with any certainty where I got the idea/memory of "love conquers curse" from, hence the caveat in my earlier post.

My sense of it was jogged during the film when Maleva is sewing Larry up - dialogue about man and beast - and when she appears again in the stable asking Gwen if she loves Larry. In the end, Wolfman Larry does pause over Gwen rather than shredding her like everyone else, losing himself again to the beast when the sound of the hunt agitates him. The implication is he's in there, somewhere. Hopkins speech in the loony bin implies some sense of choice as well - that bit was honestly a little confused to me. I think the medallion and love played into the narrative much more in some earlier draft of the story (much as it did in the '41 original).

Here's a link to a tries-to-hard-to-be-entertaining review of a much earlier draft of the script (2007), which if you choose to wade through will give you a sense of how different the final film is:

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3442&Itemid=99 (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3442&Itemid=99)

There were MANY revisions to story on this film - even after principle photography had wrapped - not to mention multiple writers. To give you a idea of how much radically changed for The Wolfman between 2006 and 2010, I remember a review of a draft in which Wolfman Larry dropped into the London zoo and had an encounter with a crocodile. Seriously. That I would like to have seen! If anyone finds that, please post it.

SPOLIERS GALORE

Quote from: Gillman-Fan on February 26, 2010, 07:57:05 PM
A couple (possible spoiler) questions regarding this film:

- Are we to believe that Sir John is dead at the end? He was decapitated and burned but was there silver involved?

You mean that's not how you kill the Wolfman?!? I kid.  No one in the film ever says the ONLY way to kill a werewolf is with silver.  We, as an audience, just know that's the lore. So, when somehow a writer or an exec forcing a writers hand decides to subvert common expectation... Hopkins' head changes back to human form, implying that the curse has lifted and, um, yeah, we are supposed to buy that as Hopkins death. Pretty bad, huh?

Quote
- Aberline (who does precious little policework IMO) gets bitten but there's no resolution . . . sequel? He did wind up with the cane, after all.

Just in case it makes enough dough and piques popular consciousness enough to have a sequel. I can't imagine that it will, and even if it does that Weaving would do it. Just seemed like a bad set up to me, but that's me.

Sadly, I could see the powers that be doing a quickie sequel to this using Weaving as the lead (I'd bet his salary is far below your average "movie star"). This flick alluded to Aberline's involvement with an infamous series of gruesome murders . . .

It's not much of a stretch to imagine The Wolfman vs. Jack the Ripper!

The theory that The Ripper's activities did not stop after the Whitechapel period could serve as the premise.

I actually love that idea!

You heard it here first!

Seriously, my mind wandered sooo much during this movie. Trying to sort through the bits and pieces for something resembling a cogent concept.

Quote from: Gillman-Fan on February 27, 2010, 10:28:19 AM
Seriously, my mind wandered sooo much during this movie. Trying to sort through the bits and pieces for something resembling a cogent concept.

I hear ya there. During the sequence in which it apparently took a lunar month for: a) Lawrence to WALK back to Talbot Hall, b) Aberline to posse up and ride there and c) Gwen to go by coach, I actually said aloud (a RARE occurrence for me in a film, but I just couldn't help it) "You gotta be kidding". Several people in the theatre chuckled.

I still can't figure out Sir John's bit about getting drunk, knocking out Singh and killing... who? His wife? The son? A passel of other Blackmoor villagers? And why did it take three weeks for the son's body to turn up? I know the answers: poor writing/editing. Large holes in the story which, like you, left my thoughts wandering during the film.

When I first head the Aberline character was going to be in the film, I assumed the Wolfman was actually going to "be" The Ripper. 

The whole "Larry goes to the Insane Asylum" subplot was a complete waste IMO. Now, this could have worked as a great piece of misdirection had the story been laid out in such a way that you thought the mentally-compromised Larry was the Wolfman when in fact it was actually his Father. Better yet, Sir John could have faked his son's death (partial/unidentifiable body with planted personal affects) and was trying to contain his favorite werewolf son in the crypt cell . . . using Larry (the tragic unloved son) as the patsy. And the casual offscreen dispensing of the "Singh" character was a real letdown.


Ugh, just about anything would have been more satisfying.

Quote from: Gillman-Fan on February 27, 2010, 11:39:15 PM
The whole "Larry goes to the Insane Asylum" subplot was a complete waste IMO. Now, this could have worked as a great piece of misdirection had the story been laid out in such a way that you thought the mentally-compromised Larry was the Wolfman when in fact it was actually his Father.

I'm pretty sure this was the crux of the first finished draft (2006). I didn't read it, just read of it and discussed it with someone who had read it, but I think in that version we (audience) are left guessing "is he/ isn't he?" until this asylum scene when Larry wolfs out. Then, twist!  It's revealed that Sir John is one as well and had committed the atrocities that Larry was blaming himself for. Or some such.

Quote
And the casual offscreen dispensing of the "Singh" character was a real letdown.
Ugh, just about anything would have been more satisfying.

Yeah, I made a joke about wishing Singh had be played by Scatman Crothers (may he rest), à la The Shining.

While I thought is was a great irony that Sir John had removed the powder from Singh's bullets years before I would have enjoyed seeing Singh put up a hell of a fight with Sir John using his massive knife in a drag out fight to the death before Old wolfman kills him rather than letting it occur offscreen.  It did have good shock value though seeing him hanging there.  But back to defending himself.  You would think this character, knowing who Sir John was all those years would have a lot of ability to fight him valiantly even with the powder gone from his bullets.  A true warrior always is prepared and has plenty of back up weapons as Singh did.  We just never get to see the full affect on screen. 

Quote from: Wolf Man on February 28, 2010, 04:41:25 AM
You would think this character, knowing who Sir John was all those years would have a lot of ability to fight him valiantly even with the powder gone from his bullets.  A true warrior always is prepared and has plenty of back up weapons as Singh did.  We just never get to see the full affect on screen. 

I'd think, knowing what Sir John was all those years and having worked so hard to help him control the beast except (seemingly) that one time when John got ripped to the tits and knocked him out (wha?), wolfed out and killed his beloved wife but not the child who started upon 'em (double wha?), Singh would have killed the man once he went off rez and decided to eat his son etc etc.

As far as Sir John's tampering with Singh's shotgun shells, any sportsman/hunter worth his salt would have immediately noticed the difference in the way the cartridges felt weight-wise. I know it's a seemingly tiny detail but that character was supposed to be a punjabi GUN BEARER!

Quote from: darkmonkeygod on February 27, 2010, 11:16:03 AM
I hear ya there. During the sequence in which it apparently took a lunar month for: a) Lawrence to WALK back to Talbot Hall, b) Aberline to posse up and ride there and c) Gwen to go by coach, I actually said aloud (a RARE occurrence for me in a film, but I just couldn't help it) "You gotta be kidding". Several people in the theatre chuckled.

I still can't figure out Sir John's bit about getting drunk, knocking out Singh and killing... who? His wife? The son? A passel of other Blackmoor villagers? And why did it take three weeks for the son's body to turn up? I know the answers: poor writing/editing. Large holes in the story which, like you, left my thoughts wandering during the film.

I think we're to believe it was a day, not a month, for everyone to converge in Blackmoore.  And it would appear Sir john knocked out Singh before killing John Jr; most likely he expected he would attack and kill Gwen though.  I do think Singh's loyalty would have ended after the death of John's wife, and he should have killed the old man in his sleep 20 years earlier.

Quote from: Crazy1van on February 28, 2010, 12:36:10 PM
I think we're to believe it was a day, not a month, for everyone to converge in Blackmoore.  And it would appear Sir john knocked out Singh before killing John Jr; most likely he expected he would attack and kill Gwen though.  I do think Singh's loyalty would have ended after the death of John's wife, and he should have killed the old man in his sleep 20 years earlier.

The moon is full only once a month. Every 29 and half days actually, so some years get 13 full moons, but never two nights in a row. It's an astronomical impossibility.

As far as the wife, I thought she was supposed to be John's drunken/accidental kill, and that Singh stayed helping John control himself and protecting the younger brother. The internal logic of the story really does fall apart right about there.

Quote from: Gillman-Fan on February 28, 2010, 09:21:44 AM
As far as Sir John's tampering with Singh's shotgun shells, any sportsman/hunter worth his salt would have immediately noticed the difference in the way the cartridges felt weight-wise. I know it's a seemingly tiny detail but that character was supposed to be a punjabi GUN BEARER!

Oh, it's not a tiny detail at all. It's poor writing. Were all the other problems gone, I'd forgive the shotgun shells with the idea that they were refilled w something inert. Of course, I'd have given Hopkins the line "I filled those with sand years ago" or "I pulled the primers" or some-such instead.

Quote from: Gillman-Fan on February 27, 2010, 11:39:15 PM
The whole "Larry goes to the Insane Asylum" subplot was a complete waste IMO. Now, this could have worked as a great piece of misdirection had the story been laid out in such a way that you thought the mentally-compromised Larry was the Wolfman when in fact it was actually his Father. Better yet, Sir John could have faked his son's death (partial/unidentifiable body with planted personal affects) and was trying to contain his favorite werewolf son in the crypt cell . . . using Larry (the tragic unloved son) as the patsy. And the casual offscreen dispensing of the "Singh" character was a real letdown.


Ugh, just about anything would have been more satisfying.

Where were you when they were writing the script?  I agree completely!

QuoteThe whole "Larry goes to the Insane Asylum" subplot was a complete waste IMO. Now, this could have worked as a great piece of misdirection had the story been laid out in such a way that you thought the mentally-compromised Larry was the Wolfman when in fact it was actually his Father. Better yet, Sir John could have faked his son's death (partial/unidentifiable body with planted personal affects) and was trying to contain his favorite werewolf son in the crypt cell . . . using Larry (the tragic unloved son) as the patsy. And the casual offscreen dispensing of the "Singh" character was a real letdown.

AhhhhhH!
I have to disagree - Larry is the wolf man and the movie would've sucked if they had totally just made him into a nut case and his brother be the wolf. Thats just IMO.

Cool concept but i woulda hated that movie had it been made.

I had some issues with the remake but i didn't think it was terrible as like you guys do.

Oh yeah, I'm still glad that Del Toro was the beast, I just didn't care for the whole asylum deal.  I mean, how sorry do we have to feel for this poor guy?  And the doctor was so despicable, he was almost cartoonish (IMO)!!  Anybody feel sorry for him when he got it?  I didn't!  

Darkmonkeygod, with regard to the full moon issue let me offer this: In the Werewolf by Night comic series they always had three nights in a row.  I believe they were using the night before and night after the full moon as "full enough" to bring on the change.  Since that and also in the original Wolf Man there have always been three nights of werewolfism.  I don't think it was meant to be literally the fullest of full moons but the night before and after were "close enough".  It works well for horror stories that the wolfman prowls for three nights in a row rather than just once a month.  I know that was an essential piece of writing for Werewolf By Night. 

In the original the first night was when Larry was attacked, the second was when he turns for the first time and kills Richards and the third was his last night when he attacks Gwen and is killed by Sir John. 

In Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man his first night is the night he is awakened in the crypt, the second is when he kills the constable in Cardiff and the third is referred to over the phone when Mannering calls to check on his patient only to discover that he bit through his straight jacket during the night with his teeth. 

So even in the classics there is always considered three nights of the full moon although that may be technically or astrologically incorrect it has been a part of the werewolf story for a long time. 

I've watched the movie twice now, and as to the question of how did they all show up back in the village at the same time, I think a month had passed.  What was Aberline doing for a month?  He was searching London (a city of millions) for Larry and finally decided his best bet was going back to the village with a well armed posse prior to the full moon.  What was Gwen doing for a month?  Studying folklore and searching for Maleva before returning to the village.  Maleva and Gwen don't meet in Blackmoor, they meet  somewhere else.  Gwen took a train to find Maleva and then a coach back to Blackmoor.  Larry walked to the village and had to avoid being found by anyone in authority.  That's the impression I got from the movie.
The original wolfman movie had a lot of bad plot points also.  Why was Larry in America?  How did his brother die?  How come Larry has no british accent?  And REALLY, Claude Raines is Lon Chaney's father!?  Who is his mother?  A WWE wrestler?  At least this movie explained what happened to all the family members.

QuoteSo even in the classics there is always considered three nights of the full moon although that may be technically or astrologically incorrect it has been a part of the werewolf story for a long time.

And in A&CMF there are at last four !
One, in London.
Two, assuming they could make a transatlantic flight in a day ["I'm flying out at dawn"], in Florida, in the hotel room.
Three, the following night at the masquerade.
And four, the night after that at the castle.

You know, since THE WOLF MAN [both versions] blame it on an Autumn moon not necessarily a full one, I wonder whether A&C takes place during the fall, and Larry has reverted to any ol' autumnal moon by then, despite his fear of the full moon particularly. I mean, really, he's such a distracted, babbling loon by then, anything is possible.  Witness the fact he asks Chick and Wilbur to lock him up at the party and still lets himself get distracted looking for Joan 'til moonrise, a few minutes later.   

I never counted the ones in A&C M F but that does make sense.  Good catch. 

Strictly speaking, should A&C movies be considered canon in relation to U-Monsters?

I wondered that myself.  I mean, the Wolf Man was cured at the end of House of Dracula and back to wolfie by A&C M F.  However, there are many who consider this film to be the true end of all the sequels.  So I guess it would count.  Maybe....

You're saying maybe that allows astronomy to be accorded comedic license?  :D

Well why not ....

This might be a small point or maybe I missed it altogether but how did Gwen know to come back after she left the first time? Larry got attacked and woke up in bed and she was back there at the estate to nurse him when the attack came just a few hours after she rode away.

Not trying to find more fault - just confused that I am missing something.

(Loved Baker's stuff!!!)

I hope this answers it for you but when Gwen left the first time and Lawrence was attacked that night, he was first cared for by the Gypsies and taken home the next morning.  Gwen was still not there yet.  Then there is a shot of the moon changing cycles so when Lawrence awoke and saw Gwen a month had passed.  It is unknown just when Gwen returned but it was most likely a few days after Lawrence was attacked then she stayed the rest of the month until the next full moon.  That is when Lawrence sent her away again on the night he made his first change. 

I just rewatched A&CMF last weekend, and I agree that Larry's behavior is not consistent with the level of concern he expresses.  I could always make excuses for it, by pointing out that the moon could have been closer to Florida's latitude than England's at the time, so there was enough moonlight to affect a transformation on the 4th night, and that Larry didn't initially expect this when setting out that day, but really, it was done for comedic affect to allow more wolfey madness and the mistaken identity at the costume ball.

Quote from: Wolf Man on March 02, 2010, 06:05:36 AM
In the original the first night was when Larry was attacked, the second was when he turns for the first time and kills Richards and the third was his last night when he attacks Gwen and is killed by Sir John. 

In Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man his first night is the night he is awakened in the crypt, the second is when he kills the constable in Cardiff and the third is referred to over the phone when Mannering calls to check on his patient only to discover that he bit through his straight jacket during the night with his teeth. 

So even in the classics there is always considered three nights of the full moon although that may be technically or astrologically incorrect it has been a part of the werewolf story for a long time. 

I've completely forgotten that about the original, gonna have to go back and watch it again soon. Thanks.

Quote from: reactorfill on March 02, 2010, 09:12:57 PM
What was Gwen doing for a month?  Studying folklore and searching for Maleva before returning to the village.  Maleva and Gwen don't meet in Blackmoor, they meet  somewhere else.  Gwen took a train to find Maleva and then a coach back to Blackmoor.

I missed all of that completely. I thought Maleva turned up at the stable in Blackmoor when Gwen got back there. Now I'm almost tempted to go see it at the cheapo theatre just to take notes. Are you sure about her studying up and them meeting elsewhere?

Your welcome, alas, how could I forget my three nights of agony each month.  It is glorious isn't it.  The beast will have his day.

Quote from: Wolf Man on March 02, 2010, 06:05:36 AM


So even in the classics there is always considered three nights of the full moon although that may be technically or astrologically incorrect it has been a part of the werewolf story for a long time. 

The most amazing thing is that during the 1941 Wolf Man film, as much as it is mentioned, not once do we even see the moon, full or otherwise.

They were waiting to show the full moon in the sequels.  Don't want to give it all away in the first film.  We got to see some really cool full moon shots in the new Wolfman.  I especially like the way they speeded up the film as the moon was rising. 

I give it a great big claws-up! Ok, so there were some things I didn't like about it. I hated the werewolf battle at the end. Just too over the top and not at all interesting (it's almost a remake of the Iron Man movie and its final battle at the end...same pattern I mean). And some parts were choppy. But overall, I liked Benicio del Toro as Talbot, and I enjoyed most of the scenes. The atmosphere was great. But most of all, I loved the werewolf attacks! Now that is how a werewolf hunts, not like Chaney in the original! Best werewolf attack scenes ever!

It had enough flaws not to be the definitive werewolf movie I am still waiting for, but it was really satisfying.

I actually enjoyed the werewolf on werewolf fight for a number of reasons.  First, it was a nod toward the Paul Naschy movie Frankenstein's Bloody Terror where Naschy fights the resurrected werewolf that was his ancestor.  I also liked the Old werewolf vs the young "pup" so to speak.  The fight itself I thought was well choreographed although I would have liked to see Lawrence "not" kick Sir John into the fire but finish him off with brute strength but that to me was a minor point and he still handed Sir John a killer finale.  I also loved the way the mansion began burning down around them.  It would have been a very destructive fight.  Any fight between werewolves would be destructive in the extreme.  I also liked the good werewolf against the evil one aspect.  I have heard comments about Sir Anthony's sluggish portrayal but I thought he played the evil aspects of papa Talbot just right.  He had a real nasty streak even though he killed family members he supposedly loved. 

Quote from: Wolf Man on March 06, 2010, 12:08:11 PM
They were waiting to show the full moon in the sequels.  Don't want to give it all away in the first film.  We got to see some really cool full moon shots in the new Wolfman.  I especially like the way they speeded up the film as the moon was rising. 

Agreed about the remake. However, at the time the original Wolf Man was produced in 1941, there were no plans for any sequels..just the concept of getting the film made and put out there as a money-maker. Universal did not know at the time that the character was going to be so popular. The absence of the full moon in the original film is simply due to lack of adding it to the script or finished film in any scenes.

Quote from: Unknown Primate on March 02, 2010, 01:45:28 AM
Oh yeah, I'm still glad that Del Toro was the beast, I just didn't care for the whole asylum deal.  I mean, how sorry do we have to feel for this poor guy?  And the doctor was so despicable, he was almost cartoonish (IMO)!!  Anybody feel sorry for him when he got it?  I didn't!  

Ididn't feel sorry for him at all.  He had it coming and I was hoping it would happen. I thought when he was strapped down in the asylum and then changed and broke loose was one of the few high points of the film. I liked the London segment.

Thanks Wolf Man - I must have missed the moon changing cycles. Got it now.

My biggest criticism: too much werewolf.

Seriously, as an adult who's see a fair amount of movies, there needed to be more suspense/tension built before seeing a head-to-toe monster shot in crystal clarity. At no time was I pulled-in nor did I ever experience any sense of discovery. It was the the "Cliff Notes" of monster movies

I can cut the classic werewolf movies a lot of slack as they were building their history (no jaded audiences yet) and establishing a genre BUT a modern production really needs to bring something unique to the table.

Just got home from seeing the Wolfman...My Vote...
a resounding YAY!!!
Loved every minute of it...
Mcdee

Quote from: Gillman-Fan on March 09, 2010, 10:29:08 AM
My biggest criticism: too much werewolf.

Seriously, as an adult who's see a fair amount of movies, there needed to be more suspense/tension built before seeing a head-to-toe monster shot in crystal clarity. At no time was I pulled-in nor did I ever experience any sense of discovery. It was the the "Cliff Notes" of monster movies

I can cut the classic werewolf movies a lot of slack as they were building their history (no jaded audiences yet) and establishing a genre BUT a modern production really needs to bring something unique to the table.

This is one of the aspects I really loved about the film.  I can see what you are referring to.  In Jaws, Bruce the mechanical shark did not work very well so they opted to not use it and what we got instead was a lot of suspense and tension from the unseen.  Once the shark is visible it became a bit less scary and looked kind of fake, especially by today's standards.  However, one of the complaints I always had with werewolf films was that I wanted to "see" more of the monsters.  After all, most of us think they are really cool, cool looking and want to see as much of them as possible.  Consider this, the film does not look like it will break even with just box office receipts therefore we most likely won't get a sequel nor is it looking good for many more of these classic monsters to get a revamp.  With that being possibly the case then for me personally I want as much as I can get from this one.  Imagine if they had not shown much of the werewolf at all.  Shown him in the darkness and shadows or very quick one second views, while the suspense may have been higher that is all we would have "ever" seen of him.  With no sequel to look forward to and future classic monster revamps less likely there would be very little to satiate our appetites.  So I for one am pretty glad they decided to "show" us lots of the monster and the werewolf battle at the end showed a lot as well.  I enjoyed all the iconic images the film had to offer.  Had the film been more suspensful I am not convinced it would have done any better at the box office so we would have just been disappointed in how little we saw of the Wolfman.  I am sure there would have been lots of complaints about that if that had been the case.  Just a different take on the subject. 

Hey, if I'm gonna tailor my Halloween 'look' to resemble the new Wolfman makeup, I pretty much HAVE to see the monster as much as possible, in as good a lighting as possible, and from as many angles as possible.  So I'm quite happy seeing what this guy looks like.

Quote from: Gillman-Fan on March 03, 2010, 09:37:22 AM
Strictly speaking, should A&C movies be considered canon in relation to U-Monsters?

Absolutely!! Same studio, same actors under make-up, same Universal folklore.

An interesting (to me at least) little factoid. My pal, who is a projectionist, has seen the film six times, and the last time he saw it he counted the number of instances someone says "Lawrence" during the 102 minute film. His count? 52.

The new Wolf Man was just plain awesome! It was awesome! I loved it!

Quote from: darkmonkeygod on March 18, 2010, 05:54:51 PM
An interesting (to me at least) little factoid. My pal, who is a projectionist, has seen the film six times, and the last time he saw it he counted the number of instances someone says "Lawrence" during the 102 minute film. His count? 52.

Your friend needs a hobby. Badly. ;)

Coulda been worse though, Scatman. When I skimmed DMG's comment I thought at first he said "proctologist" and I'm like, "Oh no, where could this possibly be going??"  :D

Quote from: depressedlarrytalbot on March 19, 2010, 04:30:22 PM
Coulda been worse though, Scatman. When I skimmed DMG's comment I thought at first he said "proctologist" and I'm like, "Oh no, where could this possibly be going??"  :D

When you're discussing proctology, you know EXACTLY where things are going. How are you doing my friend?? How's things down under??

So, Scatter, yay or nay, for " The Wolfman "?

Quote from: Unknown Primate on March 19, 2010, 06:28:31 PM
So, Scatter, yay or nay, for " The Wolfman "?

Enthusiastic "YAY". Knowing beforehand that it was going to be pretty far afield from the inimitable original, I simply judged it on its own merit rather than holding it up to scrutiny. As such, it's a flawed but entertaining film. But then, to me, almost everything made after the mid 80s is flawed anyway.

Quote from: Scatter on March 19, 2010, 08:57:27 PM
As such, it's a flawed but entertaining film. But then, to me, almost everything made after the mid 80s is flawed anyway.

pretty much how I feel--finally saw it today when my friend called to say it was playing at Movies 10 (the $2 theatre) at noon.

The story was okay--no surprises though, and everything is telegraphed (when the Dr says Larry has no more chance changing into a wolf than he has sprouting wings and flying out the window, everyone knows that he's going out that window). Even "the big shocker" is pretty predictable, and not the most interesting the way the story could've gone. (The portrait of Mrs Talbot makes it obvious she's a gypsy, but the gypsies barely function in the story--not in the major way as in Wolfman 41)

One thing I miss in modern genre films is the lack of characters--Gwen, Singh, the detective, the doctors, Maleva perform their functions in the story, and that's about it.

I thought the effects were very good, except for when Larry's running on all fours. Spotted the CGI bear right away, though--probably 'cause I know that there are real bears.

And, of course, the sequel story is obvious at the end.

I hope another movie is in the mix...Like I've said before...I went expecting to see a Wolfman Movie, and that's exactly what I saw...I really enjoyed it and can't wait to own it on DVD...
(http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss74/FRANKENSTIEN53/m_6d0030943606b35ba1654b655fba35-1.gif)

Monster Movies Rule!
Mcdee

That is a cool gif Mcdee.  I just downloaded it myself.  Wouldn't it have been cool if that is how the change looked in the film?  Sorry, just had to throw that in. 

QuoteHow are you doing my friend?? How's things down under??

"Super - thanks for asking!"
At the risk of OT'ing this thread, I [like so many here] am watching your personal drama unfold, with baited breath ....
However it runs, my hat's off to you and yours.

I just downloaded the soundtrack to "the Wolfman".  If anyone wants copies (by-passing the copyright laws)...let me know.  $2.00 would cover shipping.

Bizarro Jeff

How exactly does paying for a copy of your downloaded one 'bypass copyright laws'?

Quote from: Uncanny on April 05, 2010, 10:08:16 PM
How exactly does paying for a copy of your downloaded one 'bypass copyright laws'?

It doesn't. And he didn't say it did.

I think I may be the last one to have finally seen this movie (of those who had/have an interest in seeing it).  Never got a chance to see it on the big screen.  Was going to go with a brother of mine when it came to the Classic Cinema theatre by me but it never arrived.   So I just did the pay per view on Direct TV.   Almost amazingly I avoided any spoilers other than posts about the basic plot, etc.

I liked the little twist of Sir John being a werewolf and had no problem with any of the CGI effects.  They were strategically used and believable/well done.  The movie could have been about 20 minutes shorter for some of the lengthy "dead" scenes (dead as in slow, not dead as in dead).  While it was indeed pretty gory, it wasn't over the top in my opinion.  I liked the ending and obviously it left things wide open for a sequal.  Here's to hoping.  On a one to five star rating, I give it a solid four stars.  I'll be adding this to my collection at some point as well. 

Quote from: CreepyJeff on June 06, 2010, 01:42:54 AM
I think I may be the last one to have finally seen this movie (of those who had/have an interest in seeing it).  Never got a chance to see it on the big screen.  Was going to go with a brother of mine when it came to the Classic Cinema theatre by me but it never arrived.   So I just did the pay per view on Direct TV.   Almost amazingly I avoided any spoilers other than posts about the basic plot, etc.

I liked the little twist of Sir John being a werewolf and had no problem with any of the CGI effects.  They were strategically used and believable/well done.  The movie could have been about 20 minutes shorter for some of the lengthy "dead" scenes (dead as in slow, not dead as in dead).  While it was indeed pretty gory, it wasn't over the top in my opinion.  I liked the ending and obviously it left things wide open for a sequal.  Here's to hoping.  On a one to five star rating, I give it a solid four stars.  I'll be adding this to my collection at some point as well. 

Couldn't agree more!! Not a perfect film, but what film (especially modern ones) is?? It's a solid and enjoyable ode to the classic. I'm definitely buying it as well.

To me, this is simply a Must-Have blu-ray.  Most movies I'm content to get on DVD, as Blu-Ray is so much more expensive (and I may be unemployed at the moment).  It needs to make money to ensure the conyinued release of more monster movies of this calibre.  Remakes such as Halloween, Friday the Thirteenth, and A Nightmare on Elm Street were all entertaining, but ultimately forgetable.  The Wolfman was impressive, and even if it was not associated with a classic, even if it did not feature a werewolf, I would still want to see future horror movies like it released.

This really is a must have Blu-Ray. It was a perfect remake and a perfect monster movie. It did not have a single flaw. It was a perfect thing. I watched it three times since I got it already. Last night I watched it along with the original. I absolutely loved the 2010 Wolfman and if that is any indication of what Universal plans for Frankenstein, Creature from the Black Lagoon, and Dracula: Year Zero, then call me a five year old in a toy store!

Yay.

I think if you go into this movie with the idea of comparing it to the original, you are setting yourself up for disappointed. They just don't make movies like they used to and they never will.
That being said. I thought it was a great film. I easily put this in my top five werewolf movies.  I love werewolves (and the wolfman in particular) when they are done right and in this movie THEY WERE DONE RIGHT. Benecio was a very good Larry Talbot. The make up was amazing and the cgi was appropriate and not overdone.

If you take it out of the context of a remake and just enjoy it as its own thing it is a good werewolf movie. Not the best, but up there.

Quote from: josezombiekillr on June 07, 2010, 08:48:00 AM
Yay.

I think if you go into this movie with the idea of comparing it to the original, you are setting yourself up for disappointed. They just don't make movies like they used to and they never will.
That being said. I thought it was a great film. I easily put this in my top five werewolf movies.  I love werewolves (and the wolfman in particular) when they are done right and in this movie THEY WERE DONE RIGHT. Benecio was a very good Larry Talbot. The make up was amazing and the cgi was appropriate and not overdone.

If you take it out of the context of a remake and just enjoy it as its own thing it is a good werewolf movie. Not the best, but up there.

Well said.

Wasn't expecting much after seeing the trailer (thrash metal for a period re-telling of The Wolfman?!  ???)  Fortunately the talent involved chose to make a movie rich in atomosphere, character, and mood when the studio was probably clamoring for a film about teenage werewolf angst!  No hockey masks, no chainsaws, just a good old-fashioned monster movie!  For fans of the classic Universal monsters, this WOLFMAN  is a real treat.

Quote from: Rich on June 06, 2010, 01:37:07 PMIt was a perfect remake and a perfect monster movie. It did not have a single flaw. It was a perfect thing.

That's going a bit far, I think. The script suffered from being a bit too dark and heavy-handed. The silver-handled cane and Maleva were grossly mishandled, like hastily tacked-on afterthoughts. Larry Talbot was far too morose from the get-go, so his plight simply wasn't as wrenching for audiences. Sir John's "afflication" was obvious from the start, so there was no real twist to it. The CGI was horrible, and rarely matched the physical effects. Even the gorier director's cut was a mish-mash, and muddled the story even further by having Gwen go to London to meet with Larry, but then have them meet for the first time yet again at Talbot Hall. Most of the film's flaws stem from changing directors just two weeks prior to the start of production, and then the studio recutting it to get to the first transformation quicker. But, perfect? Hardly.

Spike had the broadcast premiere of this film last night. NBC/Uni wouldn't even put it on any of their networks...like, Syfy, for instance.

Other than Anthony Hopkins' "furry shirt" at the end I enjoyed movie very much. I also love Danny Elfman's score for the film. i feel it complimented the movie very well.

Quote from: Howler on June 11, 2012, 02:31:20 AM
Other than Anthony Hopkins' "furry shirt" at the end I enjoyed movie very much. I also love Danny Elfman's score for the film. i feel it complimented the movie very well.

How else were we gonna know which werewolf was which if they didn't do shirts vs. pelts?
Yeah, Elfman's score was killer. Naturally, it was the first thing the studio tried to ditch!

Quote from: Count_Zirock on June 11, 2012, 02:44:09 AM
How else were we gonna know which werewolf was which if they didn't do shirts vs. pelts?
Yeah, Elfman's score was killer. Naturally, it was the first thing the studio tried to ditch!

Papa was grey and jr was brown. More so than him taking his shirt off i think the odd thing was that Anthony had a belly yet the body suit had abs. It looked weird to me. The same kind of reaction to Batman's body armor having nipples.

I actually saw it for the first time last night. I have to admit it didn't really engage me at all. Like the Count said, it was a bit too dark and Talbot was too morose to raise any sympathy with me.

I may be alone in this, but there's something off-puting about trying to make every camera-angle in a movie artsy and moody. It seemed like everything was carefully framed with minimal light, or shot from an extreme low or high angle. The fight between father and son werewolves at the end of the movie kind of bored me. It seems like they spent most of their time showing how "supernatural" they were by tossing each other across the room (which seemed to burst into flames pretty darn quickly-shouldn't have stained the woodwork with creosote I guess) One "super" toss across the room is jarring, several "super" tosses across the room became repetitive for me. Again, just my opinion.

I generally enjoyed the movie overall.  I liked the settings, costumes, etc.  I liked the largely bipedal Wolf MAN.  I hate too much CGI.  It should be slipped in with a chance of you not noticing---NOT be the entire film. 

I know werewolves are supernatural beasts----but I just really don't like beasts flying through the air like it's Cirque de Soleil.  It looks stupid, just being honest.  The final battle scene between the 2 werewolves was, IMO, mindless crap that looked like it was choreographed by a 3 year old holding 2 action figures in midair and mashing them together-----like 3 year olds do when they make 2 action figures 'fight'.  I was reminded of the midair battle inside the house in Lost Boys--------except vampires are supposed to be able to fly or float or whatever (or at least some versions are).  Though I wouldn't want to see Dracula floating around in human form and I don't want to see the Wolf Man doing that, either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsPbjsdXX28&feature=player_detailpage#t=4s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsPbjsdXX28&feature=player_detailpage#t=4s)

Never mind that Anthony Hopkins' supernatural, Cirque de Soleil beast form still looks like a fat sack of potatoes.  Wouldn't a supernatural beast be IN SHAPE?  Anyways...  I don't like when ridiculous flea-like leaping ability is given to werewolves or apes or anything like that.  MORE acrobatic, nimble, athletic, stronger than a human?  YES, do that.  But don't go overboard.  They always go overboard with the new flics, whether it's the CGI or the stunt rigging (they did this in the Planet of the Apes remake with Marky Mark, too).  Here the chimp is fighting with him and seems SOMEWHAT stronger, but then suddenly is able to flip him through the air like he was a pillow.  More damned stunt rigging nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3HwxVvoqTk&feature=player_detailpage#t=15s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3HwxVvoqTk&feature=player_detailpage#t=15s)


How about making a werewolf kind of as athletic as a wolf?  Or because he's bigger----how about like a lion?  They gave them lion's roars------which also bothers me-------how about lion's athleticism?  Give him the benefit of the pincher grasp that comes with opposable thumbs coupled with that extra strength and athleticism, but don't be silly.  A werewolf, IMO, should be as nimble as a chimpanzee maybe, strong as a gorilla.  Just thinking out loud.  That's super-human power with a bounce in his step, but not ridiculous.  JMO.

Also, in the attack sequence at the gypsy camp, the werewolf was lightning fast.  I don't know how I feel about that.  Makes you wonder how he can ever be caught or defeated.  I know he was claws and teeth-------but victims were being mangled as if they were sticking body parts in a nuclear-powered wood chipper.  There's no modulation.  Again, it appears as if a 3 year old was in charge of these effects.  The damage the werewolf could do to a human body wasn't unbelievable-------but the instantaneous mutilation was too fast, IMO.  Did he have a light saber? :o

You never got the impression that Anthony Hopkins was a good man.  Not sure the heroine sticking around that dingy, run down estate with a sinister Sir John before or after her beau's death was believable. 

And yet I am saying that I enjoyed it overall.   ::)  Well... I like the Wolf Man as a character.  I like classic Universal monsters.  I WANTED to like it.  Maybe I made myself. ;) 

I missed it in theaters, but caught it on DVD when it was first released. I liked it, but I felt there were parts that just didn't gel. With a solid director, great actors, etc, the sum should have been greater. I did like Baker's design, and was glad to see a werewolf that wasn't just a giant CGI dog. I'm getting REALLY tired of those.

I watched part of it on SPIKE last night and I feel I may have been steered by the negative press of rewrites, reshoots, etc. Removed from all of that by several years, I appreciated it more.

I want to give it another try soon, all the way through. As I said, I liked it, and appreciated a rare gothic horror film in this age of Twilight, but I think I may have let the internet color my opinion.

Chris

Quote from: Earth 2 Chris on June 11, 2012, 07:55:51 PM
I missed it in theaters, but caught it on DVD when it was first released. I liked it, but I felt there were parts that just didn't gel. With a solid director, great actors, etc, the sum should have been greater. I did like Baker's design, and was glad to see a werewolf that wasn't just a giant CGI dog. I'm getting REALLY tired of those.
Chris

Joe Johnston's a pretty solid director. He only had 2 weeks to prep before shooting began, was the main problem. I mean, have you seen his "Captain America: The First Avenger"? Then Uni started monkeying with his editing, because it was "taking too long to get to the first transformation scene." Yet, by removing certain scenes, we're now left to scratch our heads and wonder at why Lawrence Talbot already had a silver wolf's head swordcane before he even gets home! (Yeah, I know, it's in the extras and the novelization.)

Captain America is one of my favorite films. Definitely one of THE best comic adaptations for sure. I also love his Rocketeer.

Chris

Whoops. :-[

Quote from: Crazy1van on February 23, 2010, 01:26:24 AM
Seriously?? I WROTE that article!!

Crazy1van, this is truly amazing!

Quote from: batgirly on July 25, 2013, 10:47:11 PM
Crazy1van, this is truly amazing!

Thanks. It's in serious need of an update, though.

Ok, the Wolman. It was an amazing attempt to capture and bring back a classic. I think that the actors did an awesome job and the director did amazing. Are my options reciprocated by others.... no. But, as a fan of the original and the some of the remakes (some films never need to be remade) I think im kind of alone in this one. Love it or hate it, see it for what it is, a directors attempt to pay homage to A Universal Monster!

Quote from: Patrick M on August 20, 2013, 04:02:20 PM
Ok, the Wolman. It was an amazing attempt to capture and bring back a classic. I think that the actors did an awesome job and the director did amazing. Are my options reciprocated by others.... no. But, as a fan of the original and the some of the remakes (some films never need to be remade) I think im kind of alone in this one. Love it or hate it, see it for what it is, a directors attempt to pay homage to A Universal Monster!

I enjoyed it quite a bit, and I suspect the major faults have more to do with Universal wanting to twist the film into a typical modern horror flick.

If they were really trying to pay homage to the classic, they wouldn't have had that ridiculous CGI battle scene at the end. That's more of an homage to Michael Bay.

Quote from: Mord on August 20, 2013, 07:12:40 PMIf they were really trying to pay homage to the classic, they wouldn't have had that ridiculous CGI battle scene at the end. That's more of an homage to Michael Bay.

Sad, but true. Especially since he gets incinerated and gets decapitated!

However, he isn't killed with silver, is he? Remember what happened in "The Monster Squad"?

Sir John Talbot lives!!!

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4

This movie makes me mad.

If there were a journeyman director alive who should have been able to do this film, it's Joe Johnston.

He made "The Rocketeer", one of the best of all latter-day adventure films, and one of the finest graphic novel adaptations, IMO.

Captain America: First Avenger was the most enjoyable of the non-Iron Man Marvel movies largely because it didn't take itself ponderously seriously.

Johnston should have been a perfect fit for this material. But it was just... Too much of a muchness.

Anthony Hopkins, while a brilliant actor, has become tiresome. He doesn't know how to handle this material. Never has.

And, as my wife said during the movie: why is The Wolfman dressed like "Han Solo"?

Plus, Johnston only had two weeks of prep before he had to start shooting, after original director Mark Romanek walked. That's the unfortunate reason behind all of Rick Baker's practical transformation effects being scrapped. Johnston had no time to block out the camera placements, plus practical effects take a long time to set up and execute. Only the end-transformation practical make-ups of Del Toro and his stunt doubles were used.

Yes, Hopkins telescopes too much of Sir John's secret from the first time we see him. Also, Del Toro played Lawrence so morosely, it was hard to have an ounce of sympathy for him. It did have the right level of atmosphere, at least.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4

Not a perfect film by any stretch, but I enjoyed it.

Quote from: Scatter on August 22, 2013, 03:37:46 PMNot a perfect film by any stretch, but I enjoyed it.

It has its moments, true enough. The saddest thing is all the wasted potential the film represents. Emily Blount was a great Gwen, too

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4

Quote from: Count_Zirock on August 22, 2013, 07:10:06 PM
It has its moments, true enough. The saddest thing is all the wasted potential the film represents. Emily Blount was a great Gwen, too

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4

Speaking of wasted potential, Emily Blount should have been naked at some point. It was an R-rated movie after all.

Quote from: Mord on August 22, 2013, 07:16:09 PM
Speaking of wasted potential, Emily Blount should have been naked at some point. It was an R-rated movie after all.

Like most things the R-rating has deteriorated over time. In the '70s, and even into the '80s & '90s, you could count on some good nudity and sleaze. Now....not so much. :(

Quote from: Mord on August 22, 2013, 07:16:09 PMSpeaking of wasted potential, Emily Blount should have been naked at some point. It was an R-rated movie after all.

Doesn't she flash some skin in a fever-dream or two? Eh, been awhile since I watched the DVD.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4

Quote from: Count_Zirock on August 22, 2013, 07:43:47 PM
Doesn't she flash some skin in a fever-dream or two? Eh, been awhile since I watched the DVD.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4

Maybe, but if I can't remember, it couldn't have been enough.

Quote from: Mord on August 23, 2013, 07:17:26 PMMaybe, but if I can't remember, it couldn't have been enough.

I recall it being just a brief flash, mostly side-boob. I'd be okay without nudity in remakes of the classic horror films, as long as the films themselves are so entertaining that you don't feel cheated without it. Like Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula," it was cool that the brides and Lucy showed some skin, but Winona Ryder was too good or something to flash a little? Really? Eh, there was way more wrong with that film than just no Winona nudity!

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4

Yeah, it's called the "Keanu Syndrome".

Quote from: Mord on August 23, 2013, 07:32:36 PM
Yeah, it's called the "Keanu Syndrome".

Even beyond Keanu, like Oldman's tranny-granny Dracula. I can understand going for something different, but not something just patently ridiculous!

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4

Quote from: Count_Zirock on August 23, 2013, 08:11:59 PM
Even beyond Keanu, like Oldman's tranny-granny Dracula. I can understand going for something different, but nit something just patently ridiculous!

Nope, it was just Keanu!

Quote from: zombiehorror on August 23, 2013, 09:16:13 PMNope, it was just Keanu!

He did show his chest, though, which was more than Winona did.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4

"The Wolfman" turned up in my YouTube recommendations.  Since it was free, I decided to finally give it a chance.

Watched the first 40 minutes.  Gave up.

Now I want my 40 minutes back.