Wolfman: Yay or Nay?

[Scatter]

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.

[LP_Quagmire]

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.

[Count_Zirock]

It 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.

[Count_Zirock]

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.

[Howler]

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.

[Count_Zirock]

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!

[Howler]

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.

[Pauspy]

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.

[Sean]

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

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


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?

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.  

[Earth 2 Chris]

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

[Count_Zirock]

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.)

[Earth 2 Chris]

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

Chris

[Sean]

Whoops.

[batgirly]

Seriously?? I WROTE that article!!

Crazy1van, this is truly amazing!

[Crazy1van]

Crazy1van, this is truly amazing!

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