Wolfman: Yay or Nay?

[Patrick M]

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!

[Crazy1van]

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.

[Mord]

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.

[Count_Zirock]

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.

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

[mjaycox]

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"?

[Count_Zirock]

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

[Scatter]

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

[Count_Zirock]

Not 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

[Mord]

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.

[horrorhunter]

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.

[Count_Zirock]

Speaking 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

[Mord]

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.

[Count_Zirock]

Maybe, 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

[Mord]

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

[Count_Zirock]

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