New Wolfman Movie from Universal

[Doh!]

Saw it. Didn't care much for it. Creature design leaves much to be desired. No spoilers from me, but let's just say that if Don Post were still around, I don't think they'd bother making a mask of the titular creature.

[Anton Phibes]

It saddens me to think this film was put out by Universal, and dares to bear the same name as the Chaney classic. This movie is just plain terrible. The Halloween Horror Nights display is actually better looking than what was shown on screen.

The only werewolf movie I have ever seen where the werewolf need rogaine once he transforms. I have encountered scarier homeless people in real life before.

This is not a good movie.

[Rex fury]

I totally agree! This movie was really disappointing in so many ways. I could not clap for the Wolfman 😒
RF

[horrorhunter]

It saddens me to think this film was put out by Universal, and dares to bear the same name as the Chaney classic. This movie is just plain terrible. The Halloween Horror Nights display is actually better looking than what was shown on screen.

The only werewolf movie I have ever seen where the werewolf need rogaine once he transforms. I have encountered scarier homeless people in real life before.

This is not a good movie.

Sounds like my missing it turned out to be a good thing. 

[geezer butler]

Ok, I think im in the minority here, but I liked the film. In terms of a monster in the woods flick, it's pretty suspenseful and entertaining.

Here's the obvious issue: Universal calling it "Wolf Man." Although there's a father/son dynamic in the film, it otherwise bares no resemblance to the 1941 or 2010 versions. For example, it's more of an infection thing than supernatural curse (although there is brief acknowledgement of Native American folklore, so there is possibility it's a curse I suppose). But if the monster is supposed to be a werewolf, then the design is underwhelming.

Again, if you just watch it as a film about a family isolated in the middle of nowhere while a monster spreads some type of infectious disease, then it's fairly entertaining horror flick. Definitely not "the" Wolf Man though.

[horrorhunter]

Ok, I think im in the minority here, but I liked the film. In terms of a monster in the woods flick, it's pretty suspenseful and entertaining.

Here's the obvious issue: Universal calling it "Wolf Man." Although there's a father/son dynamic in the film, it otherwise bares no resemblance to the 1941 or 2010 versions. For example, it's more of an infection thing than supernatural curse (although there is brief acknowledgement of Native American folklore, so there is possibility it's a curse I suppose). But if the monster is supposed to be a werewolf, then the design is underwhelming.

Again, if you just watch it as a film about a family isolated in the middle of nowhere while a monster spreads some type of infectious disease, then it's fairly entertaining horror flick. Definitely not "the" Wolf Man though.

Similar situation with the Godzilla (1998) movie produced by TriStar. I thought it was a pretty good monster movie, but that missile dodging tuna-eater was NOT Godzilla.

[geezer butler]

Similar situation with the Godzilla (1998) movie produced by TriStar. I thought it was a pretty good monster movie, but that missile dodging tuna-eater was NOT Godzilla.

Very good analogy Double H 👍