The Wolfman!
- Thread starter DarkHelmet
- Start date
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
I agree with you on all that.
Haven't seen the original Wolfman movie. If it's just the same basic story as this current one, well, I may have to check it out just for comparison's sake, but never had any real interest in that movie, though, as the make-up alone looked too cheesy for me.
CTF
Sr Member
gobler
Sr Member
Yep all were very good in there storytelling and execution. You did forget Wolfen...
Jeff
Just got back from seeing it as well, and I have to admit it was pretty good flick.
Hopkins was great as usual.
The production designs were great, and rampage scenes were awesome (Loved the scene at the gypsy camp).
Already got my Wolfman prop!
DS
Looks like someone has this prop done:
http://www.scifigenre.com/itemDetailPhoto.aspx?sid=GRHL0WYQV0YVUWU&nItemID=74435
DARTH SABER
Master Member
DARTH SABER
Master Member
Yeah, that's the one I got. Made by Mezco.
Thew weathering and color isn't that great, but when you steel wool the paint off it reveals a brassy colored metal underneath. Perfect for chemical weathering.
DS
Zombie_61
Master Member
Saw The Wolfman this afternoon and I have to say I really liked it, but I didn't love it.
I can understand some of the comments made about the performances (though I'd say they're far from mediocre). Benicio Del Toro's Lawrence Talbot, for example, is a bit too understated at times, and doesn't quite generate the sympathy Lon Chaney Jr. achieved for the character in the '41 version. Aside from that, I felt the performances were believable and thankfully, as has been stated, there are no "comic relief" characters. Nice to see David Schofield, but don't blink or you'll miss him (my way of saying his part isn't much more than an extended cameo). And, for the particularly alert, Rick Baker has a very brief cameo appearance as well.
Rick Baker's makeup effects IMO are realistic (given the premise, that is) and believable, and I liked the character design for the fully transformed wolfman. The CGI effects, though quite good, aren't flawless; scenes of the werewolf running through the streets and rooftops of London, for example, are of the "close, but not quite" variety. Still, I didn't find them bad enough to be distracting.
A tweak or two aside, the story plays like an expanded version of the '41 film; the Talbot family history and relationships between the characters are simply fleshed out a bit more (no pun intended) than in the original...until the "twist", that is, after which the film is pretty predictable even with this added element. Actually, I could see the "twist" coming from the beginning of the film, and it's the main reason I didn't "love" the film. I could have done without it; your mileage may vary.
That said, I would recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of the Universal and Hammer classic horror films, or anyone else who expresses an interest. It's not perfect, but IMO it's better than most of the other remakes we've seen in recent years and far better than most of the other werewolf films mentioned previously in this thread.
I can understand some of the comments made about the performances (though I'd say they're far from mediocre). Benicio Del Toro's Lawrence Talbot, for example, is a bit too understated at times, and doesn't quite generate the sympathy Lon Chaney Jr. achieved for the character in the '41 version. Aside from that, I felt the performances were believable and thankfully, as has been stated, there are no "comic relief" characters. Nice to see David Schofield, but don't blink or you'll miss him (my way of saying his part isn't much more than an extended cameo). And, for the particularly alert, Rick Baker has a very brief cameo appearance as well.
Rick Baker's makeup effects IMO are realistic (given the premise, that is) and believable, and I liked the character design for the fully transformed wolfman. The CGI effects, though quite good, aren't flawless; scenes of the werewolf running through the streets and rooftops of London, for example, are of the "close, but not quite" variety. Still, I didn't find them bad enough to be distracting.
A tweak or two aside, the story plays like an expanded version of the '41 film; the Talbot family history and relationships between the characters are simply fleshed out a bit more (no pun intended) than in the original...until the "twist", that is, after which the film is pretty predictable even with this added element. Actually, I could see the "twist" coming from the beginning of the film, and it's the main reason I didn't "love" the film. I could have done without it; your mileage may vary.
That said, I would recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of the Universal and Hammer classic horror films, or anyone else who expresses an interest. It's not perfect, but IMO it's better than most of the other remakes we've seen in recent years and far better than most of the other werewolf films mentioned previously in this thread.
Well after going out and seeing the movie,I would recomend this to any horror fan, The wife kept jumping at the" Scary parts" I feel that was a bit overdone, They employed alot of the old school tricks for the visuals, fog, ground lighting in the distance spider webs etc. A real old school feel with a newer look, I'm glad they didn't go overboard with the CGI just enough was used, I read alot of reviews here in the boards and I say opinions are like noses we all have them good or bad, but over all it was a good flick,, I will see it again!!!!
And the Black Lagoon has been in the works for about the last 4 years, Universal wanted to see how this film would do since the last Mummy movie was a dud, So I hope they press forward with that.
And the Black Lagoon has been in the works for about the last 4 years, Universal wanted to see how this film would do since the last Mummy movie was a dud, So I hope they press forward with that.
GINO
Sr Member
Just saw this tonight.
What a stinker.
Some neat sound design and a more contemporary take on the transformation sequences, but that's about the only positive I can muster about this wolf turd.
If you are not put off by one dimensional flicks then you'll probably enjoy it.
If you were hoping for something more along the lines of Bram Stoker's Dracula (as I was) you're going to be sorely disappointed.
.
What a stinker.
Some neat sound design and a more contemporary take on the transformation sequences, but that's about the only positive I can muster about this wolf turd.
If you are not put off by one dimensional flicks then you'll probably enjoy it.
If you were hoping for something more along the lines of Bram Stoker's Dracula (as I was) you're going to be sorely disappointed.
.
Goonie
Sr Member
I saw it last night. I liked it for what it was...A Remake.
Here is my review:
Story: Predictable
Acting: Fair
Characters: One demensional but not too bad
Effects: Decent but you can tell it's CGI in spots (nothing like District 9)
Makeup: Very well done
Scenery: Period perfect and really is the best part of the movie
Wardrobe: So-so, nothing that stood out like in Brahm Stoker's Dracula
Fun rating 7/10
Here is my review:
Story: Predictable
Acting: Fair
Characters: One demensional but not too bad
Effects: Decent but you can tell it's CGI in spots (nothing like District 9)
Makeup: Very well done
Scenery: Period perfect and really is the best part of the movie
Wardrobe: So-so, nothing that stood out like in Brahm Stoker's Dracula
Fun rating 7/10
Nickytea sent me a script last year that was an official script, but had a lot more story and subplot. In it, Lawrences brother was thought to be seeing one of the gypsy's and I think it was Maleva's daughter as she has some peculiar looks in the finished movie. The beginning was also different with Gwen going to see Lawrence at the theater and the movie opens with the scene of Little Lawrence seeing his dead mother, but it wasn't outside, it was inside the house.
I wonder why they cut so much of that out.
I wonder why they cut so much of that out.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
because of Universal.... Supposedly the film had apprx 20 minutes removed.
Rumor has it that the DVD will include the omitted 20 minutes.
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
Great film, thoroughly enjoyed it!
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Well, if that's the case, I want to see that.
ob1al
Sr Member
I enjoyed it.
Not the greatest film I've ever seen by a long shot, but I totally expected that.
I'm a huge fan of the classic Universal Monster Movies, this took the original Wolfman (great as that is) and spun it around a bit, using the same story but expanding upon it and padding it out in places.
Visually, I thought it looked great, very gothic. Storywise and in terms of pace, it was ok. It might drag a bit on subsequent viewings.
But for what it is, a fun monster movie and a 2010 remake of the old Universal classic, I thought it did ok really.
Al
EDIT: Oh, forgot to add, DOGSOLDIERS is still my fave werewolf film. It kicks ass.
Not the greatest film I've ever seen by a long shot, but I totally expected that.
I'm a huge fan of the classic Universal Monster Movies, this took the original Wolfman (great as that is) and spun it around a bit, using the same story but expanding upon it and padding it out in places.
Visually, I thought it looked great, very gothic. Storywise and in terms of pace, it was ok. It might drag a bit on subsequent viewings.
But for what it is, a fun monster movie and a 2010 remake of the old Universal classic, I thought it did ok really.
Al
EDIT: Oh, forgot to add, DOGSOLDIERS is still my fave werewolf film. It kicks ass.
Last edited:
I saw it Sunday night. I thought it was just okay, but had the potential to be better. The characters all were cool, I would have loved to see more of Hugo Weaving! The story was mediocre at best, you can tell it was chopped up. I'm interested to see what was cut. The make-up effects were top notch of course, but the CG just seemed unpolished... and that CG bear??? Horrible!
I think CG is a great tool that when done right (Jurassic Park, District 9, Avatar...) will look amazing, but when done wrong, just throws you right out of the movie. I work in the biz, so maybe my eye is more discerning than the general public, but I still can't get over that CG bear.... Looked like it was straight out of Jumanji. :lol
I think CG is a great tool that when done right (Jurassic Park, District 9, Avatar...) will look amazing, but when done wrong, just throws you right out of the movie. I work in the biz, so maybe my eye is more discerning than the general public, but I still can't get over that CG bear.... Looked like it was straight out of Jumanji. :lol
Yeah, my one complaint. It did look horrible.
We all feared the CG in this movie from the day the remake was announced and then to hear how disappointed Rick Baker was, I for one feared the worse, but I think they reigned it in. Some of the Wolfman running shots were pushing it, but thankfully there wasn't a lot.
Last edited:
ob1al
Sr Member
It also inspired me to rewatch AWIL for the godzillianth time. Still such a GREAT werewolf film, after all these years.
Yup, a few homages in the new wolfman flick to it, somewhat ironically as AWIL pays homage to the Lon Chaney jr. movie in several scenes.
Full circle - or should that be full moon?
Yup, a few homages in the new wolfman flick to it, somewhat ironically as AWIL pays homage to the Lon Chaney jr. movie in several scenes.
Full circle - or should that be full moon?
Similar threads
