[Matt PNiewski]

Alright, in a few hours, I'll be checking this one out. I've been anticipating this remake ever since it was first announced. Granted, people seem to think Remake is a dirty word. First of all, the first movie with a plot was "The Great Train Robbery" and the First remake was "The Great Train Robbery." They've always been around, and won't go away. And, as far as Universal Monster Remakes, I say "Go for it." Recreated, Re invent, rewrite the classic mythology all you want. Hammer took their stab at it in the sixties with the same general monster-knockoffs. The Mummy series satisfied my thirst for hilarious, ridiculous adventure. What will the Wolfman do for me?

Upon first viewing, I hated the original. I was ten or so. I loved Frankenstein, and Dracula, and the other Universal Horror films I had seen. The Wolfman bored the hell out of me. I didn't watch it again until just about two years ago, and I realized that there was a lot more going on in that movie than I realized. The subtext about class consciousness completely went over my head (I wasn't a dumb kid, I picked up on the homosexual themes in Bride of Frankenstein with relative ease). I also didn't realize that the movie was laugh out loud funny. It was also picturesque. Just plain beautiful.


Joe Johnston, whose next project isn the much anticipated Captain America film, is probably one of the better directors for Adventure these days. He made the glorious B-Film that was Jurassic Park 3 (after something as dark and uninteresting as The Lost World: Jurassic Park, we needed something fun and cheesey), a film I have no admiration for that is a staple of everyone else' childhood, The Pagemaster, and of course one of the greatest action adventure films of all time The Rocketeer. Judging from his past, and the previews, I feel that I can at least count on a film that looks beautiful.

Really, I don't know what I want. Except maybe an end to the irritating string of Torture Porn and Slasher flicks. I like monster movies. Movies about Creatures. Unfortunately, teen romance writers killed Vampires and Werewolves by turning them into some sort of disgusting fantasy, or some sort of idiotic superhero. I say, no more of that, and bring on the Wolfman!

[Lina]

Matt PNiewski, on Feb 12 2010, 01:32 PM, said:

Alright, in a few hours, I'll be checking this one out. I've been anticipating this remake ever since it was first announced. Granted, people seem to think Remake is a dirty word. First of all, the first movie with a plot was "The Great Train Robbery" and the First remake was "The Great Train Robbery." They've always been around, and won't go away. And, as far as Universal Monster Remakes, I say "Go for it." Recreated, Re invent, rewrite the classic mythology all you want. Hammer took their stab at it in the sixties with the same general monster-knockoffs. The Mummy series satisfied my thirst for hilarious, ridiculous adventure. What will the Wolfman do for me?

Upon first viewing, I hated the original. I was ten or so. I loved Frankenstein, and Dracula, and the other Universal Horror films I had seen. The Wolfman bored the hell out of me. I didn't watch it again until just about two years ago, and I realized that there was a lot more going on in that movie than I realized. The subtext about class consciousness completely went over my head (I wasn't a dumb kid, I picked up on the homosexual themes in Bride of Frankenstein with relative ease). I also didn't realize that the movie was laugh out loud funny. It was also picturesque. Just plain beautiful.


Joe Johnston, whose next project isn the much anticipated Captain America film, is probably one of the better directors for Adventure these days. He made the glorious B-Film that was Jurassic Park 3 (after something as dark and uninteresting as The Lost World: Jurassic Park, we needed something fun and cheesey), a film I have no admiration for that is a staple of everyone else' childhood, The Pagemaster, and of course one of the greatest action adventure films of all time The Rocketeer. Judging from his past, and the previews, I feel that I can at least count on a film that looks beautiful.

Really, I don't know what I want. Except maybe an end to the irritating string of Torture Porn and Slasher flicks. I like monster movies. Movies about Creatures. Unfortunately, teen romance writers killed Vampires and Werewolves by turning them into some sort of disgusting fantasy, or some sort of idiotic superhero. I say, no more of that, and bring on the Wolfman!

I immediately thought of Flesh for the Beast. lol

I'm excited for the Wolfman. I'll get to watch it all tomorrow since I'm closing usher and there's nothing else to do, but watch the last shows. lol

[carmelita]

i'm gonna see it today too~ i'm really excited ^^

[Matt PNiewski]

I was originally through posting reviews, but according to Mock Kappa he's lazy and wants them here. He was with me just about twenty minutes ago, driving me home from "The Wolf Man". It seems we had roughly the same opinion.



Glorious Ode to the Classic Horror movie. Too bad their isn't Much Horror to it.


The Wolfman is a film that does everything right, but still comes up short. Benecio Del Toro is perfectly cast as Lawrence Talbot, who becomes the titular Wolfman in this remake of the Lon Chaney classic. His Father, played by Anthony Hopkins, knows what he is early on in the film. This is Hopkins at his most chilling since "Silence of the Lambs". Despite his well delivered dialog, his character seems to lack the human element that would allow audiences to connect. Meanwhile, Hugo Weaving is on the trail of the beast, from a Gothic town called Blackmoor all the way to a brooding turn of the century London. This is a vision of London that would make Jack the Ripper squeemish. Then again, the Wolfman is so brutal and merciless he makes Jack the Ripper look like the gentleman he allegedly appeared to be.

The camera angles in the fog mislead you, giving a false sense of space. This creates unease, and sets up wonderful scares. I must confess, however, I am still waiting for those. Very often a loud noise preceeds a terrifying vision. Haven't we seen that before? Other times, the mysterious growling is nothing more than the faithful dog. Universal may not have invented the horror film, but they certainly gave it the prominence it has now. So why do they resort to, in a remake of one of the greatest horror films ever made, doing the same old tricks? Even in films like "Gremlins" they try a new spin. Or in more effective chillers like "Drag Me to Hell", they actually do them so well the manage to provoke an actual jump. Hitchcock said the thrill isn't in the bang, but the anticipation of the bang. Again, I have to confess, I can't recall a moment where the anticipation was more than "So, are we going to see Rick Baker's wonderful make up again?"

I do not mean to be too harsh to a film that I thoroughly enjoyed. What it lacked in suspense it made up for in mood. What it lacked in terror it made up for in action. This film plays to director Joe Johnston's strengths, which is both a blessing and a curse. He crafts characters wonderfully, and has an award-worthy sense of style and adventure. This is the perfect man to helm much bigger, grander projects than this. Or even just another dumb and lovable Mummy film.

As it is, this movie stands alone. It's a carefully made tribute to the classic Universal Monster flick, while also pushing the combined franchises into new directions. Blood and gore are constant in this movie, but not gratuitous. People died by the boatload, cities are devestated, yet you find yourself hoping that Emily Blunt's Gwen Conliffe reaches Talbot before the show stealing Hugo Weaving. You want Inspector Abbeline (Weaving) to redeem himself before the time runs out. He is perhaps the most multidimensional character in this film. He's skeptical about the Wolfman, but upon learning the truth appears to be the slightest bit sympathetic. Of course, there isn't time for that, he's got a Werewolf to kill before it kills again.

This is a very near miss. It's action packed, furious fun, with just enough black humor to satisfy. It's full of great visuals and a wonderful cast. Too bad it just isn't that scary. It's definitely an enjoyable film, and gets my recommendation. Unfortunately I'll have forgotten about it tomorrow.


**1/2 out of ****

[Mock-Kappa]

Matt PNiewski, on Feb 13 2010, 04:21 AM, said:

I was originally through posting reviews, but according to Mock Kappa he's lazy and wants them here. He was with me just about twenty minutes ago, driving me home from "The Wolf Man". It seems we had roughly the same opinion.

I'm not lazy and do read the reviews on the site. I just figured most of your readers on the forums would want to see your review here.

I found the film an nice but not really overly scary movie , yet I kept waiting for that seven year old over near the stairway in the theater to scream, that was both a homage to Wolfman and Werewolf of London with a little Hammer mixed in.

"A werewolf like that, he killed your brother."

And remeber kids, the best thing to eat after seeing a werewolf rip apart London, Chinese Food.

Finally a new werewolf movie not starting Michial Landon, Joe Estevez, or Peter Sallis.

[Femme Fatale]

Saw the movie today. Was okay. Wasn't "over the moon" for it.

[Matt PNiewski]

Femme Fatale, on Feb 14 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

Saw the movie today. Was okay. Wasn't "over the moon" for it.

Which is pretty much the general consensus.


Though I must admit "Just Okay" is rare for a horror film. Usually it's "Terrible" or "God Awful".

[Krystal]

I hated this movie. I was expecting much more from Anthony Hopkin's character, it was soooooooooooooooooo predictable, and there was no plot.



But hey, it's the wolfman. What can you expect?

[Matt PNiewski]

Krystal, on Feb 16 2010, 12:02 PM, said:

I hated this movie. I was expecting much more from Anthony Hopkin's character, it was soooooooooooooooooo predictable, and there was no plot.



But hey, it's the wolfman. What can you expect?

Your criticism is invalid. You said there was no plot, when the plot is "Lawrence Talbot returns home at the request of his brother's fiance, only to find his brother has been killed. He is attacked by the same creature that allegedly killed his brother and finds himself transforming into a werewolf." Saying "No Plot" is lazy criticism. If you say that about any movie, you clearly don't know what the word plot means.


You don't have to like it, but your criticism can be wrong.


Predictable? To a point. Though there were no real big plot twists, so I don't mind seeing the story unwrap how it did. Compare to a movie like "Drag Me to hell" where it does have a few twists, and you see them all coming. Still, that's not a bad criticism. Now revise your first one.

[Krystal]

Ok, I'm sorry. I'll try.


I was expecting there to be some storyline other than Lawrence turning into a wolf and killing people. Why are their wolfmen? Why does silver kill them? I was looking for a bit more than just one person's story, and when we find out that in the end, the problem isn't resolved, it stays localized, in the same town. There isn't any growth. I don't think Anthony Hopkin's character was drawn on enough. Did he truly love his wife? Did he not? More about that little feral child please. Why did he not look like a werewolf in the cave? And the medical institution scenes were not very original. Yes, I understand mental patients were not treated well, but the hydrotherapy thing has been done.

I didn't like the werewolves. With the technology we have today, I think they could have looked better.


Is that alright?

[Lina]

I agree with you Krystal. There were so many open-ended things that I just wanted to know more about.

My boyfriend told me this was a remake, so now that I know that, Im not surprised with how bad it was. Don't get me wrong, I did like this movie a lot and the acting, action and gore was great, but the stories behind some of the characters were lacking.

[Krystal]

And the girl seemed to at first have a relationship with Lawrences brother! It took her like an hour to forget him and fall in love with Lawrence? For once, I would have preferred more romance leading up to the end.

[Animexcel]

I just back from it. Like most people have said, it was an okay movie. Too many "pop up" moments at a time

Quote

I didn't like the werewolves. With the technology we have today, I think they could have looked better.

I dunno, though I appreciate the old school werewolf makeup and that they made him move faster and advanced, we've seen how technology can go too far with it like the Underworld werewolves and uhh..New Moon lol

[sentinel28a]

Matt PNiewski, on Feb 17 2010, 01:53 AM, said:

If you say that about any movie, you clearly don't know what the word plot means.

I dare you to find a plot in Cheerleader Ninjas. I DARE YOU.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"If your brain doesn't explode"

[Matt PNiewski]

Krystal, on Feb 18 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

Ok, I'm sorry. I'll try.


I was expecting there to be some storyline other than Lawrence turning into a wolf and killing people. Why are their wolfmen? Why does silver kill them? I was looking for a bit more than just one person's story, and when we find out that in the end, the problem isn't resolved, it stays localized, in the same town. There isn't any growth. I don't think Anthony Hopkin's character was drawn on enough. Did he truly love his wife? Did he not? More about that little feral child please. Why did he not look like a werewolf in the cave? And the medical institution scenes were not very original. Yes, I understand mental patients were not treated well, but the hydrotherapy thing has been done.

I didn't like the werewolves. With the technology we have today, I think they could have looked better.


Is that alright?

I don't see why there needs to be an explaination for the existance of the Wolfmen, or why Silver kills it. Nobody explained why Freddy haunts dreams, he just found out how. Nobody knows where the Zombies in Shaun of the Dead came from. It's not relevant to the story. It's just additional exposition.


Everything else works just fine as an arguement, though I will disagree. Though I really can't fight THAT much about a movie I only marginally liked.

[Krystal]

Matt PNiewski, on Feb 25 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

I don't see why there needs to be an explaination for the existance of the Wolfmen, or why Silver kills it. Nobody explained why Freddy haunts dreams, he just found out how. Nobody knows where the Zombies in Shaun of the Dead came from. It's not relevant to the story. It's just additional exposition.


Everything else works just fine as an arguement, though I will disagree. Though I really can't fight THAT much about a movie I only marginally liked.

Freddy Krueger haunts dreams because when he died, his actions in life made him the most evil being on earth. Then, right as he was dying, the dream demons came to him and gave him the power to haunt dreams so he can live forever...

[Matt PNiewski]

Krystal, on Feb 25 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

Freddy Krueger haunts dreams because when he died, his actions in life made him the most evil being on earth. Then, right as he was dying, the dream demons came to him and gave him the power to haunt dreams so he can live forever...

Well, isn't that the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Thanks for reminding me why I hate horror movies.

[Mock-Kappa]

Matt PNiewski, on Feb 26 2010, 08:12 PM, said:

Well, isn't that the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Thanks for reminding me why I hate horror movies.

Superman beats them all.

Anyway, I am just going to say Tall man is better than Kruger because of flying killer balls and evil demon midgets. BOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!