I haven't had a chance to read the article, but I have read their online review of the film. It pretty much sums up the same observations and reactions that other reviews have expressed.
The only problem I have with Fangoria reviews (Dr. Cyclops aside) is that they seem to slam a hell of a lot of decent and even good movies, while praising, erection in hand, the stupid, non-storied Italian horror/gore porn flicks and home video lamefests.
And reading the author's closing paragraph, I'm less worried:
On the surface, THE WOLFMAN is handsomely produced, with Shelly Johnson’s cinematography, the production design by SLEEPY HOLLOW Oscar-winner Rick Heinrichs and Milena Canonero’s costumes all contributing to the heavy period atmosphere and Danny Elfman drenching it in a robust score. The movie is great to look at and listen to, which makes it a shame that it makes you feel so little. What it needed—beyond a trust in the audience’s patience—was the baroque passion that Francis Ford Coppola brought to BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA, or—dare I say it—the nutty energy with which Kenneth Branagh infused MARY SHELLEY’S FRANKENSTEIN. Instead, THE WOLFMAN comes off like a compromise between reverence to its landmark predecessor and capitulation to modern attention spans.
Sounds like a Hammer movie to me, but this guy sounds like an impatient, ADHD ****** who doesn't appreciate story progression and would rather have sat through Saw XXIII.
The only problem I have with Fangoria reviews (Dr. Cyclops aside) is that they seem to slam a hell of a lot of decent and even good movies, while praising, erection in hand, the stupid, non-storied Italian horror/gore porn flicks and home video lamefests.
I know what you mean, but the thing is, almost everything I've read (so far) has expressed the same sentiments. As I said, I still want to see it, but I definitely have lowered expectations. It may end up like Avatar for me - a visual and aural feast, but little substance to the updated version of the Talbot tragedy.
I know what you mean, but the thing is, almost everything I've read (so far) has expressed the same sentiments. As I said, I still want to see it, but I definitely have lowered expectations. It may end up like Avatar for me - a visual and aural feast, but little substance to the updated version of the Talbot tragedy.
Meh, I'm just planning to sit back and enjoy the ride. It can't really be any better than Mary Shelly's Frankenstein nor worse than what Universal did to The Mummy.
Cool clip. As to "padding" the story, it kind of goes without saying that a script that barely managed to fill 80 minutes is going to need a bit added to stretch for 2 hours. I'm psyched...PS
After a troubled production taking almost three long years to get off the ground, Universal’s much anticipated remake of The Wolfman will finally be hitting theaters February 12th. I was fortunate enough to see an early screening of the film a few days earlier, and as a longtime fan of the character and all of the classic Universal Monsters in general, I had to share my thoughts.
The film opens with a color-drained variation of the current Universal logo (why couldn’t they have used one of the vintage logos from the 30’s or 40’s? It would have been so much cooler and more appropriate!) and after some more production logos, segues into a title and voiceover of Maleva (Geraldine Chaplin) reciting a variation on everyone’s favorite lycanthropic poem (which is very much tacked on. More on that later.) Cut to Blackmoor England, 1891. An armed man seeks to confront some legendary beast in the woods, and as in traditional horror movie fashion, he gets exactly what he wants. Later, it is revealed that Ben Talbot, son of the eccentric Sir John has been missing. In this dark time, Ben’s fiancée Gwen Conliffe takes it upon her self to notify his long -missing brother Lawrence. While in England, American stage-star Lawrence Talbot gets her letter and returns to his home in Blackmoor to investigate his brother’s disappearance. Talbot is a brooding, wary man with a haunted background who returns not only to find his brother, but to come to terms with his tragic past.
The stage is set for a brutal reimagining of one of the most tragic horror stories of all time. Long story short:
Ben was torn apart, Larry gets bitten by the thing that did it, turns into a beast himself, goes on a few bloody rampages across Blackmoor and London, falls in love with Gwen, defeats his maker in a fiery showdown, and is hunted by an angry mob, ending in classic Universal style, leaving it open for possible sequels.
Now time for the actual review: The film is beautifully produced, and photographed by Shelly Johnson with desaturated colors hearkening back to the similar look of Sleepy Hollow rather than the more lush, vibrant palette found in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. With the actual production designed by Sleepy Hollow veteran Rick Heinricks, and the screenplay co-written by that film’s Andrew Kevin Walker, the general audience will be subconsciously reminded of that last great, gothic chiller. The Talbot Hall and London sets are grand, and recall the darker corners of the Victorian age without being too stylized, while the slightly fantastical outdoor forest sets directly reminded me of the haunting stage visuals found in the old school Universal backlot. Think the leafless woods from Bride of Frankenstein meets the foggy environs of Llanwelly from the original Wolf Man on a larger, more epic scale.
Despite certainly looking the part of the perpetually sad Lawrence Talbot, with a face reminiscent of Lon Chaney Jr (and a haircut and wardrobe recalling Oliver Reed) Benicio Del Toro’s performance ends up kind of flat. While he certainly does a terrific job doing what the script dictates, not enough time is given to develop the character in the sense that we like him for who he is. Sure, we sympathize with the brooding Larry, as the script understandably has him depressed from the beginning, and we want him to pull through from his horrible affliction, but he can never seem to generate any of the warmth and likeability that Chaney did in his five-film run, despite the character getting progressively more hopeless and gloomy.
However as the title character, Del Toro goes all out. This Wolfman is brutal, scary and doesn’t +*$+ around. While not quite the fluffy-headed, neatly dressed icon we all know and love from the original, Rick Baker’s masterful make-up is still faithful enough to legendary monster-maker Jack Pierce’s classic design (despite making him bulkier and little more wild.) It is truly a testament to Pierce, that a character he designed almost seventy years ago can still be horrifying (with a few tweaks) to modern audiences! Even when the Wolfman was tearing up extras and shredding them up in the goriest ways possible, it was seeing that classic face doing it that nearly brought a tear of joy to this fan’s eye!
As for the rest of the cast... how can you not like Anthony Hopkins in anything? The man’s played Van Helsing, Hannibal Lecter and even Zorro! That being said, nobody plays a kooky, twisted old man like Hopkins, a role he plays here deliciously. If another actor was cast in the role, I don’t think the film would have been as good as it turned out. Emily Blunt is attractive and plays the damsel as well as anyone, and Geraldine Chaplin is memorable, despite being grossly underused as Maleva. Of course the third great player in the story is Hugo Weaving as Inspector Aberline. While not as show-stealing as Hopkins, he certainly gives Del Toro a run for his money in the charisma department as the inquisitive detective. The rest of the supporting cast was nothing short of terrific, especially the Blackmoor villagers and gypsies (the tavern scenes were right out of a James Whale film or a Hammer flick, and the extras could be right out of their stock-company! Even the bar-maid sorta reminded me of Una O‘Connor…)
I must admit the film sort of fails in the character development department,
shifting the original’s tragic drama of Man vs. Self, to a more dumbed-down Man vs. Beast (aka Dad) conflict. I do admit, though obvious from the trailers, it was a good twist to spice things up from the original, but I do wish more time was given to flesh out Talbot’s inner-suffering (“You don't understand!”) Maybe it had enough, but Del Toro just didn’t embody it like Chaney. However, the climactic werewolf showdown was a bit much, and while expected from the beginning, it was the only part I found kind of cheesy or silly (especially the Bad Wolf’s demise, which is still burned in my mind!) The fight scene reminded me of something out of Planet of the Apes, with the werewolves looking more like two of Disney’s Beasts throwing themselves at each other. Another problem I had with the film was the lack of Maleva. While she was prominent in a few scenes, she wasn’t given a strong presence throughout like she could have, and it seems like the filmmakers completely forgot about the “Pure in Heart” poem in the film’s actual story, so they shamelessly tacked it on the beginning.
I also have to confess that Danny Elfman’s salvaged score wasn’t as memorable as it could have been, often seeming like a riff on Kilar’s Dracula soundtrack; but it supported the film‘s gothic atmosphere nicely, when it could have been a lot worse. And though the film was filled with digitally altered skies and quick cuts, they were no where nowhere near as distracting or as poorly done as in Stephen Sommers’ Mummy franchise.
Fans of the original will be quick to point out the various nods to the original, as well as other werewolf classics, including the famous silver cane (which is unfortunately never explained) the telescope, Conliffe’s antique shop, the strapped chair, well-done transformations that often recall Baker’s work in American Werewolf in London, a showdown reminiscent of Werewolf of London, and a rooftop reign of terror right out of Curse of the Werewolf.
Overall, despite my minor nit-picks, I genuinely loved the film! While it could have been a little better, I am still grateful for what we got, instead of what it could’ve been. Finally a Universal horror film remade as an actual horror film and not a dumb action/adventure with plenty of comedy and CGI! After three-years in the making, Joe Johnston’s The Wolfman is filled with enough atmosphere, drama, suspense, black humor and carnage to stand it proudly on the shelf next to Coppola’s Dracula, Brannagh’s Frankenstein and Burton’s Sleepy Hollow as a successor to its gothic horror roots. I pray the movie does well, because the efforts of Johnston, the cast and crew and of course Baker’s terrific make-up, have finally made the classic monster scary again. Thank you!
Overall, despite my minor nit-picks, I genuinely loved the film! While it could have been a little better, I am still grateful for what we got, instead of what it could’ve been. Finally a Universal horror film remade as an actual horror film and not a dumb action/adventure with plenty of comedy and CGI! After three-years in the making, Joe Johnston’s The Wolfman is filled with enough atmosphere, drama, suspense, black humor and carnage to stand it proudly on the shelf next to Coppola’s Dracula, Brannagh’s Frankenstein and Burton’s Sleepy Hollow as a successor to its gothic horror roots. I pray the movie does well, because the efforts of Johnston, the cast and crew and of course Baker’s terrific make-up, have finally made the classic monster scary again. Thank you!
I'm a sucker for literature first, then Universal movies. So I was actually well pleased with Branagh's flick. Coppola's flick was a bit too Oliver Stone for my taste. So I'm actually looking forward to this film to make up for that.
Saw this tonight. Thought it was great, some of the acting was a little stale, but still great cast and everything overall and first half hour felt a bit rushed or as though was at a bit of a odd pace to it (dont know how to describe) but still really enjoyed it! So glad it wasn't all CG. Rick Baker Monster Maker
:chew
P.S. Was also pretty awesome to see Iron Man trailer on big screen, extra hyped for that now
This isn't really a review from the film, but just my random thoughts from my experience: There are no spoilers in this Post aside from my personal opinions.
Understand: I am a huge Universal Monsters fan. Aside from the Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Wolfman is my second favorite Movie Monster of all time. I have grown up on Werewolf movies. I absolutely love The Wolfman and An American Werewolf in London and am a huge Rick Baker fan and transformation scene geek. You could say I had high expectations, but that was OK, wasn't it?
I awoke this morning at 8:30, with my day planned. I was pumped, excited, and euphoric ready to see the 2010 remake of the Wolfman at it's 11:00AM session. I got up so early because all night, in excitement, I couldn't sleep and I wanted to get the best seat possible. I know, maybe a bit too early. Anyway, I arrived in the cinema only to discover that I had mixed up the movie sessions. The next session was at 2:30PM. So, I had to drive as fast as I could to the closest theater. I was not going to miss this movie! I needed to see it and i wanted to see it now. To my luck there was an 11:00AM session running. I ran in to the cinema, exhausted, and was just in time when the movie started.
I sat in the cinema chair, panting, and spent the entire length of the movie in contemplation.
So, what did I think? Rick Baker has done his job exceptionally well. His talent and enthusiasm never seizes to amaze me. From his contribution, product and art that I saw on screen, I could tell that every part of his skill, heart and soul was genuinely in this film, but was everyone else's?
The Wolfman, himself, is AWESOME! Although some shot looks unconvincing, this is not the fault of Baker's and instead the fault from the editors. This film is so poorly edited its unbelievable.
The transformation scenes, although exciting and incredible, fail to deliver the same kind of emotional impact that I loved in American Werewolf and it seemed that by the time they arrived, they were over too quick. They are completely computer generated, and it seems that Baker's dream of combing the two effects techniques has been crushed.
The first half of the film was, in my opinion, was perfect. I loved it. But it seems that the second half, was almost disconnected from the first half. This particular Wolfman story is absolutely beautiful. There are so many fantastic undertones that are only really appreciated if you study the film. However, half way through, it becomes something else. To be completely honest, CRAP! Without giving away too much, suddenly we see way too much of the Wolf, everything falls apart, it becomes predictable, almost boring, just made me sad and it almost turns into a Buffy episode.
I don't understand. This was supposed to be Universals big opening to their re-introducing of Universal Monsters but it's not good enough. The film isn't bad but it's not good either. It's in the middle, when it should have been great if they wanted to respect the originals.
I listened to an interview with Rick Baker, he said that he had to do this movie because he wanted it to be the best Wolfman movie ever made. I can't help but think that maybe he's disappointed as well.
If Hot Toys make a Wolfman, I'm in. The Wolf, like I said, Is awesome.
By the time the movie was finished, I had melted into my seat with disappointment and sadness. This has made me so angry. What are Universal doing? These movies should be THE GODFATHER (slight exaggeration)! How could anybody during this film's production think that this was at all going to be the Wolfman Movie it should have been.
I tried to like this film, I really did. But isn't that a problem?
If this is the kinda justice and the kinda films Universal is making for the re-introduction of there fantastic Classic Monsters, I'll kill myself when I see the Creature from the Black Lagoon remake that's coming. UNIVERSAL, PLEASE DON'T F#%K UP THAT TOO.
Sorry, Rick Baker
Sorry, Wolfman
And Sorry, all the fantastic actors that were in this film.
THIS WAS A WASTE OF YOUR TIME. BUT YOU'VE DONE EVERYTHING YOU COULD DO PERFECTLY.
With all due respect, Dr. Brundle...perhaps your self professed pre-screening euphoria played a major role in your let down. I am going in expecting nothing. If it is a watchable Wolfman entry then I walk away entertained.
Here's the thing:
It's not original. Its a remake. By its very nature as a remake it will be inferior to the original, which has had decades to build its audience. When the Wolfman was released in 1941, there had been nothing like it up to that point, with the exception of Henry Hull's Werewolf of London. So, when audiences saw it... they were thrilled. It's 70 years later and the same rules Siodmak laid down in the Wolfman are still canon for the genre. Thats the problem with remakes.
Universal is looking to "bottle" the same magic the monsters originally brought them. For that, I tip my hat to them. But let's face it---any remake be it the Creature, The Wolfman or the Umpteempth Dracula could be amazingly entertaining. But someone out there is going to go "blah". It's just the nature of the beast.
Now, as far as the editing goes----you are probably right. It's most likely rushed and messy. Wanna know why? 17 minutes of the film were cut by said editors. When the film is released on dvd, those 17 minutes are coming back. I only hope those missing 17 minutes don't kill the film's box office. I want to see more Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolfman, Bride, Creature. Even if they are pale in comparison---it keeps interest in the originals alive.
If they ever remake Frankenstein, I hope they go back to Karloff/Pierce's make up. I know it isn't scary. It proibably wasn't scary in 1931 either. But its instantly recognizable as Universal
's Frankie. Just like Baker's Wolfman is just that...a Wolfman. Even if the movie sucks I give Universal and all involved "props" for trying.
Kind of rambled on there, but back to my point. Pre-screening euphoria/hype can kill a movie for you. Downplay the film in your mind. Set your expectations low. Then, if the film is even moderately enjoyable, you get rewarded.
I agree with Anton. Serously, I can't imagine how big a fan with a fairly open mind could be genuinely upset by how the movie turned out.
Don't get me wrong, the movie is flawed, and far from a masterpiece, but at the end of the day, it as an entertaining, mostly well-made horror flick. The critics and "fans" make it sound like the original WOLF MAN and AMERICAN WEREWOLF are flawless, consistent, perfectly-made films when they've got almost as many holes as this new version. The biggest difference is they came first and had decades to build a following. Sure, it isn't "THE GODFATHER" of horror films... THE WOLF MAN never was. Like its original, it's a well-cast, beautifully produced B-movie, filled with enough jumps and blood to make it as relevant and fun today as the original was back in 1941.
Don't get me wrong; yeah, it could've been better, but after years of crappy slasher remakes, and Stephen Sommers' PG-13 adventure flicks, THE WOLFMAN is an atmospheric, thrill-filled step in the right direction.
I knew you'd quote that part!
