Universal's Wolfman Movie

[wHySoSeRiOuS203]

I love wolfman :d

 

[GrueSam]

I was very disappointed in this flick.

I thought the script was weak and the characters extremely shallow. Didn't care when anyone died because we hardly knew them. And the fight between father and son was embarrassing.

I did love the gothic feel of the film and the Wolfman and his transformation was beautiful. I don't have to mention the poor CGI...

How I long to see a horror flick with both effects and substance!

 

[Mr ?]

I don't know about that....this Wolfman didn't try to be anything more than the original was. Unlike Frankenstein and Dracula, Wolfman has no classic novel to work from so this crew drew from Siodmak's work. It was, as I feel it should have been, an updating of a 1940's horror movie. In the original, the characters were only as developed as required to be affected by Larry's transformation. The same development was employed here. This was a fun and spooky throwback to the classic Universal monster movie.

 

[GrueSam]

I didn't see anyone affected by Larry's transformation.

Not even Larry!

 

[Bezzerkerr]

I didn't see anyone affected by Larry's transformation.

Not even Larry!

Lemme guess, you LOVED the first SAW?

since when do Horror movies have to have substance?

I watch horror films because i LOVE rooting for the anti-hero. There is little to no substance in the Friday, Nightmare, halloween, Chainsaw, Hellraisers, and mostly all other horror films....BUT THAT IS WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT EM.

I could care less about the characters in the Wolfman. All i cared about was watching the Benicio Del toro WOLF the hell out of his victims...and that's exactly what he did.


Please don't let films like ROSEMARY'S BABY ruin the horror genre ...Horror films don't need substance or a "good" plot to be considered a good film (in their genre)

 

[Oat Willy]

did the original have the werewolf dad? that's the only thing I didn't care for

 

[GrueSam]

Lemme guess, you LOVED the first SAW?

I did enjoy the first Saw because it wasn't anything I had seen before and the ending was brilliant. Sorry!

I watch horror films because i LOVE rooting for the anti-hero. There is little to no substance in the Friday, Nightmare, halloween, Chainsaw, Hellraisers, and mostly all other horror films....BUT THAT IS WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT EM.

If you think that the Wolfman's script was just as good as Friday, Nightmare, Halloween, Chainsaw and Hellraiser then we will have to agree to disagree.

I could care less about the characters in the Wolfman. All i cared about was watching the Benicio Del toro WOLF the hell out of his victims...and that's exactly what he did.

I enjoyed "the wolf" and previously said so.

But I would've enjoyed the movie more if there had been chemistry between him and What's-Her-Name. Or felt anything for anybody.

I was truly scared for the victims in the movies listed above. In this one- meh, not so much.

Please don't let films like ROSEMARY'S BABY ruin the horror genre ...Horror films don't need substance or a "good" plot to be considered a good film (in their genre)

A good script/story/plot makes a good movie. See the list above for examples.


Just my

. No big deal...

 

[thenammagazine]

Please don't let films like ROSEMARY'S BABY ruin the horror genre ...Horror films don't need substance or a "good" plot to be considered a good film (in their genre)

You belittle Sam of liking Saw and then in the same post praise Wolfman for being just that. I think you're confusing "fun" with "good." A good horror film is Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. You actually feel sympathy for the Monster and discover the movie through his eyes. Or Romero's Dead series where there's an underlying message playing out through the story on screen. Those are "good" horror movies. A fun horror movie is any one of the Jason movies, Halloween, Freddy, etc., where you check your brain at the door and enjoy the splatter.

 

[Valarauko]

If you think that the Wolfman's script was just as good as Friday, Nightmare, Halloween, Chainsaw and Hellraiser then we will have to agree to disagree.

A good script/story/plot makes a good movie. See the list above for examples.

Those movies used a SCRIPT?? Boy, you learn something new everyday!

 

[Mr ?]

did the original have the werewolf dad? that's the only thing I didn't care for

No. In the original Lon Chaney was bitten by the Gypsy Woman's son Bela (played by Bela Lugosi no less). As for agreeing to disagree, I understand people here really love Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street films but to say they are "quality," when compared to the generally accepted criteria other films must meet to be called such, is a stretch.

NOEM is a fun movie but has aged horribly, IMO. And Friday the 13th are just cheaply made slasher flicks with the substance of pez, again solely my opinion. I begrudge no one in defending these movies. I agree they are fun to watch, but for me it ends right there; because most are fairly boring.

The original Halloween is a good movie, but sparsely scripted and owes much to actor portrayal, music, and pacing. Much of what makes Halloween work is what is NOT shown or told. What makes the original Wolfman a classic, to me, is not how long ago it was made but what it shares with Carpenter's Halloween; pacing, actor portrayal, and music. The scripted story is very loose and was a hodgepodge of elements.

Wolfman 2010 takes the best elements of the original and updates others in an effort to tell a "new" version of this story; otherwise why bother?

 

[RoboDad]

Wolfman 2010 takes the best elements of the original and updates others in an effort to tell a "new" version of this story; otherwise why bother?

I'm afraid I have to disagree. I saw it last night, and all of the best elements of the original story were completely discarded, in favor of a new direction that really left me cold. It could have been a great story if what you say were true, but sadly that isn't the case.

 

[Mr ?]

What I feel the remake captured well from the original was the strained father/son relationship, Larry's relationship with Gwen, a familial werewolf curse, gypsy mysticism, the question of a curse's reality and effect, and Larry hunted by the town and his own guilt.

What elements were discarded in your opinion?

 

[occulum]

I'm afraid I have to disagree. I saw it last night, and all of the best elements of the original story were completely discarded, in favor of a new direction that really left me cold. It could have been a great story if what you say were true, but sadly that isn't the case.

why did you even go see this Robo?
... you knew you werent going to like it ......












........

 

[RoboDad]

Oh, of course. Before I saw it, my opinion was invalid because I hadn't seen it yet and was relying on the opinions of others. Now, having seen it, my opinion is still invalid because I didn't go in with the preconception that it would be great.

Try again.

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Despite its flaws, did you think it was as bad as you thought it would be?

 

[RoboDad]

What I feel the remake captured well from the original was the strained father/son relationship, Larry's relationship with Gwen, a familial werewolf curse, gypsy mysticism, the question of a curse's reality and effect, and Larry hunted by the town and his own guilt.

What elements were discarded in your opinion?

Wow. I wonder if we even saw the same film. I really got no sense of a strained father/son relationship at all. Rather, I got the sense that John had no love for Lawrence at all, and that he only sought to protect his own secret. The relationship with Gwen felt completely forced, since there was no real development of it, only the sudden burst of romance, which they needed as a plot contrivance to sustain the tragic ending. Gypsy mysticism? I'll give you that one, but the way it was portrayed didn't really give the same sense of sadness that the original conveyed. Plus, the connection with the gypsies was artificial, whereas in the original, it was very real. And the curse, and Lawrence's guilt, those are the things that really felt flat to me. The whole sanitarium sequence was just bizarre. Plus, in the original, Larry was questioning his own sanity from the very beginning, when he was sure he had killed an animal, but the body of a man was found. That was pivotal to the original story, and completely absent here.

 

[RoboDad]

Despite its flaws, did you think it was as bad as you thought it would be?

No, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. As a separate story it wasn't too bad (not great by any stretch, but not horrible, either), and, as others have said, the cinematography, musical score, and Rick Baker's makeup effects were superb. But it is impossible to watch the film and not draw comparisons to the original. And that is where it's failures become apparent to me.

[edit]

I do have to add one point, though. Comparisons with the original aside, I was thoroughly annoyed by Anthony Hopkins' scenery-chewing performance. He was so over-the-top that it took me out of the story almost every time he appeared on the screen.

 

[Mr ?]

Wow. I wonder if we even saw the same film. I really got no sense of a strained father/son relationship at all. Rather, I got the sense that John had no love for Lawrence at all, and that he only sought to protect his own secret. The relationship with Gwen felt completely forced, since there was no real development of it, only the sudden burst of romance, which they needed as a plot contrivance to sustain the tragic ending. Gypsy mysticism? I'll give you that one, but the way it was portrayed didn't really give the same sense of sadness that the original conveyed. Plus, the connection with the gypsies was artificial, whereas in the original, it was very real. And the curse, and Lawrence's guilt, those are the things that really felt flat to me. The whole sanitarium sequence was just bizarre. Plus, in the original, Larry was questioning his own sanity from the very beginning, when he was sure he had killed an animal, but the body of a man was found. That was pivotal to the original story, and completely absent here.

You might feel the elements were not effective, but by your e-mail you at least admit they were present; which was puzzling me from your prior e-mail. As you noticed, Larry's father ultimately had no regard for his son; how is that not a strained relationship? I agree there was little development in Larry and Gwen's relationship, because as you noted, there was virtually nothing there but a romantic spark; just like the original. There was no love between the two, just a strained familial connection flushed with a physical attraction, but nothing more. When questioned by the gypsy woman Gwen could not say she loved Larry, because she didn't.

The gypsy influence was definately lessened here, but that was to focus on Larry's father as opposed to Maleva's guilt about her son's curse. I loved the sanitarium scenes and thought they were perhaps the spookiest in the film, but that's an opinion.

Larry did question the reality of his transformations in the original, that was an element left over from a previous script treatment that never showed the transformations on screen and played as more psycho drama than monster movie; it left the lycanthropy up to question. That direction was eventually abandoned, so the re-make left it out totally.

 

[RoboDad]

I don't consider the relationship between father and son in the new film strained, because I perceived no relationship at all. There was nothing there to strain. In the original, I never doubted that Sir John loved his son, but there were issues keeping them apart. In the new film, Lawrence seemed to be little more a psychotic plaything to his father.

As far as the Gwen relationship, I guess what I'm saying is that I didn't see anything that led me to believe there was a romantic spark at all, prior to the scene in the antiques shop, making that scene pretty unbelievable to me.

And whatever the behind-the-scenes reasons are for how the original became what it eventually became, that is somewhat irrelevant. It is what it is, and the torment Larry felt didn't ring as true in this version, at least for me. Instead, it focused more on his anger/hatred for his father, and his ultimate desire for revenge. I will admit that the post-battle ending helped redeem the film a little for me, returning it to its tragedy roots, but in light of the rest of the story, it was still somewhat unsatisfying.

 

[thenammagazine]

I don't consider the relationship between father and son in the new film strained, because I perceived no relationship at all. There was nothing there to strain. In the original, I never doubted that Sir John loved his son, but there were issues keeping them apart. In the new film, Lawrence seemed to be little more a psychotic plaything to his father.

As far as the Gwen relationship, I guess what I'm saying is that I didn't see anything that led me to believe there was a romantic spark at all, prior to the scene in the antiques shop, making that scene pretty unbelievable to me.

And whatever the behind-the-scenes reasons are for how the original became what it eventually became, that is somewhat irrelevant. It is what it is, and the torment Larry felt didn't ring as true in this version, at least for me. Instead, it focused more on his anger/hatred for his father, and his ultimate desire for revenge. I will admit that the post-battle ending helped redeem the film a little for me, returning it to its tragedy roots, but in light of the rest of the story, it was still somewhat unsatisfying.

I think for this discussion bud, you should put on that light blue "I AM A MOTHER____ER!" shirt.