Universal's Wolfman Movie

[Dr.Mirakle32]

No. Pretty far from Van Helsing in tone being that it's an actual gothic horror flick. Not Indiana Jones with CGI monsters and a crappy script. Sure there is CGI, but think of it as somwhere between Stoker's Dracula and Sleepy Hollow, but closer to the SH end of the spectrum.

 

[RoboDad]

Since I haven't seen it yet, I can't really offer any opinions on it, but I am more than a little concerned about the tone of some of the posts here (and it seems to be getting worse). Every time someone post anything even remotely critical of the film, their objectivity is immediately questioned.

It is possible for someone to see the film and not like it. That doesn't mean that such a person doesn't get it, or had preconceived expectations of failure, or unrealistically high expectations of success. It may simply mean that they didn't like it.

Maybe the thing to do is accept their opinions as just that - opinions. Some may agree with yours, others may not. That doesn't make you right and them wrong.

Perhaps some people are going to insist that the film is good, or at least good enough, because of their own bias toward wanting the franchise to receive the future attention it deserves. Others may think that it doesn't measure up to what the franchise deserves. In the end, the only thing that will really matter to the studio is the box office success. If it succeeds, then there may be more to come. If not, then it may be a while. But I'm not going to push people to see the film if I end up not liking it, just because I want more films made.

 

[Anton Phibes]

Since I haven't seen it yet, I can't really offer any opinions on it, but I am more than a little concerned about the tone of some of the posts here (and it seems to be getting worse). Every time someone post anything even remotely critical of the film, their objectivity is immediately questioned.

It is possible for someone to see the film and not like it. That doesn't mean that such a person doesn't get it, or had preconceived expectations of failure, or unrealistically high expectations of success. It may simply mean that they didn't like it.

Maybe the thing to do is accept their opinions as just that - opinions. Some may agree with yours, others may not. That doesn't make you right and them wrong.

Perhaps some people are going to insist that the film is good, or at least good enough, because of their own bias toward wanting the franchise to receive the future attention it deserves. Others may think that it doesn't measure up to what the franchise deserves. In the end, the only thing that will really matter to the studio is the box office success. If it succeeds, then there may be more to come. If not, then it may be a while. But I'm not going to push people to see the film if I end up not liking it, just because I want more films made.

Assuming I get over this flu I am enduring, I will see it tomorrow. I will give an opinion after that. My earlier post was primarily a "don't listen to hype and you can enjoy a movie for yourself" warning. Just like negative reviews. If you listen to a negative review, you could talk yourself out of seeing a film you might otherwise enjoy. If I think it sucks or misses the mark---you might love it. Just the way it is.

 

[thenammagazine]

I'm going in expecting Teen Wolf 2, so anything remotely resembling a story and hinting at a nod to the original will make me happy.

 

[[email protected]]

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

I'm sorry but my 'self professed' euphoria played no part in how I was going to judge this film. The Wolfman is watchable but it's also incredibly frustrating. Yes it's entertaining, yes, it's watchable but don't you think that if a studio is pouring this amount of money into a production, they would make it everything it can be? This film is low quality entertainment. It's not worth the two hours. If I wanted to see high quality entertainment, I'd just watch transformers. That movie is rubbish, but it's the best entertainment I think I've ever had.

You say that by its very nature as a remake it will be inferior to the original. I am confused on how you have established such a conclusion on remakes since I strongly disagree with this statement. Some remake are better, in my opinion. King Kong for instance, I thought was a huge success. I am also in love with Cronenberg's The Fly, and Carpenter's The Thing. Cape Fear, Batman Begins (if this is classified a s a remake). You get my point

 

[thenammagazine]

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

I'm sorry but my 'self professed' euphoria played no part in how I was going to judge this film. The Wolfman is watchable but it's also incredibly frustrating. Yes it's entertaining, yes, it's watchable but don't you think that if a studio is pouring this amount of money into a production, they would make it everything it can be? This film is low quality entertainment. It's not worth the two hours. If I wanted to see high quality entertainment, I'd just watch transformers. That movie is rubbish, but it's the best entertainment I think I've ever had.

You say that by its very nature as a remake it will be inferior to the original. I am confused on how you have established such a conclusion on remakes since I strongly disagree with this statement. Some remake are better, in my opinion. King Kong for instance, I thought was a huge success. I am also in love with Cronenberg's The Fly, and Carpenter's The Thing. Cape Fear, Batman Begins (if this is classified a s a remake). You get my point

To be fair, in most cases those are the exceptions, not the rule. And then, still, unless going off of modified box office gross, it's still just a matter of opinion.

 

[Anton Phibes]

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

I'm sorry but my 'self professed' euphoria played no part in how I was going to judge this film. The Wolfman is watchable but it's also incredibly frustrating. Yes it's entertaining, yes, it's watchable but don't you think that if a studio is pouring this amount of money into a production, they would make it everything it can be? This film is low quality entertainment. It's not worth the two hours. If I wanted to see high quality entertainment, I'd just watch transformers. That movie is rubbish, but it's the best entertainment I think I've ever had.

You say that by its very nature as a remake it will be inferior to the original. I am confused on how you have established such a conclusion on remakes since I strongly disagree with this statement. Some remake are better, in my opinion. King Kong for instance, I thought was a huge success. I am also in love with Cronenberg's The Fly, and Carpenter's The Thing. Cape Fear, Batman Begins (if this is classified a s a remake). You get my point

I will give you Carpenter's Thing. But only because its not even remotely close to the first film. It went in an entirely different direction. If you think Jackson's Kong, Cape Fear and Croenenberg's Fly were better than the originals...then I will probably love the Wolfman.

All I was trying to say is that when people get to the point that they are literally pissing their pants to see a film...then it has no place to go but "let me downs- ville" after they see it. You opened the criticism of the film up explaining that you were incredibly excited to see the flick. It has been my observation that people's enthusiasm for a film can never live up to the finished product.

I realize voice inflection and tone are lost in cyberspace, so let me state it clear... I wasn't trying to pick a fight or come across as condescending. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I am also not trying to criticize peoples ability to formulate a valid opinion. I dare say mine won't agree with yours though. Unless the film is the complete, steaming pile of excrement that some folks are already turning it into.

Like this reviewer for instance (hope this isn't you):

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_en_mo/us_film_review_the_wolfman

Funereal and not fun? OK.........

 

[Anton Phibes]

To be fair, in most cases those are the exceptions, not the rule. And then, still, unless going off of modified box office gross, it's still just a matter of opinion.

With me---I am very jaded with Hollywood. It's remake city because they are out of ideas. Have you ever wondered why there are suddenly so many comic book movies, now? The properties have been with us for decades. They were always viewed as kid's stuff..... until the suits ran out of ideas. People keep saying its because comics have finally "hit it big" or reached a new "level of coolness", or we are experiencing a superhero renaissance. Crap. Its because Hollywood is outta ideas.

The majority of remakes are just plain crap. Walk into one expecting nothing. Then---if you get to be moderately entertained for a couple hours, you came out ahead. If I was walking inot the film tomorrow expecting it to be better than Chaney's original....I wouldn't even waste my time going.

 

[[email protected]]

I will give you Carpenter's Thing. But only because its not even remotely close to the first film. It went in an entirely different direction. If you think Jackson's Kong, Cape Fear and Croenenberg's Fly were better than the originals...then I will probably love the Wolfman.

All I was trying to say is that when people get to the point that they are literally pissing their pants to see a film...then it has no place to go but "let me downs- ville" after they see it. You opened the criticism of the film up explaining that you were incredibly excited to see the flick. It has been my observation that people's enthusiasm for a film can never live up to the finished product.

I realize voice inflection and tone are lost in cyberspace, so let me state it clear... I wasn't trying to pick a fight or come across as condescending. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I am also not trying to criticize peoples ability to formulate a valid opinion. I dare say mine won't agree with yours though. Unless the film is the complete, steaming pile of excrement that some folks are already turning it into.

Like this reviewer for instance (hope this isn't you):

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_en_mo/us_film_review_the_wolfman

Funereal and not fun? OK.........

Let's not get into the matter of opinion argument, that's just a throw away solution. As far as you're lack of faith in my opinion towards the remakes that I had listed, it just sounds like your biased towards the originals and that you would see it as an insult to say that the remakes are better that the original films. I respect that. However, you say that If I go into a remake film with high hopes, 90% of the time I will be disappointed? This is a problem and may be true. However, If that's the case then you're lack of expectations towards these remakes will always make you satisfied by the time the film is finished. You will always be satisfied, even if the film is ____ but think about this:

If everyone mimicked your formula, then these films have no reason to be better. If we accept the remakes for being worse that the originals (what you said they were), then why would the studio think to make the next ones any better. This isn't a conflict. Just a conversation between two enthusiasts.

 

[thenammagazine]

HORROR DORK

!!! FIGHT !!!​

 

[Anton Phibes]

HORROR DORK

!!! FIGHT !!!​

 

[Master Wayne]

HAHAHAHAHA Thats awesome!

 

[Anton Phibes]

Let's not get into the matter of opinion argument, that's just a throw away solution. As far as you're lack of faith in my opinion towards the remakes that I had listed, it just sounds like your biased towards the originals and that you would see it as an insult to say that the remakes are better that the original films. I respect that. However, you say that If I go into a remake film with high hopes, 90% of the time I will be disappointed? This is a problem and may be true. However, If that's the case then you're lack of expectations towards these remakes will always make you satisfied by the time the film is finished. You will always be satisfied, even if the film is ____ but think about this:

If everyone mimicked your formula, then these films have no reason to be better. If we accept the remakes for being worse that the originals (what you said they were), then why would the studio think to make the next ones any better. This isn't a conflict. Just a conversation between two enthusiasts.

I am biased about originals. Gotta plead guilty there. I think films are remade primarily because most people have the attention span/memory of the size of a house fly's lifespan. In other words, if its more than 10 years old....reboot. When I heard the Wolfman was being remade...I yawned. The original is a favorite film of mine. A great deal of people view re-makes as a naturally inferior product....that's not my formula. Its just one I agree with. Not to say I won't like the new Wolfie flick.....but the original has had 40 years and constant reviewings to solidify itself in my heart. If a remake can take an idea that was successful once, and improve upon it---then I concede. I think its only been done with Carpenter's Thing and the Blob Re-make. Its just in my nature to cringe when I hear things like "True Grit" being re-made. Or something like this...
https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Universal-Planning-A-3D-Remake-Of-Jaws-16954.html

At any rate, after I leave the theater tomorrow I may find myself
agreeing with you. Sorry we got off to a rough start.


Here is at least one reviewer who got what he/she expected:

https://www.joblo.com/review-the-wolfman

 

[Anton Phibes]

HAHAHAHAHA Thats awesome!

He has no idea exactly how big of a Horror Dork I am........

 

[Master Wayne]

You mentioned The Thing and The Blob remakes. Both excellent, but I think the best of all horror remakes was The Fly.

 

[thenammagazine]

He has no idea exactly how big of a Horror Dork I am........

Never underestimate me.

 

[Master Wayne]

In the horror departmet, I'm no slouch myself.

So... can't we all just get along?

 

[[email protected]]

You mentioned The Thing and The Blob remakes. Both excellent, but I think the best of all horror remakes was The Fly.

Yeah, that is one of my favorite movies of all time.

Now thinking about it. The remake wasn't all that bad. It wasn't great, but I would have liked it to be better, that's all I'm saying.

The movie is called The Wolfman, and I was happy with him so I may have been a bit too harsh.

But as far as The Creature From the Black Lagoon goes:

THAT MOVIE BETTER BE GOLD!

 

[Master Wayne]

I agree.

As for myself, I cannot wait to see what Guillermo del Toro and Dougie Jones do with Frankenstein. That's my most anticipated film right now, bar none.

 

[[email protected]]

I agree.

As for myself, I cannot wait to see what Guillermo del Toro and Dougie Jones do with Frankenstein. That's my most anticipated film right now, bar none.

To Master Wayne -

Same, I just hope that they stay true to Mary Shelley's original vision of Frankenstein. I hope he looks like this, the Wrightson Design:

https://zanybao.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/frankenstein_wrightson-thumb-330x495-19669.jpg

I love this look the most out of all. Way better than FAT VAN HELLSING FRANKENSTEIN

And I cannot wait until I see the 'Girl by the lake' scene done in this film. For me, that's my favorite scene. Beautiful.