Roi Doberwolf wrote:

W0lfen wrote:

UPDATE: Benicio Del Toro says that there might be a sequel if fans want it. So push for it! PLEASE!

Here's the interview.

http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=30755

SEQUEL NEEDS TO BE MADE!! Loving Lawrence Talbot, a remake of Wolfman Meets Frankenstein would be AWESOME for that means he'll have to come back!
...course as much as they changed the first movie I can see them taking that out... *sigh*
How do we push for a sequel though? Just buy the merchandise and all?
I know for certain I'm already going to get the soundtrack next I go shopping and of course DVD (when released).

*envies ArcLight* There was this like... eight foot tall by nine foot wide poster board thing outside the door by the vendors that I REALLY wanted to stuff up my shirt.

Well, Roi Doberwolf, I created a thread for this. So please, read the information there and post your thoughts. I and a friend will send personal mail to Johnston and his agent.
So please, follow the instructions in the thread entitled "SUPPORTERS [...]".

By the power of Grayskull, what a film. Spoilers may be ahead but then again they might not be. Read on at your own risk.

First of all, the worst issues this film has are the editing and pacing issues and the terribly obvious CGI.  The first part of the film feels like it was edited by a lobotomized chimpanzee with a fire axe it was so choppy. Those first few scenes, with the hippity hop cutting are really what drags the whole film down from what it could have been into what it is. The film as a whole never really takes the time to slow down so we can spend time with the characters in any context other than the situation they're in and again that hurts the film on a whole. The sense of mounting dread of the coming transformation that the first one had in spades is replicated here in spite of the rushed pacing however, Lawrence's increasingly frequent and disturbing hallucinations serve to supplement it, without them I suspect that the break neck speed this movie runs at to get to the Wolfman's first appearance would have completely undermined that. If the film had taken it's time, and built up a sense of suspense, built up it's damn momentum, it could have been the best damn werewolf movie of all time. This is, perhaps, the film's biggest flaw. This was a film that needed to take it slow until the first rampage scene. The character development that does take place feels out of context and disjointed and it's just a testament to the actor's skill that they're able to salvage these little character moments that are just as important to the heart of this film as the mayhem the werewolf causes. The actors are the film's saviors, and when combined when the music and (practical) special effects are what save the film from it's flaws salvage it from becoming, God help us, Percy Jackson And the Lightening Thief with gore. Without them it would be a CGI orgy and nothing more.

And I still lol at people who think we should abolish practical effects and replace them with CGI. The CGI in the film, while not completely awful, is still overused and obvious. It's not as big a problem as the pacing, but still, it weakened the film as a whole. As someone who doesn't think that pretty CGI makes a film, and is generally unimpressed with it unless it's used competently and done well, I had to roll my eyes at certain points in the movie, such as the CGI dancing bear, the CGI deer, the Wolfman's obvious CGI claw in the final battle sequence and multiple instances of the dreaded CGI gore. It's annoying, but not impossible to live with. The rampage scenes are brutal and visceral, they grab you by the balls and don't let go until the monster in question and exited stage right. Sadly, it's mostly mooks and a-holes that are in the crosshairs. The only characters who we care about that don't turn furry on nights of the full moon are never even in the same general area as the werewolves, which is all well and good, because these werewolves are like freaking nuclear bombs. Like furry, heat seeking chainsaws these guys viciously dismember anything in their path, they have a sense of menace and power and move with a quickness that most werewolves lack. They seem invincible and not even silver bullets ensure a victory against them. The Wolfman is both the unstoppable force and the immovable object, he seems invincible. There's almost no hope against these werewolves unless you can get close enough for a point blank shot which is easier said than done, and that my friends, makes them formiddible and frightening creatures.

The Wolfman make up, done by Rick Baker, is truly amazing. In addition to being just an incredibly cool looking creature he allows Bencio to shine through. You can still see Larry is in there somewhere, and while this doesn't come into play until the final scene, it's vital. More than just paying homage to the original creature, it allows you to glimpse the humanity in the monster, and that is the beating heart of this genera. Turning the Wolfman into a Goldenwolf esque shining anthro bishoun smiling smugly with his stupid wolf face and standing majestically on boulders and cliffs would have completely ruined the entire movie and would have been an outright insult to the original film. The Wolfman looks great, even the scenes of him running on all fours are a joy to behold and he's moving so quickly that the CGI isn't obvious enough to garner protest. An amazing creation that can breathe, fight, hate and when the occasion calls for it, even feel and think are what makes it so superior to the CGI blobs in Twilight and Van Helsing. It's driven by a human actor, a gifted one at that and it's all the better for it. The Wolfman isn't beautiful nor is he sparkly, he's brutal, vicous and tactil. He has a weight and a sense of motion and momentum. He is alive, and when he's on the prowl he's an actual threat.

The romance between Larry and Gwen is a vital component to the movie, and in spite of pacing issues that undermine much of it's impact the actors, once again, rescue it. Bencio's Talbot is an introvert who has trouble connecting with other people, but it's Gwen who has his affections and no matter who difficult he finds it he tries desperatly to connect with her. Emily Blunt gives a heart rending performance in the final scene in which she desperately attempts to save the man she loves with something other than a silver bullet and when she fails it seems to destroy her utterly. That final scene on the clifftop, between The Wolfman and the woman he loved is the ultimate climax of the film and it's a beautiful way to end a film that seems so troubled.

Anthony Hopkins is so obviously a villain that he might have been wearing a sign that says "Evil Werewolf" throughout the whole film, but he does it so damn gleefully that it's hard not to like his Sir John Talbot. He's a villain that you love to hate, and his death is satisfyingly brutal. Hugo Weaving of course, brings it. "Pint of Bitter, Please" is my new favorite Weaving line.

This film had a troubled production and it shows. At times it even borders on the sloppy. It's not the movie it could have been, and should have been, but that doesn't ruin the film. It is, without doubt, the best werewolf movie to hit theaters in the last decade or so, probably longer. It's managed to overcome it's large weaknesses and that makes it all the more likable. I loved it, and recommend it to werewolf films fans and horror film aficionados.

Last edited by Dinobat (2010-02-13 20:05:01)

Yeah definitely needs a sequel

alphanubilus wrote:

You know folks, I really don't give a rats ass about nostolgia...

Then this wasn't the werewolf movie for you, and you should have skipped it.  There's no rule that says a werewolf fan needs to see/read/etc. every werewolf-related thing that comes along.  As others have said before me, you obviously missed the point.

alphanubilus wrote:

Let's start things at the beginning shall we... circa 1933... While the rest of the US was suffering from a horrific depression, Universal Studios was making a killing, by making films about killers...

Yes, yes, we all know the history.  The question is, do you know why horror movies were doing so well during the Great Depression? In these movies, bad things were happening to other people in strange ways that had very little relation to the bad things happening to IRL people of the day.   IRL people drew comfort from this due to a very basic human psychological fact--it wasn't them, and it was okay to derive a visceral pleasure from seeing it happen because there was no way it could happen to them or anybody they knew.  Yes, there were interesting, introspective aspects to those films that may or may not have made people think, but that's not why it held appeal (and continues to hold appeal to this very day).

alphanubilus wrote:

Folks, the "Wolf Man" didn't due well in 1941. It was ripped apart by critics, as the beast still looked like Lon Chaney Jr., with a beard...

Who cares? It was a low-budget film in 1941 and it showed.  So what? You saw it, you thought it wasn't worth your time.  You do realize you're allowed to think that, right? Then, you saw the ads for the remake; if you didn't like the original, why did you waste your time and money on it?

alphanubilus wrote:

You see folks, the Wolf Man is based upon the 16th century werewolf. The 16th century werewolf is a serial killer, of whom assumes the guise of a wolf to commit haneous crimes.

In its most basic interpretation, yes, you are correct.  However, if I were you, I'd look a little further under the surface and before the 16th Century.  Werewolves have been many things over the centuries and across cultures.  The one thing academics have come to agree on is that werewolves, in their essence, demonstrate the ugliest traits of humanity, imposed with the guise of wolves because a) humans couldn't face that ugliness in themselves, and since b)wolves were the dominant predators in most of Europe (were we get the most werewolf stories), they were attributed all that ugliness.  Hence, people who embrace that ugliness inside themselves are supposedly acting like wolves, and the only reason a person would do that is if they must be, in some mystical way, part-wolf.  And if they're part wolf, then they must look "wolfish"--hairy arms and hands, eyebrows meeting in the middle, etc.  So, the ugly, unfriendly, aggressive, people with excessive body hair and no tweezers in the community were tagged as werewolves.  If you actually read both secular and religious court documents, you'll find that only a few true criminals were accused of being werewolves.

alphanubilus wrote:

If you are to sympathise with the victim, the cursed one, you have to be able to separate the man from the beast. This is WHY Jon Landis opted against Rick Baker's original concept design for the Kessler wolf, for the four-legged beast.

That may be their intent, but I frequently find myself sympathizing more with the wolf.  IRL, wolves, compared to humans, are rather gentle creatures.

alphanubilus wrote:

I know Rick Baker wanted to pay homage, but folks technology is SUPPOSE to take us forward, not backward. This Wolfman, might have been good in the mid-90's, but it feels out of place in 2010.

Maybe they decided to see if they could update the costuming and makeup techniques? They are, after all, a type of technology, which certainly would be appropriate if one was trying to pay homage to a film by remaking it as closely as possible, something which most of Hollywood seems to
have a major disability doing, resulting in flops the likes of which haven't been seen since Shamu hit the water earlier today (i.e. with some frequency).

alphanubilus wrote:

You see folks had Stephen Speilburg had Rick Baker's attitude towards his dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, Stop Motion, dinosaurs would still be here today, but he opted (and wisely so) to utilize CGI for the full beast shots, and kept robotics for close ups and human interaction shots. How much cooler would the Wolfman had been, had they done so?

Then it would have looked really, really dated in a few years.  Have you tried rewatching Jurassic Park lately? The special effects are pretty cheesy now.  I guarantee that, in ten years, people will watch the Wolfman remake and say, "that's pretty good for makeup alone!"

alphanubilus wrote:

The story itself was okay, but nothing special...

One more time, everybody!

KCat wrote:

Minty wrote:

alphanubilus wrote:

You see folks had Stephen Speilburg had Rick Baker's attitude towards his dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, Stop Motion, dinosaurs would still be here today, but he opted (and wisely so) to utilize CGI for the full beast shots, and kept robotics for close ups and human interaction shots. How much cooler would the Wolfman had been, had they done so?

Then it would have looked really, really dated in a few years.  Have you tried rewatching Jurassic Park lately? The special effects are pretty cheesy now.  I guarantee that, in ten years, people will watch the Wolfman remake and say, "that's pretty good for makeup alone!"

No need to even do that. All we have to do is look at Baker's previous work in An American Werewolf In London. In particular, the hospital scene where Jack comes back to visit David. This is something that's almost 30 years old, and has been remastered for high-def (bringing out details that Landis didn't know were even captured on film), and despite that, Jack's make-up still looks convincingly like his face had been torn open. It was realistic enough that Landis thought it was too much, and would've toned it down if he had to redo it.

I have yet to see CGI stand up to such scrutiny after just a few years, let alone a few decades.

Exactly.

which makes this werewolf the best I've seen SINCE American Werewolf in London.

Vindicator wrote:

To the conversation being discussed above about The Wolf Man being of the style of the older 1940's film.  In general I dislike the more human werewolves, especially those with out muzzles and lacking tails. Even with that dislike though the werewolf of this film turned out to be quite exceptional.

The first reason is that the film was not an "improvement" film of the original. They took the original story and updated it to today's standard of film and were directing the old story to a new audience. If they had used a different werewolf it would would have changed the story as a large portion of it was based around the wolf and man not being separate entities but the same individual. (I could add a few notions of evidence from both films however to not spoil anything I shall refrain.)

The second reason is that the werewolf was not a "werewolf" in the sense of the ones from Van Helsing or even straight out wholly wolves but the "Wolf Man." The system created for this creature is very different from the other ones in that it does have the more humanistic characteristics so that you can see the man behind the creature.

The final reason is the use of CGI. I find that CGI is overused. So yes we have the capability to make full on CGI werewolves, however, I have yet to see one that is truly fantastic. The wolfman utilized both Costume (for tangibility) and CGI for details and I felt this worked tremendously in their favor. The wolfman seemed real and in place because it was a man in a mask the CGI then allowed for the costume to interact well such as the detail in the transformation and in the way the foot moved in the ground or rooftop.  The mask showed the actor through it but the hair blended nicely into his face that it appeared more real than any other CGI (and mask) for that matter than any I have ever encountered.

Overall I think it was one of the best werewolves in film, and I'm definitely up for a sequel.

I want to comment but this is confusing. You like the movie or you don't like the movie? I didn't like the chest piece, it reminded me of Skinwalkers, but this was an awesome movie. I have no problem saying that. Yeah Rick Baker totally did a good job, but he was hella pissed off that the transformations were CGI (which I liked also. It was faster than if they did stuff from A.W.I. London.)

Dinobat wrote:

I'm going to let you guys in on a little secret. And it might get me branded a heretic but I don't really care.

I'm not really a fan of wolves.

For me lycanthropy is about more than just becoming a wolf, it has a mystique about it that's far more important to the entire concept of the werewolf than the actual wolf itself. It's about letting loose that inner savagery within yourself, shedding your humanity to become the top predator of the night. Preying on your fellow man because you've become something entirely removed from both him as well as the animal who's shape you wear. Back in the day, wolves were considered frightening and alien. Modern science has revealed that wolves are in fact timid animals who aren't even that dangerous one on one. If you really want to preserve the heart and soul of the legend that so many of us fell in love with, the wolf doesn't really have to factor into the equation at all.

I don't know, that's why I'm kind of turned off to the whole post modern sparklewolf concept. It's a creature far closer to anthros than to actual werewolves, and it just doesn't hold the same allure.

Ummm, I don't think there are werewolves that sparkle yet? Perhaps you should watch some werewolf movies before having a biased review? And FYI Wolfman didn't look like a wolf, what movie did YOU WATCH!!! (haha let us konw so we can go support it)

and as far as Jurassic Park, some of it doesn't look great like the part where they see the Long necks on the raft, but that still looks GREAT in general. And the CGI dinosaurs reacting towards the actors was still done very well. For the first movie, the dinosaurs still look like they could be there, unlike some CGI werewolves where it looks like they were added in. I think that's just b/c shading and detail was not given enough time to give it a more real feel. Scyfy movies are bad about this. Anyway you can't diss Jurassic Park, I'm sorry. Until there is a Werewolf ride at an amusement park, you can't diss Jurassic Park.

Last edited by WerewolfImmortal (2010-02-15 09:45:07)

Honestly folks if this IS the best werewolf movie you've seen to date, then either it is because werewolf films are in general utter trash, or everyone here has a very low standard by which to judge a film. I don't criticise werewolf films any different than I do any other hollywood movie, so if it is bad, even IF it might be better than the average werewolf flick, it is still bad.

The only thing the new Wolfman film did correctly is that it sets a near Tim Burtin mood, of which works extremely well. Blackmoore is an extremely dark forbidden place, where monsters that are larger than life skulk the forests. When you add the very well crafted, Danny Elfman score (of which I already own), it sets up everything quite nicely.

HOWEVER...

The movie is plagued by several issues... (SPOILERS)

Plot holes... 1. The woods around Blackmoore are being hunted by an unforseen nasty (John Talbot's werewolf) of which is supposed to be continously locked up by his servant Singh. John explains why, his beasty form was on the prowl the night his son, Ben, was murdered, but he fails to explain why Singh failed to lock him up ALL the other full moon nights, such as when Larry was attacked, or the many other attacks that happened prior to the story. Near the end of the story, when Larry confronts his father and tries to shoot him with Singh's silver bullets, John reveals that he has purposely rigged them not to work. OKAY, so apparently everytime you see Singh checking those bullets, as well as a number of other silver nasties in the house, he REALLY wasn't checking them? It doesn't make sense, and in reality negates that whole purpose of Singh being in the movie. His role was useless.

2. Shortly after Larry Talbot recovers from his injuries from his apparent Chewbaca attack, he is confronted by a local cliche priest and an armada of goons of whom blame Larry for the killings. This is problematic for two very important reasons. Firstly, Larry had plenty of witnesses seeing him trying to kill the beast, so why would the assume he was connected with it? Secondly, even though the audiance obviously knows it is a werewolf, the locals, while some are supersticious, don't know that fact, and to say they did know, would again prove errornous on their part, as NONE of them hunted the beast with silver bullets. Either case it makes no sense.

3. Larry and Gwen's relationship... I don't mean this wrong, but if the person I was about to marry got killed savagely, I wouldn't be in any shape for SEVERAL months, to start seeing somebody else, but in reality, she apparently has no shame, and apparently our sympathic hero, doesn't either. She also doesn't have any problems living in a delapidated house (well it is suppose to be delapidated, but the only room that is delapidated is the lobby. Singh apparently, uses the time when he is not caging up his vicious master, cleaning the rest of the mansion. :p

This list goes on and on and on...

I love the fact that somebody pointed out what a remake is, because I don't remember a few key elements being in the original...

Firstly...

The name... Wolfman... The original spelling is Wolf Man...
Secondly...
The Full Moon. In the original movie, a full moon was never shown nor interpreted to be the catalyst for transmutation. When Gwen sells Larry the cain, with the silver wolf head, she recounts an old poem (written by Siodmak) of which has become quite famous. The original closing of the poem reads, "when the autumn moon is bright". Traditionally speaking, the curse was seasonal, and not just under full moons. This would later be changed and the poem for that matter in the Wolf Man's sequel, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

Thirdly, the story only vaguely follows the first story, and in fact it melds "Werewolf of London" into the mix. So in reality, other than character names, the new Wolfman doesn't even follow in the same paw prints as its name sake.

The movie, as a whole, is a mess. It has a horrible identity crisis and doesn't know what it wants or wants to say.

Is the theme... "What makes a monster or what makes a man?" "Where does the beast end and the man begin or visa versa?" In either case, again the story fails.

You see in the original Wolf Man, Larry Talbot turned into a ravenous beast. The ONLY reason, historically speaking, they used studio makeup, was because Curt Siodmak's original concept, using a real wolf (or wolf-like dog), was deemed...too scary. The fateful hound did though make an appearance anyway, as Bela's werewolf form. Once Larry put on his make up, he wasn't humane at all. He was a murderous monster, one that was even capable of harming Gwen, the love of his life. This was a stark contrast from the loving and carry Larry you were introduced. It was vastly important that the audiance separate the man from the beast, so that you could sympathise with the man, but fear the beast. You should want the beast to die, but hate the fact that if you kill the beast, you kill the man you care about.

HOWEVER... again, if the beast is too much like the man, then you leave the audiance confused.

Here comes plot whole number 4. In the Wolfman, if Larry was able to somehow control himself and prevent himself from killing Gwen, then why wasn't he able to fight the urge to murderously rampage through town, once he realized what he was? In fact, you never see the new Larry Talbot doing anything to prevent himself from harming people... alas...

The old Larry saught out the gypsies (as the curse was an ancient gypsy curse) to find a way to prevent the transmutation. However, no matter what he would do, the beast would have its day. This was the tragedy. You saw Larry fight against the beast, and eventually get consumed by the beast. His father was left no choice but to kill his own son, because Larry couldn't control himself. This was the same reason, David Kessler died at the end of AWL. You saw a glimer of humanity in the beast, but ultimately, it was only a glimmer and the beast would have its way in the end.

You see Curt Siodmak developed his story around the 16th century werewolf, and the 16th century werewolf was a serial killer.

Traditionally, we don't have sympathy for serial killers. These people, beyond human reason, are compelled to murder innocent people. Sometimes during 16th century trials the said werewolf would admit to killing these people, but stated that they were forced to, because of either an unfortunate Satanic pact, or a curse bestowed upon them. In short, they couldn't help it.

We see this with today's serial killers. Most of them are mentally unstable, suffering from such ailments as, bipolar disorder, mental retardation, or extreme depression. All of these can twist the mind beyond what is normal and cause several behavior trauma. Lycanthropy itself, is a mental disorder. This is why there is a difference between the likes of other pathological murderers, such as Himmler, vs the likes of Jeffrey Dohmer. While in the end, they are both murderers, a person who is mentally sick should obtain more sympathy than the likes of the Hitlers and Himmler's of the world, but that sure didn't stop those who murdered Jeffrey Dohmer.

The fact is, even if a person is mentally unstable, we have a REAL hard time sympathising with a man or woman who kills innocent people.

Curt Siodmak new this, but Universal wanted something that was less scary.

Jon Landis new this, and vehemently argued against Rick Baker's early "wolfman" design for the AWL werewolf. While Landis' vision was far beyond what anybody else had done, he was successfully able to separate the boyish Jew of David Kessler, from the lion-like four-legged hell hound. The only thing that connected the two was AWL's still famous transformation sequence. Because of this, people could like David, even though he was really a monster.

Of course my arguement isn't that the werewolf should have been total CGI, as in Van Helsing, but it SHOULD have been animalistic and dangerous. CGI, as with Jurassic's dinosuars, should have been the foundation for the action scenes, while keeping traditional robotics for close ups and human interactions. This would allow the beast to be feral and anatomically correct for a four-legged animal, verses trying to work a biped design to walk on all fours, of which not only looked bad on screen, it doesn't work structurally. You see there is ample evidence that a lot of Universal's staff had issues with the werewolf design, the reshoots, the excessive gore, the pumping up the CGI. It is all a very good sign that they were trying to make up for what was a REALLY bad idea.

Most movies have a plot hole or two. I am a screenwriter and I try from the start to craft the story to prevent this, but it does happen. Many times the sums of the whole make up for a little pitfall here and there, but when the sums don't add up, you simply get a mess and nothing more.

While my analysis tends to be a lot more detailed than most, Wolfman's negative reviews and low box office returns (hell it was beaten out by Valentine's Day!) proves my point all too well.
Again folks, if you liked it... so what, you did...

But that doesn't make it a good movie, werewolf or not. Don't force yourself to like it because it is better than other werewolf films... Cursed is the only other solo werewolf film to be released Statewide, and honestly we all know that movie stank. People were actually walking out of the theatre.

While it isn't as bad as an Uwe Bol movie, and it wasn't nearly the autrocity that was 2012, I firmly stand by the facts on hand. Universal should have scrapped it. This movie wasn't ready to be released, and it would have been better had they started over and went back to the basics, and got it right on the page first.

I stopped here:

"2. Shortly after Larry Talbot recovers from his injuries from his apparent Chewbaca attack, he is confronted by a local cliche priest and an armada of goons of whom blame Larry for the killings. This is problematic for two very important reasons. Firstly, Larry had plenty of witnesses seeing him trying to kill the beast, so why would the assume he was connected with it? Secondly, even though the audiance obviously knows it is a werewolf, the locals, while some are supersticious, don't know that fact, and to say they did know, would again prove errornous on their part, as NONE of them hunted the beast with silver bullets. Either case it makes no sense."

Because I knew you had no idea what you were talking about.

They didn't blame him for the killings. They knew he was "bitten by the beast" and knew that he'd transform into a beast himself. "Would you have him kill your wives? Your children?" implies that they knew he was GOING to kill, not that he had already killed.

Pay attention next time.

alphanubilus wrote:

Delta Wolfman wrote:

I stopped here:

"2. Shortly after Larry Talbot recovers from his injuries from his apparent Chewbaca attack, he is confronted by a local cliche priest and an armada of goons of whom blame Larry for the killings. This is problematic for two very important reasons. Firstly, Larry had plenty of witnesses seeing him trying to kill the beast, so why would the assume he was connected with it? Secondly, even though the audiance obviously knows it is a werewolf, the locals, while some are supersticious, don't know that fact, and to say they did know, would again prove errornous on their part, as NONE of them hunted the beast with silver bullets. Either case it makes no sense."

Because I knew you had no idea what you were talking about.

They didn't blame him for the killings. They knew he was "bitten by the beast" and knew that he'd transform into a beast himself. "Would you have him kill your wives? Your children?" implies that they knew he was GOING to kill, not that he had already killed.

Pay attention next time.

And you obviously, can't read... so hey...

As stated, in the movie, you are not given any indication that the towns folk know it is a werewolf. Some think it is a beast. Some think it is a man. Some hint to the supernational, but none of them state it is a werewolf. During the wolfman's initial attack, a few townsfolk come to the gypsies' camp to put down the dancing bear. If they had KNOWN it was a werewolf, they would have used silver bullets, but none of them were prepared, so you have to assume, that they didn't know it was a werewolf, thus, other than Larry being attacked by what could have been a lion, a bear, or tiger. So again my point sticks. No one believed it was a werewolf, so it makes no sense that out of no where the towns people storm John Talbot's castle wanting Larry, when by the information given, he wasn't bitten by anything cursed.

Except for those who believed it was supernatural.

You're backtracking on your own points and refuting yourself.

Last edited by Delta Wolfman (2010-02-15 20:28:13)

Dinobat wrote:

WerewolfImmortal wrote:

Ummm, I don't think there are werewolves that sparkle yet? Perhaps you should watch some werewolf movies before having a biased review?

First of all, irony lol at you calling me biased.

The sparkleization movement is about more than sparkling. It's so named because it reaches it's apex in Twilight, which embodies it with it's portrayal of sparkly vampires. It's pooftacular shirtless werewolves, and dear god the imprinting. It's about making monster cuddly and stripping them of almost everything that makes them monsters to make them into perfect fantasy boyfriends.

And FYI Wolfman didn't look like a wolf,

OMFG LOL, RLY?  ROFL ROFL ROFL

That's why I'm praising it. I know it's very hard but do try and keep up.

Haha you got caught!!!! You didn't see the movie and said sparkling werewolves. Hey go to the stories section you inspired my story. I'm gonna see if it can make my newspaper.  <crossing fingers> The other parts to this don't make sense so, oh well. Happy Mardi Gras! Check!

WerewolfImmortal wrote:

and as far as Jurassic Park, some of it doesn't look great like the part where they see the Long necks on the raft, but that still looks GREAT in general. And the CGI dinosaurs reacting towards the actors was still done very well. For the first movie, the dinosaurs still look like they could be there, unlike some CGI werewolves where it looks like they were added in. I think that's just b/c shading and detail was not given enough time to give it a more real feel. Scyfy movies are bad about this. Anyway you can't diss Jurassic Park, I'm sorry. Until there is a Werewolf ride at an amusement park, you can't diss Jurassic Park.

Actually, I can diss it all I want, because I rewatched it a few months ago on On Demand, and was very disappointed that the special effects didn't hold up to memory.  The robotic dinosaurs were so-so, but I've been seeing robotic dinosaurs in the rubber flesh since I was a wee lassie.  When it comes to the CGI, on the other hand, it's really easy to see where they spliced it into the film.  Was it awesome for its day? Absolutely.  Can I watch it again and still enjoy it while forcing myself to ignore the dated effects? Sure, but it just won't be the same as when it first came out and I saw it umpteen times in the theater and on VHS.

Unlike CGI and robotic effects, makeup is so simple that its evolution is slower, thus takes longer to look dated.  That's why I made the point I did.

*manic laughter* Wow, I am amazed. So many folks loved this movie.

Hated it.

Here're MY reasons: (and please note - they're MY reasons. You telling me why MY reasons are wrong because, basically they're not YOUR reasons, doesn't make me go 'Ohh, wait, my bad')

Meh to the werewolf design. There were moments of coolness (ooh, clawed hand dropping down into frame - yummo!) and moments of absolute ridiculousness (Sir John's teddy bear ripping off his shirt), but I was actually frankly embarrassed for Rick Baker. There were people laughing at the costume at my showing. I am also, not partial to flat nosed werewolves But, I also liked the original wolfman, because of the next reason...

Meh to the freaking ACTING of the lead character. I think someone must have switched my movie out with something fan made the way everyone else has been posting. Del Toro spent most of the movie looking around with a blank face, THAT'S IT. I could not care for the character. At all. The lass on the other hand was insanely good, as was Hugo Weaving (who can inflect, and actually move his face). Anthony Hopkins was playing... Anthony Hopkins.

Story was... actually the story was a bit cool twist on the original. But I am so tired of blender werewolves. I knew going in that this was what I was going to see (having read the book), but the effects and acting couldn't provide enough of a counterpoint to this weariness.

Now, I guess I expect righteous indignation here, as if by writing this I've personally attacked someone.

I'm really bummed I didn't like it, but that's all I got.