WVZ, I liked the movie, the characters were interesting, the story was interesting, but if the jacket actjally reads "a wickedly funny, wildly romantic, white-knuckled thriller," then you are right, the jacket description is way off.  I didn't find it funny, I saw it as a drama, and I didn't find it romantic.  I am a huge Michelle Pfeiffer fan, so I thought she was great in it.  I also thought James Spader and Jack Nicholson were great, the casting was very good for this movie.  It needed better special effects though, as it didn't have enough of the horror aspect, but it was a very good film (in fact I own that one).

Fact is, most of Hitchcock's movies had comic relief in them and, except for a few (like Family Plot and that movie about Harry - whutever it was called), they were not classed as comedies.

I don't think so. It was about a guy who died and nobody could keep up with the corpse. I want to say "Something About Harry" but I think that was a Bill Murray movie.

Ha, I am TERRIBLE with names. Not so much with film names though, but with people's names.

Awesome, entertaining and unique yet different werewolf movie with Jack Nicholson perfomance as the title creature with a different kind of werewolf change instead of a being a full werewolf critter.

Michelle Pfiefer was a knockout especially with that seductive voice! James Spader was also very good even during the same year he did "Stargate" in 1994. It was parodied on The Critic called " Chicken".

If you enjoy this movie, i also recommend: " Ginger Snaps", " Link", and " The Toxic Avenger".

Last edited by Johnlindsey289 (2004-10-05 03:04:55)

The whole point of "Wolf" was to concentrate more on the characters than fx.  IIRC Rick Baker did the make-up, and you know he could have delivered a werewolf supreme.  They tried, bless 'em, but it's not my favorite were-movie.

(Do werewolf bites get diluted as they get passed on?  The were that bit Larry Talbot was a full-wolf form, and the wolf that bit Nicholson's character only made him a little hairier and toothier!)

The Hitchcock film mentioned is "The Trouble with Harry."  "Harry" is a corpse that seems to turn up in everyone's bedroom, bathroom, back yard, or closet, and everyone tries to get rid of it (by dumping it in someone else's bedroom, etc.), because everyone in the small town setting had a motive for killing the poor schnook in the first place.

Amarok wrote:

The whole point of "Wolf" was to concentrate more on the characters than fx.  IIRC Rick Baker did the make-up, and you know he could have delivered a werewolf supreme.  They tried, bless 'em, but it's not my favorite were-movie.

(Do werewolf bites get diluted as they get passed on?  The were that bit Larry Talbot was a full-wolf form, and the wolf that bit Nicholson's character only made him a little hairier and toothier!)

Actually (if I remember correctly) When Jack's character runs off into the woods at the end, before they show Michelle's character driving "wolf eyes close-up" shot, they show Jack running, casting off his clothes, then a face shot of what he looked like most of a movie as a werewolf, but then it changes until the camera pans away to show Jack having become a full wolf, howling.  But I'd need to watch the movie again; I may be wrong.

Anyways, the movie was so-so; a neat representation of werewolves that could keep a good or bad personality (Jack having some good personality in him when a werewolf, James pretty much a ass both human and werewolf thus enhancing the badness in his werewolf form), and it gave kind of a spiritual mood about it somehow (the entire mood and shots itself from what I remember was kinda of weird and eerie if not awe-inspiring).  The FX's of the werewolf could have been better, yes, but it didn't seem like the movie was meant for heavy werewolf action...stuff.

Interest on that VHS jacket cover.  I think they were trying to be witty with the puns with "a wickedly funny, wildly romantic, white-knuckled thriller."  Swing...and miss XD

Coming to blu-ray October 13.

I liked the idea that WOLF wasn't the main character pissing and moaning about being cursed, that he eventually comes to embrace it, accept it and use it constructively by the end. If you think about lycanthropy as symbolizing a physical or mental disability that sets one apart from the rest of humanity, it's very depressing that movie werewolves usually hate themselves, hate their condition, and either are cured and perfectly normal by the end or are killed and 'put out of their misery' - and the werewolves that enjoy being werewolves are almost always the bad guys. In real life there are all kinds of disabilities that make life difficult for a person, that can only be imperfectly controlled or compensated for, not cured, and that make the 'whole' people around them uncomfortable or inconvenienced. And as much as people try to be politically correct, there is this (usually) buried impulse to demonize disabled people, and the desire to get rid of them, which is sublimated into the cinematic image of a self-hating, destructive monster that must be destroyed.

Wolf gives a much healthier and enlightened reaction to having a disability, coping with it and maybe even finding strength in it, and finding someone to connect with. By the end of the movie Jack has given up everything that used to be of paramount importance to him, but he's found a true partner and come to grips with himself, and he'll probably be happy, although it's not the sort of life society tells him he requires to be content. At least, this is my take on it. It may not have been a classic werewolf movie, but it had interesting things to say about the usual tropes.

As for the OP's actual questions, I don't think it was intended to be a comedy, it was a drama with a few comedic moments. And I felt bad for the dying writer, but then that was when Jack was still in the hating himself phase of the movie. I like to think that on the way back to the Vermont woods he stopped off and bit the guy - sometimes when movies irritate you with plot holes like that, you just have to use the magic of your imagination!

Viergacht wrote:

As for the OP's actual questions, I don't think it was intended to be a comedy, it was a drama with a few comedic moments. And I felt bad for the dying writer, but then that was when Jack was still in the hating himself phase of the movie. I like to think that on the way back to the Vermont woods he stopped off and bit the guy - sometimes when movies irritate you with plot holes like that, you just have to use the magic of your imagination!

Fantastic

in my opinion i wouldn't want the effects to be change in WOLF simply because they looked  natural. but that's just me. wolf and the ginger snaps trilogy rank #2 and #3 in my favorite movie collection. #1 is Dracula.

no i don't like vamps better than wolves, i just like the movie. a lot. i especially love Gary Oldman as young Dracula.  hey he turns into a werewolf in the movie. and a regular gray wolf. Dracula's a werewolf!

well technically.

WereWolfH wrote:

First off, wow this is such an underrated Werewolf movie. I don't even think most people put this down when werewolf movies are listed.

Anyway, it's on cable all this weekend!!!!

How did Stewart? (young werewolf from Boston Legal) become a werewolf I haven't watched this movie in ages.

Jack bit him in his human form when he walked in on his wife wife having an affair with him.