Cool News
New trailer for The Wolfman has hit! Bring your silver-headed cane and wolfsbane!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. I have the horrible feeling that this movie is going to piss me off. Now that's not because I think it's going to suck. I don't. Actually, the footage in the new trailer is really sharp (for the most part). It looks like a gorgeous movie, Anthony Hopkins chews a movie's worth of scenery just in the damn trailer and the final physical Wolfman looks absolutely killer.
But the CGI shots don't seem to be much improved from what we've seen before. The bendy fingers thing looks cool, but knowing they replaced all of Rick Baker's transformation effects with computer effects has me worried.
CG is a great tool and could be used very effectively in this movie... there are some shots that look pretty great in the new trailer, like the hand transforming against the cobblestones, but there's a bit of inconsistency with the effects. Some of the later CG shots in the trailer look VAN HELSING level bad.
I'm just going to have to hope that they're early renders and that they'll ultimately match up to the great atmosphere of the rest of the film. But if they're not, this is going to be a very aggravating "almost there" kind of movie.
Check out the new trailer and see if you agree!
Click for the Wolfman (Click-click-click-click)!!!
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter
-
+ Expand All
-
To bad it did not make it out for Halloween.
-
why was this pushed back, again?
-
Did they shoot all the Baker stuff or did they just opt for cg? Was a Baker transformation actually filmed?
-
CGI does not. When trying to replicate anything organic, it looks hopelessly cheap, like something a kid did on his computer. Although CGI has its place
--with matte paintings, rampaging robots, rocket ships and the like. -
...of for fuck's sake.
-
but, like quint, the prevalence of cgi worries me. hasn't the success of "where the wild things are" shown that conventional costumes/masks/makeup, when done expertly, are vastly more believable and impressive than cgi (not to mention cheaper)? i'd love to see what rick baker's "wolfman" work looked like. and could they really not have pressed harder to have this film ready for the halloween season? there's been a dearth of quality horror/scary movies this season ("paranormal activity" sucked, for the record), and i think audiences really would have embraced this one.
-
And the CGI shots from this trailer look okay to me. It's the first trailer with shots in the city and on top of buildings that looked questionable, to say the least.
-
Quint is crazy...that looks awesome...CGI or not the movie looks epic...I don't see any hint of Van Helsing in that trailer
-
Here's my CGI take on this piece of crap-Epic Fail
-
Looks good, but whats up with the freakin music?
-
But (and it has been said before) one has to wonder about the Feb. release date. Unless Universal is just trying to spread their good stuff out more, they are dumping this.
-
I don't think the fx looked bad. Maybe one shot towards the end of the trailer looked artificial where the CG wolfman seems to be moving too quickly resulting in a bit of motion blur.
Visually it looks more like FROM HELL and Branagh's FRANKENSTEIN, than VAN HELSING. -
Universal wanted a new trailer ASAP, those shots are not 100 percent finished. on another note quint, i have seen a rough cut of the film and it is shaping up to be amazing
-
I understand wanting to see practical effects for the Werewolf transformation, having just rewatched An American Werewolf in London I'm convinced it will never get better than that iconic transformation. But saying because it's CGI it will automatically make the movie "almost there" for you is such a shitty attitude to take. I would think if everything else in the movie nails it that would compensate for what is probably about 5 minutes of screen time. Would I prefer they use Rick Baker's transformation effects? Of course, but the movie doesn't hinge on that for me and it shouldn't for anyone.
-
And not in a good way! Looks fantastic otherwise. But why would anyone replace Rick Bakers work with cgi?
-
No CGI necessary there, hur-hur
-
Not so sure about the shitty emo music though.
-
Why hire him and then not use his effects. Complete bullshit!
-
Weren't compeltely done right? Fuck CGI.
-
Why would you hire special effects god rick baker, pay him a shitload of money to do practical effects, then spend a shitload MORE money to replace them with CGI!?!? It makes no sense!
-
The music in the trailer DIDN'T have the choir of doom!!??!!
Now THAT'S impressive! -
Anyone know the song in the trailer. Sounds like a riff of Marilyn Manson's "If I Was Your Vampire"
-
Oct 21, 2009 12:12:16 PM CDT
"tell your friend he's getting fucked in the ass and if...
by flickapoo
...he would stop squirming around it wouldn't hurt so much"-James Cameron to a Fox executive in the current NEW YORKER profile.
-
I have a strong hunch the deviations from the original are really gonna irritate me...
-
That 300 trailer has a lot to answer for. Otherwise, trailer seemed OK to me, I like a bit of gothic horror.
-
The CG looks okay, but usually doesn't work for anything organic. That being said, the 2nd trailer looks cool overall and definitely something to break up the monotony for the month of February.
-
hope that's not Elfman's score...
-
Sick of this guy.
-
Just look at the difference between PJ's Kong in the first trailer and Kong in the film.
-
Quicktime blows.
-
If anything, the movie looks like it's got its atmosphere spot on. Production design looks good too. I think it's shaping up to be quite well. Reminds me of what a modern day Hammer film might look like, of sorts. Speaking of, I wonder what Hammer's new films are going to look like?
-
Hopefully, the CGI will only emphasis Baker's work instead of replace it completely (the scene where he's strapped down transforming is a beautiful mix of both)Why couldn't this have come out at Holloween insead of the rehashes we have to deal with? I hope Wolfman lives up to the trailer, because if it does it will have been worth the wait.
-
I don't get it.
-
I agree with Quint in that the transformation CGI doesn't seem fluid or look very real.
If they're early renders then why release another trailer. Hold off.
The fact that Rick's transformations were replaced remains a real sore point.
I'm beginning to see some CGI that works (Tron: Legacy, Iron Man) but this remains a rental, alas.
-
And the trailer seems to follow it verbatim. Unbelievably predictable, bland film.
-
Get your eyes tested - nothing in that trailer looks as bad as the CG in Van Helsing.
-
Like they got stock a tiger tape and through it in there. Hopefully that's just for the trailer. You would hope they would invest in some original sound design work.
-
I love the atmosphere and the look of the 'olden day english' feel its got going on. have no idea what its about though, whos good, whos bad?
-
An American Werewolf in London
Gingersnaps
The Howling
The Company of Wolves
and of Course the 1941 original Wolfman
Have I left anthing out besides the Gingersnaps sequels that are actually pretty decent? -
fuck yeah!!!!!
-
fucking amazing, like old hollywood reborn. This new trailer looses that luster to me and feels less mysterious and more contemporary. I long for this film to be amazing. I hope it will be.
-
Oct 21, 2009 1:55:25 PM CDT
No Way... CGI Looked Decent... Not Even Close To Van Helsing...
by bojtrek
I have to disagree... watching the trailer in HD... it did not look bad at all... no where near Van Helsing bad CGI.
I will see it, but it is not a first week or two event for me. -
Please lord…No.
-
Director Mark Romanek was originally attached but left due to "creative differences." Those may have been the hiring of Rick Baker to do the effects practical...but studio wanted CGI
-
Good Tex Avery reference. Either you had some upbringing in the cartoon classics or you're old like me!
-
But then, so did Inspector Gadget's, and we all know what happened there.
-
The effects here look far superior to Van Helsing's. No comparison. I won't see this opening weekend, but I'll see it before it leaves the theaters.
-
Joe Johnston's track record is terrible... Despite Del Toro's awesome presence, this movie is bound to be disappointing at best. Emily, let me hold you softly, comforting you for this poor career choice...
-
...looked good to anyone?
-
Green Gargantua, you forgot Dog Soldiers. My personal fave is the Howling for it's special effects transformations. I have a feeling this movie is going to be great. Looks to be on par with Coppola's Dracula. All that would be left is a great Frankenstein movie to revive all three Univerasal Monsters. I'm discounting Stephen Sommer's Mummy movies which I hated.
-
He had his time. You can move along. Move along.
-
When will studios learn?
-
It looks like Frankenstein. The one with De Niro.
-
No cgi werewolf is worse than the shit effects that made up An American Werewolf in Paris. I do think practical effects should have been used, but I will hold off judgment until I see it for myself
-
Beautiful trailer with some executive knobs idea of a driving soundtrack. A classically scored background would have made this trailer all kinds of awesome. And...well...classy!
-
I felt as though I was in my car watching a trailer for a classic horror movie, and then someone with his window rolled down pulled up in a car next to mine and had his stereo blasting music I have no desire to hear. It was annoying and incongruent to the images on the screen.
-
This movie is going to be simply OUTSTANDING. Just the trailer alone makes it better than every entire werewolf movie ever made. The sfx look spot on, the story and action look exactly as it should...scary and vicious, the costumes and setting look amazing. The actors look perfect in their roles. The only thing I don't like about this new trailer is the rock music. It just doesn't fit a period film. This is going to be the greatest werewolf movie ever made...you just wait and see!!
Anyone notice Hugo Weaving all beat up and bloody? Could he have been attacked by the wolf man and infected? It looks kind of like that is possible judging from that quick scene. -
I am sorry, but I don't even buy that its sometimes a good tool. I can't think of anything CGI that didnt look shit to me. And I am 27. ITs not like I didnt grow on the shit. It just NEVER EVER FUCKING LOOKS GOOD. EVER!!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR EYES!!!!!
-
Besides provide the CGI guys with a sweet style to rip off.
-
...article on James Cameron. Referring to AICN "...one person said, my eyeballs were merely fondled without permission."A lot of us made similar cracks, but that's a direct quote, word for word.Congratulations.
-
There is just such a disturbing number of nods and winks to "Aliens" and "Predator". It felt as tho all military research was constricted to watching those movies. Maybe I will give it another try, but at two viewings I still feel the same.
-
... pre-screening at The Rave in Las Vegas. Either Harry didn't find or didn't feel enough merit in the link I sent him: http://www.brutalashell.com/2009/10/an-early-look-at-the-wolfman/
Full, lengthy review of the film there.
To answer a couple common questions from here; generally the CG looks good. I dont' think that Baker even made a transformation sequence, I gathered that he was brought in solely to make the creature itself. Tranformations look good. Sadly, there are some CG animals standing in for real ones that look terrible. CG fur is not happening.
This film would have been a great Halloween release with is old, gothic feel. I think editing is what pushed it back to February. The first test screening did not go well, and it looks like about a half hour of footage was cut from the film. The result is a fast-paced monster flick totally lacking in subtext, but generally very fun. My audience seemed to like it a lot, and it does harken back to old Universal classics, but has that Coppola-Dracula feel to it as well. -
Fans of horror that hate the PG-13 washout will be happy. This is a hard R, with the Wolfman ripping off limbs and feasting on entrails. It was a pleasant surprise.
-
from American werewolf in London.never.
-
...you forgot Hammer's Curse of the Werewolf. Great flick. And as far as replacing Baker's work with CGI, didn't they try that with Cursed? We saw how that turned out(and if you don't remember the movie, I envy you).
-
or maybe herpies.
-
Oct 21, 2009 4:10:00 PM CDT
Such a shame that CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON will be a turd
by the green gargantua
If they use the script I saw at least. Del Toro had a way better idea for the The Gill man.
-
I never said because there's CG in it that it's going to be an "almost movie" for me. I said that from the trailer the CG effects look inconsistent and that's going to stand out to me every time I see a fake motion blur or badly executed skin-stretching in transformation scenes.For a series so ingrained in the history of effects (be it Jack Pierce's Wolf Man make-up or Bottin's work in Howling or Baker's in American Werewolf) the CG work needs to live up to that level and not distract assholes like me with that notice a lack-luster computer generated shot. That's what I mean by almost there. I could like 98% of the movie, but if there are a handful of poorly executed digital shots that's going to be sticking point for me. Maybe not for you, but I was speaking for myself because that's... like... my opinion, man.
-
It is a throwback to American Werewolf in London and it does not need CGI to make it work. I think it belongs on the list.
-
The first trailer without a doubt pissed me off. Benicio Del Toro is great but feels so out of place and Hopkins feels conventional, like they asked him to do it and he was like "Oook I'll do it, just make sure the desert cart is STACKED!"... Joe Johnston isn't a strong filmmaker and Jurassic Park 3 was a steaming pile. Fuck this movie.
-
It looks good to me. . .
-
That you can't blame the tools. First off all, how many times do we have to explain that trailer shots are 99.9 percent works in progress. Period. Tweaking goes on until the last month before production wraps. Second, just knowing that Davy Jones in the POTC films was totally CG should tell you that it can be indistinguishable from real photography, in the right hands. ILM and maybe Weta can pull this level of realism off. So don't make blanket statements about the look of CG. Also, RIck Baker works in CG now developing his designs, so the models can match his art. I'll bet he follows through in production, consulting with the layered effects.
-
Everyone settle down. Both methods have their own strengths and limitations. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. The LOTR movies effects were for the most part successful because both methods were utilized depending on the situation.
-
Oct 21, 2009 4:57:39 PM CDT
CGI and PRACTICAL effects when combined is the KEY
by the green gargantua
Why must I inform fellow geeks of this now very accepted paradigm.
-
as you knew it would
-
The CGI in this trailer is much, much better! THE MIST is an "almost masterpiece" because the CGI is hardly better than what you can see in your average Syfy Channel movie of the week and it's problematic to have a monster movie where every appearance of a monster takes you out of the damn film due to the shittiness of the computer effects. If they had used sock puppets instead of those ridiculous CGI spiders it would have still worked better.
-
How can any self-respecting movie fan NOT get excited about the prospect of a sweet period-piece Wolfman movie? Great cast, set in period and not updated into gayness, that should be plenty to get asses in the seats.
-
these would be the same people who think Avatar doesnt look cartoony.
-
I disagree with you man but that line about Hopkins and the desert cart was just the cripsy golden coconut on the fist-sized shrimp.
-
The combo of practical and CGI in Where the Wild Things Are was pretty extraordinary. Seamless, invisible effects work.
-
That sting you feel is the sharp barb of truth.
-
I have to side with Quint on this one. The story and effects bar has been set very VERY high, so any new attempts will always be compared to them. I welcome all attempts but with a werewolf movie the CG has to not only be great it has to be the best we've ever seen.
-
What's the name of the song?
-
Oct 21, 2009 5:43:42 PM CDT
Rev. Slappy: Still need to go, waiting for snot to stop
by the green gargantua
dripping from my nose. I am the fucking alien right now. Looks lovely though. I think the GDT stuff has demonstrated this as well
-
do it bullshit
-
What the fuck? First trailer was lame, but at least they were selling the mood by making it darker and old-style. This is just your generic marilyn manson cheese-shit cut to some werewolf footage.
-
It's a dinosaur format
-
Can we get some harpsichord please?
-
Then again I see almost every theatrically released Horror film, except Saw movies (fuckin' don't go see Saw 6 people, put the series out of its misery).
I have high hopes for this, I just wish we could have seen it this year.
-
looks fine. I just ran it back and forth in slow-mo like seven times in full-screen HD. I really think this is just a case of you seeing what you want to see (which, in this case, happens to be what you want to *not* see).
-
but his line reading is kinda flat (and doesn't seem very 19th century to me, for some reason). Maybe that'll get punched up, too. This might be better than Coppacula but that's kind of a low bar to clear, you have to admit.
-
That is all.
-
Yes, please! Deviate! Coppola's DRACULA went far and away from the other Drac films and was a drastic improvement. And I seem to remember folk discounting Oldman as Dracula when it was first announced, too. So I'm totally giving Del Toro a shot...
-
Just wondering…
-
Apparently someone didn't feel like paying Marilyn Manson for the rights to use "If I Was Your Vampire" for the trailer. God, I hate sound-alike music. You guys know the song. The real version was used for the Max Payne trailer. As far as the debate over the FX, I think the CGI looks better than most. Hell, think back to the last time you saw American Werewolf in Paris and remember how awful that was.
-
Dracula wasn't a frikking loverboy, he was a vile fiend without redeeming qualities. And that just scratches the surface of the problem with Coppacula. And the reason previous versions were so silly is because they were based on the Hamilton Deane play, not Stoker's book.
-
Let's take a horror movie that is set during the Victorian era and jam out to it with rock guitar. Horror movies shouldn't be rock concerts or parties. Gay.
-
flip ya for real.
-
with that fucking accent. Just what he always does. Leaves everything in his path reeking of stool.
-
That's what I get for sniffing glue and not reading the internets.
-
Anyone who doesn't at least appreciate that movie on a technical level is a moron. If this movie is half as beautiful and unique as that it'll easily be in the top ten movies of this year. Trailer looks fine btw. The only problem I have with it is the shot of him prowling through the streets at night. He looks very phony there. Hopefully they have time to clear that all up before release. The transformation itself looks very well done though.
-
That kind of moron?
-
Brilliant!
-
I HAVE read Stoker's Dracula. It's not that great of a read. Unique, but hardly a page-turner. Coppola's vision was faithful and powerful. If he altered the source material, so what? It made for a better film.
-
I've seen them all and no matter how much the tech advances, for some reason CGI werewolves always look unconvincing. They started out with fucking nearly-hairless werewolves in that craptacular American Werewolf In Paris because they couldn't do realistic fur rendering. Then we got Van Helsing and a badly rendered Wile E. Coyote on steroids. The latest is New Moon. They've advanced the rendering of fur, but now the wolves look like stuffed wolf toys from the zoo giftshop brought to mediocre life. Next up is Wolf Man where they've stuck to the old "Lon Chaney Jr. walking on tiptoes with fur glued to his face and his nose painted black" look, but they've inexplicably decided to blow a wad on crappy CGI and in the process snub THE Rick Baker because idiot America's used to CGI now, supposedly anyway in the dinosaur-like minds of Hollywood execs. Hollywood suits are fuckin' pinheads, and not the funny, diner-frequenting, "Gabba gabba hey" type pinheads either!
-
a straight adaptation of the book. The producers would drown in a lake of their own catatonic drool. But turning your monster into a cross-dressing Ebeneezer Scrooge and then a foppish Fabio doesn't follow from that logic. That is a cinematic bungle unrelated to translating the book, as far as I can see.The documentary that goes with the DVD explains what Coppola was trying to do. He wanted to make it pretty and he succeeded. It's also pretty silly. And so are most horror movies. I just think Coppola made a lot of bad decisions with it that kept it from being epic or even particularly worthwhile. Many elements are promising. Hopkins isn't half as annoying as Van Helsing is in the book. Keanu Reeves was solid, as usual (ha ha, no, I just had to be sarcastic). I don't know, there were a couple of cool matte paintings. Camera work was interesting. Production design wasn't all bad. Many odd casting choices. By the end of the book I've kind of lost interest. Can't say the movie is much different in that respect.
-
I mean, damn this thing has a great look!
-
CGI NEVER looks good? Did you never see a little film called Jurassic Park? Man, usually I'm all for practical effects over CGI, but some of you guys are so anti-CGI its fucking laughable.
-
Fuck, like you've seen a real wolf man. Well, aside from Robin Williams.
-
... lockesbrokenleg? Oh what's the world coming to.
-
They were my absolute favorite cartoons growing up.
-
"Van Helsing bad"? Really? Can you single out at least two shots? I can only think of one shot that looked CGI, and its the one everyone's mentioned already- the WolfMan running toward the screen, and that's bc it does have some strange motion blur attached to it. But everything else looks pretty dynamite to me, except the green-screen night sky when the Wolf Man is jumping through the air.
-
D. Vader, I think everyone agrees with you that Jurassic Park had awesome CGI...but that was 17 fucking years ago. That's why all of us are so frustrated that after all this time, they haven't been able to surpass the quality of animation that was seen way back 1992. CGI in the past 10 years has increased in it's scope, but the attention to detail in lighting and physical motion has been mostly half ass work in comparison. These days It is abused/overused to the point that it has cheapened films for those of us who actually appreciate good visual quality. Unfortunately there's not that many of us left.
-
Del Toro, for the record, -CANNOT- act, despite what you're saying here. Dude, in that 1st trailer, he's Ed Wood bad. "What ... kind of monster ... could ... have done ... these things?" with an accent that isn't even consistent in the minutes-long trailer, as he gives a Latino feel to the "AYE AMMA GONNA KEEL ALLA YOO!" line that might as well have "essai" at the end of it, it's so achingly bad. Not for one SECOND do I believe this guy is from anything but the 21st century. Furthermore, I am appalled how obvious it is Anthony Hopkins is another werewolf. If they do a SCARY MOVIE parody of this in the next SCARY MOVIE, they should have Anthony Hopkins' character show up in the first scene with big wolf ears and a wolf nose saying "I have no idea what kind of monster they're looking for - HEH HEH HEH HEH HEHHHH!" and then proceed to have him get wolfier and wolfier until by the end they've replaced him with a dog who talks via BABE-type CGI and the police are still baffled.
-
My point is that some of this anti-CGI crowd is getting out of hand, and hyperbole seems to be the only language some people speak. Look at what Chadley BeBay said- CGI NEVER LOOKS GOOD. Bullshit. That's just bullshit plain and simple spoken by an overzealous idiot. But, part of the reason the CGI in Jurassic Park worked is that we had never seen anything like it. It is forever engrained into our minds as some brilliant CGI. But also, it was the first time something of that scale had been attempted, and more heart and soul was poured into that "experiment" then what gets put into it today because of time and money, bc its commonplace, bc "anyone can do it" at this point. But really, what's the terrible CGI in this trailer- I didnt see it. That shot of the hand transforming against the cobblestone is simply fantastic. It has great detail, great movement, and excellent lighting. I have no qualms with it.
-
Point taken. I'll concede the CGI in this trailer didn't look as bad as they made it out to be...we'll see when the movie comes out. But in regards to Jurassic Park, I watched it recently and still found it to have superior quality than most of the movies we see today. The reason I'm mostly against CGI nowadays is because in most cases I know they could do a better job...they're just not doing it cuz they don't need to in order to sell tickets.
CGI has worked well in The Wild Things to enhance the character's expressions and it usually is more convincing when used for inorganic objects. -
Oct 21, 2009 10:51:31 PM CDT
CGI never looks good? Have you seen Rick Baker's digital sculpts
by blakindigo
Pretty amazing. Also, have you seen "Zodiac" or "Benjamin Button"? I guarantee there are shots in those films that you will not be able to tell are CGI.
-
I think the CGI in Jurassic Park is superior in many ways to some CGI today, but mainly for the reasons I listed above. I haven't seen Wild Things yet, but it seems the CGI in that has a few things going in its favor- A. its being used to enhance a physical performance and B. its being directed by someone who knows how to use it as a tool instead of a toy. I hope the CGI in the film looks great, bc I like what I see so far from this trailer.
-
Jurassic Park is alot less CGI than you think. Didn't you guys see the making of video in the 90's? It was mostly animatronics.
Personally I think that using a mix of models and CGI will always work better than pure CGI. I do think films like LOTR have done very well though in advancing the art. Gollum, while obviously CGI, was still able to keep my suspension of disbelief active throughout the whole movie, and that's a first for me. -
The CG was mainly used for the long shots.
-
And the weakest elements in the movie are the CGI - the cheapest-looking effects are CG. The characters always look kinda "misty" and blurry when they're CG, hard to define. It's the practical effects that work best in that movie. The giant T-REX in the Universal ride.... that's a practical effect. And it fucking works.
-
That trailer was cooler, but something seems off. I'd be more excited if this was set in modern times as well.
-
I'd have to say the strongest elements in JP were the CGI scenes that were mixed in. Every shot where you got to see the entire creature moving around were the most impressive because the textures were good, and the movement was believable. That's what sold the movie.
-
than Mammals. So just shut up about it.
-
as well as the CG. The CG looks more believable in JP 1 and 2 than the "real" fx. Sorry.
-
I think the trailer looks great after one viewing. There is some criticism of the effects which is fine but as stellar as the practical effects were in the Howling (which rocks) were, there is a scene in that movie that disturbs me so much in a good way and it has nothing to do with the effects. When she gets trapped in the room as the guy transforms in front of her, her fear is so palpable that you almost understand why she just stood there, and then when the wolf approaches her you can feel it yourself, hopeless and done. Can you imagine, the fear of the character becomes your fear. And then the best part, you don't see him rip her apart, you see her lifted off the ground, he approaches with his freakishly huge teeth, he slowly (and that's the key) bites her neck, and you see her feet shake as her blood is release onto the floor. That's fucking scary! Emotional and horrifying. No effects did that to me, it was the camera, it was the things I couldn't see that made your mind take it to the next level. If this new attempt at the legend can bring the effects and tap that emotional fear, then it's going to make us piss our pants. I just hope it's a scary movie and not an action movie.
-
as those asshole jonas brothers. but I'll go anyway.
-
I love the look of the film, like someone else said, it reminds me of From Hell, a movie I like a lot. The FX looked great to me. I do think that Baker must have been a consultant on how to achieve CGI that would look real. What we remember the most about An American Werewolf in London is the transformation... and why is that? Because we had time to look at it... and it looked painful as hell. In movies like Van Helsing or Underworld, the werewolves can change as they wish in a second and it's not something that look too painful, so, we are not impressed by it... But when it looks painful, we feel for the guy. We tend to think of ourselves in his place and how it must be horrible. Anyway, I just hope that The Wolfman will be able to convey that kind of feeling...
-
Last decent werewolf movie I saw. And always seemed to me like an unofficial remake to The Wolf Man.
-
It's either that or Horror of Dracula...And yes Keanu Reeves is AWWWWFUL in it...
-
Thanks for clarifying... sorry you invoked my nerd rage. The tone of the article felt slightly dismissive of an entire movie over CGI but I understand your worries. They have to execute it amazingly well to make audiences not think about "what could have been" w/ Baker's practical effects. I still maintain the movie looks pretty great and at least the actual Wolfman isn't CGI.
-
Man, from "'essai' at the end of it," I was chuckling more than I did when Keanu's line reading of "I say, is the castle far?" in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Thanks for that.
And while we're on the subject of Dracula, Keanu was only one of several weaknesses in that film. Winona Ryder was atrocious, and Coppola's stylistic flourishes and insistence on old-school effects and sticking to interior sets were enthralling one minute, and simply distracting the next. Oh, and Anthony Hopkins played Van Helsing as a kook. I get it, I get it, but subtlety is a sweet replacement for the in-your-face stuff sometimes.
Plus, fuck, the original novel Dracula was essentially a ROMANCE? Really? Fine if you want to hit it from that angle, but don't have the gall to slap "Bram Stoker's" across the title as if it's the definitive version of the book. It's one step away from doing the same thing to a XXX release where Drac is going balls deep under Mina's petticoat. What's next, Coppola directing "Mark Twain's Huckelberry Finn," where Jim and Huck's trip down the Mississipi is broken up by foraging across each other's taints?
-
Fuck, that guy has turned in some shitty work in the last ten years. I actually liked THE WORLD'S FASTEST INDIAN though- despite there being no sprinting Iroquoi whatsoever in that film.
-
Why can't I post to the twitch thread?Muthafucker.Carry on.
-
I don't like the new trailer, but the movie looks awesome. I'm a huge Universal Monsters fan, and we need something nice after the shit stain that was Van Helsing. The actual wolf looks great in this movie though. I want good vampires and werewolves, especially after Twilight made them lame.
-
I'm not watching it. Has to be photorealistic.
-
looks like he is shitting his pants. I guess chicks like that.who knew?
-
But I've been burned so many times before! Can I open up my heart enough to trust Hollywood to give me decent gothic horror? Oh, the drama of it all...
-
...except for Gary Oldman.
-
...but we're forgiving because the story and character are well-written and the voice-acting is good.
It's like the difference between Watto and Jar-Jar in The Phantom Menace. Jar-Jar isn't just annoying because he's CGI. He's annoying because he's Jar-Jar. Watto looks just as fake, but fans don't have the same visceral hate for him because he's an interesting character. -
About half-way through the trailer there's a shot of clouds passing in front of, and BEHIND the moon. Anyone else find anything wrong with that picture?
-
He's just wasn't right for the part. As for Hopkins, again Van Helsing in the book is insufferable. Half of what he says in the book is pointless and doesn't move the plot forward in any way and frequently he is proven in error or contradicts himself. And he won't shut the hell up. Half of the book is Van Helsings blathering and another quarter is a bunch of Victorian padding like "Oh, I do beg your pardon." "Oh please think nothing of it." "Well, I apologize just the same." "This has been an ordeal for all of us." Blahblahblah. Under those conditions Hopkins protrayal of Van Helsing as a crazy old coot is refreshing. He's more likable by far than the windy know-it-all in the book. Where I think Hopkins sucked ass was as Hannibal Lector. Brian Cox nailed that one but Hopkins embarrassing excessive scenery-chewing gets the love when it should have ruined him as a cheese-stuffed ham.
-
i still enjoy it...yeh Ryder and Reeve are totally wooden...Oldman a bizzare choice..still, the 'so wrong its right' factor makes it kinda enjoyable.
-
Sorry, the CGI is pretty great. Van Helsing? PBBBBBT! What a bullshit comparison!I worry that they may be making the age-old mistake of misrepresenting the film in order to swell the opening weekend. Most likely this film will be comparable to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's Dracula in tone and pace. Definitely NOT the rock music infused fast action editing shown in this second trailer. That might create some dissapointment in attendees if they aren't careful.
-
I think the moon thing is just an optical illusion, the clouds are really not passing behind it. The moon is so bright sometimes that, clouds that can be seen in the dark sky just become transparent while passing in front of the moon, that's all. As far as comparisons, I don't think Van Helsing is a good one. Maybe Dracula although, Coppola created a movie with a visual style that doesn't seem to be present here. To me, the movie looks far more realistic, which is a good thing!
-
Oh, and following my criticisms of Bram Stoker's Dracula, I did enjoy much of it (enough to see it twice in the theatre as a matter of fact). And I love Gary Oldman in this, especially in his initial elderly incarnation...although when we hear the first voiceover, he sounds way too close to Count Chocula. Plus I still think Hopkins was all wrong. Sure, ditch some of the antiquated language and mannerisms, but reign in the zaniness and keep him somewhat relatable to Stoker's character. Hopkins looked one step away from playing with the shit that tumbled from Keanu's mouth with every line reading. And the more I think about it, even Ryder's other suitors (especially whoever drawled all over his lines as the Texan) all over-acted the hell out of this thing. If only Coppola would have stopped paying so much attention to his in-the-camera-FX and choosing the right hue of red in any given scene, and paid attention to how the peformers were fucking this whole thing up - maybe I would have actually been absorbed by the story instead of only admiring it as a particularly pretty picture.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 171 total posts 169 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 157 total posts 111 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 138 total posts 75 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 479 total posts 62 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 62 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 48 total posts 45 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 181 total posts 30 posts