Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Review

Harry scratches THE WOLF MAN's Belly till his leg does that involuntary kick thing!!!

I set about writing a review of THE WOLF MAN shortly after getting home, Monday night, after our screening. I had stopped about halfway through the piece, and when I got a note from Universal saying that the Embargo was lifted, I went back to reread what a wrote and I've decided to begin again. It is easy with projects like this one, films where the original is held impossibly dear to one's heart, that you get so wrapped up in the nostalgia of the thing, that I found myself losing the film I actually saw - versus the various drafts of the screenplay I read, the late night discussions with Mark Romanek regarding his vision for the film... which frankly are mute - the second he left the film. Many online writers are going to get wrapped up in the preciousness of Andrew Kevin Walker's script... or the David Self drafts... or they'll allow their love of the original WOLF MAN to color their review. Then there's the biggest monkey on the back of the film, which is Rick Baker - and why he wasn't allowed to handle the transformations. Well... The reason is quite simple. Joe Johnston wanted to make HIS version of THE WOLFMAN and he wanted to use CG. So what did I think of this version of THE WOLFMAN? I kinda loved it. And that was absolutely not what I was expecting. For the past 6 months or so I've been trying to see this movie. At one point, we very nearly had it as the Closing Night film of last year's FANTASTIC FEST. Then there was BNAT. Each time though I was thwarted. Two nights before our Monday screening, in a wildly insane screening in Los Angeles - Mr. Beaks & Moriarty saw the film and both kinda hated it. I talked with them at length, hearing their disappointments that the film was cut so short that it lost the weight of the script, characters and what not. But they said Devin liked it. OH NO! I AGREE WITH DEVIN ON SOMETHING!?!?! So why do I like it? It is a gothic Wolf Man movie. Point blank, that's what I love. I love that it isn't modern day, that it isn't a retread of the mordern werewolf movies. I love the sheer amount of practical gore. The sets, the woods, the moon, the look of the film is exquisite. I love the sanitarium, the fevered nightmares and freakish bad trip moments. I love Rick's make-up, and dammit - I even appreciate the CG transformation stuff. I like Benicio, Hopkins and Blunt... but I fucking LOVE Hugo Weaving's Scotland Yard detective. LOVE HIM! Wish to god I could see the sequel. I love that it is this period, I love that in no way does it remind me of Branagh's FRANKENSTEIN, but of Coppola's DRACULA. I love that my nephew watched the film through his fingers, but came out smiling. I like that it didn't outstay its welcome. And my favorite thing... the thing that just would not stop making me smile... it is absolutely a horror film. This isn't a video game, it isn't anything resembling a video game. They didn't co-opt the brand and turn it into a light-hearted adventure tale. Is it all wolfsbane and silver? No, the film has its flaws, but I don't feel they sabotage the whole. Coming into this... a film that was trying to take care of script problems during a writer's strike. A film that lost its director just a couple weeks prior to shooting. On a set, where everyone voiced misgivings and problems and politics. With a director that was pretty unproven in this genre. Massive reshoots. I was truly fearing the end results. Honestly, about 25 minutes in, I was so relieved. Massawyrm was to my right, exclaiming under his breath, "This is badass!" and I was smiling in agreement. To my left, Father Geek was smiling, which to me... is just about the most perfect thing I could see while watching a WOLFMAN movie. I remember on Branagh's FRANKENSTEIN, we were both appalled. And my initial reaction to THE MUMMY was pretty similar. Mainly because atmospherically, I wanted a bit of a creaky flick... and it wasn't there. Here, I came out genuinely pleased. Sure I wanted more Benicio as Talbot, a little more sympathy for the creature moments. I would have liked had they kept the Bela/Werewolf device. And there's a part of me that would have liked Old Man Talbot to be a bit more Claude Rain-ish. And my biggest disappointment was Geraldine Chaplin's Maleva the Gypsy. I miss her relationship with the Wolf Man. Finding him on the moors in a trap, wounded and baying at the moon. And my last complaint involved the utterly bizarre CG Deer and Bear. What the fuck? Are there really No magnificent Stags - and no trained circus bears in England? Really? CG? For that? Shaking my head man. Why? I'm looking forward to taking Yoko to seeing this film, hopefully on Valentine's Day. After all, I've always had a thing for Beauty & the Beast storylines. It's probably some sort of complex that more days at the gym would help with. Out of all the UNIVERSAL HORROR remakes... this one feels right for me. I can see it. It's more violent, every bit as bizarre and odd. And that wolfboy in India just fucking gave me the willies! But I can feel it. As for Joe Johnston. I have to applaud the man. I love the style of the film, the flashes of time passage to keep the next full moon always moving quickly to terrorize Larry again. There's way more right about this than wrong, and frankly that was not a given with this film. I'm genuinely pleased. This is a Blu Ray I can't wait to get - and a film that I can't wait to share with my wife.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 11, 2010, 2:57 a.m. CST

    FIRST!!!!!

    by QuizKidDonnieSmith

    HEY-OH!!!!!

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 2:58 a.m. CST

    Yeah!

    by Lance2769

    Can't wait!

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:05 a.m. CST

    WOLFMAN HAS NIPPLES?

    by iwontwin

    please

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:06 a.m. CST

    It's cool.

    by Darth Scourge

    Saw it at a preview yesterday, and yes, it is a good movie. I love the 1941 original, and this remake is generally respectful of it, while also carving its own identity. It has a really cool brooding, gothic tone throughout, and Rick Baker's makeup is outstanding. Gloriously gory, too. Nice.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:07 a.m. CST

    wolfboy in India?

    by iwontwin

    Going to get an arranged marriage with the CGI Bear?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:13 a.m. CST

    Anthony Hopkins phones in his performance!

    by Napolean Solo

    I saw the film last night and where it could have been brilliant, it just falls flat. <br> <br> Anthony Hopkins is absolutely horrible as the father. It's honestly as if he was there to simply get a check. It wasn't the script, because the dialogue was fine, he simply has not an ounce of passion in anything he says. It is almost as if he is doing a JAck Dee impression through the whole movie. <br> <br> Without spoilers, the big end scene is absolutely ridiculous and is as if you are on YouTube watching Steve Austin fight Sasquatch. Don't believe me? YouTube that scene now then go and see The Wolfman. <br> <br> The saving grace of this movie is Hugo Weaving. In the local tavern, he says the word; "RULES" which such potency that my friend leaned to me and said: "So Swaggerific!" and believe me, EFF the dictionary, that is the ONLY way to describe his performace! <br> <br> You do not feel ANY sympathy for this wolf at any time in the movie. The film has only a few missteps, but they are at such poignant moments, that it weakens the whole movie. <br> <br> I applaud Joe Johnston, but let me tell you this, if Brett ratner made this exact movie, Harry would have hated it.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:16 a.m. CST

    Enjoyable Sat Night Flick

    by deej_no_1

    Saw the movie last night here in the UK. And I really enjoyed the flick. Yes the character development did seem rushed and you can tell that bits were cut out - look at the trailer the whole masquerade ball attack part is missing!!. But I did enjoy it, a few jump moments (and it’s been a long time that ive jumped at a movie) plenty of gore (the attacks are vicious) and most importantly TONS OF WOLF ON SCREEN!! – Something which a lot of werewolf flicks don’t do, by keeping the wolf hidden to the end. Acting wise for me Hugo Weaving is the stand out especially his speech in the local tavern when asked why he wasn’t out helping the local villagers hunt the beast. The rest of the actors are ok, I would have liked a bit more development on Hopkins character, especially his motivation (** SPOILER** I get the feeling that he had some kind of master plan regarding his son, setting him up to be caught so he could carry on ** SPOILER END** but this is hinted at and hopefully is part of the cut scenes that will show up in the directors cut when it comes out. Del Toro does a fine job as Talbot and blunt is just there for eye candy (and what candy indeed). In a kind of strange way it feels like your watching an old fashioned monster movie, the atmosphere of the movie etc.. Which im guessing is kind of the point by doing a remake of the wolf man. – a decent sat night popcorn flick

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:25 a.m. CST

    Elfman

    by JaviT

    kinda surprised you didn't mention the score, Harry. As for Hopkins' performance, I thought he was supposed to be a detached character. I didn't feel that he was phoning it in, but making a deliberate choice.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:31 a.m. CST

    Elfman Score

    by deej_no_1

    yeah forgot to say about elfmans score there were definate shades of bram strokers dracula in the score, in fact the two movies could very well work as comparison pieces both enhabbiting the same world (lol hmm what would a oldman dracula vs del toro wolf man pic be like? )

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:31 a.m. CST

    Homage to What?

    by jeff_vader

    Forgive my ignorance but I saw the original Wolfman when I was a wee pup and can't remember much of it apart from the awesome make up. But there were some scenes in the new wolfman (small w) that seemed to me to be a homage/rip off of the greatest W'Wolf film ever - the one with the American one in London (AAWIL). Obviously the set piece running round London was going to conjure this link. But the scene where Talbot is recovering in bed, has a nightmare, wakes up but oh no has another nightmare cos he's not really woken up seems to me a direct lift from AAWIL's zombie nazis. Is this a homage, a rip off or maybe is the scene in AAWIL a homage to a scene in the original Wolfman that I've missed all these years? I'll put the Tony Hopkins make-up looking just like Oliver Reed version down as intentional too. BTW thought the new wolfman was a wasted opportunity - the initial attacks on the gypsy caravan rocked and Hugo Weaving was as dependable as ever. But the rest was alright though didn't do anything new at all. In fact it was so OTT gothic I expected Leslie Nielsen to jump out any minute.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:47 a.m. CST

    Hopkins detached...

    by Napolean Solo

    Was a phone in. <br> <br> His big reveal to his son is delivered with such blandness it sounded like he was reading an email. It was a horrible performance for an actor of his stature. When I first heard he was cast I was giddy because we know what Hopkins does on screen, none of which is apparent in this performance. <br> <br> Whereas in Benicio's performance and character clearly suffers from scenes being cut, Anthony's is just plain bad acting. <br> <br> Remember the Charlton Heston cameo in Wayne's World 2? Hopkins is the guy who Charlton replaced: <br> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf7vz_LtFlU

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:55 a.m. CST

    the real question is.....

    by Fineus Fog

    Does Emily Blunt get the twins out?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:56 a.m. CST

    To be Blunt

    by Karl Childers

    How was Emily's heaving bosom?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 4 a.m. CST

    "kinda loved it"... "kinda hated it"... Jesus...

    by Charlie & Tex

    ...Harry, either you love something or you hate something - diluting an absolute term smacks of being inarticulate. Anyhoo, as far as the movie is concerned, the original Wolf Man is the jewel in the crown of Universal's Classic Monster movies and we're understandably a little nervous as to how a remake will fare.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 4:10 a.m. CST

    Dancing Circus Bears?

    by batmans_pants

    What century do you think we're living in here Harry?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 4:31 a.m. CST

    trifecta

    by akoss2k

    How long before HOPKINS does Frankenstein and completes the HORROR TRIFECTA... I can see SIr Anthony playing Doc. Frankenstein.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 4:34 a.m. CST

    thank god

    by antonphd

    i cared about 3 films this year. avatar, sherlock holmes and the wolfman. all films that by their promised to take me out completely of my world. i've seen both avatar and holmes multiple times. i am so glad to read this review. i always hope to be blown away by a film's greatness, but i saw the writing on the wall for the wolfman and i have just been worried it would suck. reading your review that it's cool if not great makes me so relieved and happy. i can't wait to see it friday first showing.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 4:46 a.m. CST

    No No No!

    by Lampers

    I'm fed up of coming out of high expectation movies like this, shrugging my shoulders and finding the most I can say is "I didn't hate it". We classic horror fans deserve better. Okay, this is personal to me but...right the original Wolf Man is set in Wales, and Sir John Talbot is Welsh, well in the remake, amazingly, they actually get a WELSH actor! But for some unknown reason move the location to Yorkshire (or similar) and have him occasionally dip into an Irish accent! WTF? Hugo was awesome in fairness, but I can't work out why for the life of me he's Insp. Abberline. So if we do get a sequel, the main protagonist is going to have been a real person! Dodgy territory. Final word, CG werewolves suck ass.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 4:58 a.m. CST

    Ebert makes me laugh

    by Bass Ackwards

    "I understand why he sheds his clothes when he expands into a muscular predator. What I don't understand is how he always succeeds in redressing himself in the same clothes. Does he retrace his path back through the dark woods by moonlight, picking up after himself?" <p>That gave me a good chuckle.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 5:03 a.m. CST

    Meh..so is "Twilight: Eclipse" a horror film now or what?!

    by Mike_D

    I must know. I wanna know if David Slade fucked the franchise in the ass!!

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 5:19 a.m. CST

    I've loved the trailers and I'm very excited for this-

    by sonnyfern

    -I LOVE the wolf man...and holy shit does this look spot on. They had me at Del Toro, but then they add in Hopkins, Baker, Blunt and fucking Hugo Weaving and named him Abberline no less? COOL all across the board. I'll be seeing this Friday, no doubt about it.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 5:36 a.m. CST

    The Wolfman review

    by Long_Duk_Dong

    http://tinyurl.com/yjrrfjd

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 5:56 a.m. CST

    Sounds like Harry loved everything except

    by Bruce of all Trades

    the story and the characters. What a fucking joke. THE SETS WERE AMAZING!!! Fuck

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 5:58 a.m. CST

    Hey Harry

    by MANNZILLA

    Does this mean you will review it in your DVD column when it comes out? im just ribbing you because I truly enjoy reading it.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 6:17 a.m. CST

    Remember werewolves in Matrix Reloaded?

    by sansara07

    Harry was soooo pissed that he there were no werewolves or vampires in Matrix Reloaded after the Oracle mentioned them. Seriously, Harry wanted to see werewolves in a MATRIX film. A take his reviews with a pinch of salt after that.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 7:24 a.m. CST

    QUESTION

    by w1za

    Am I the only one that thought Del Toro running around in a massive ape costume looked like a huge baffoon? Seriously now, how can you take a movie seriously when the very essence of the film, is a laughing joke. Del Toro bouncing along the roof tops in his pants and ripped shirt..... Surely someone else's eyebrows were raised here?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 7:30 a.m. CST

    I had chili for lunch.

    by Godovhellfire

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 7:56 a.m. CST

    it is by all accounts..

    by emeraldboy

    an entertain if very flawed 2 hrs of entertainment. dont expect to go to this thinking that its groundbreaking or something. its just a solid, competent reamake and thats all.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Really looking forward to this, stupid snow causing a further...

    by SoylentMean

    delay. Then Shutter Island next week. Then The Crazies after that. While I'd prefer all these genre films were released in September or October to coincide with the Halloween season, it's really hard to get upset with all of these genre films (especially Horror films) getting released in such quantity. Love it.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:06 a.m. CST

    Whew... what a relief.

    by Stan Arthur

    Some of my beloved Universal monsters have been raped and pillaged over time. Now I'm excited about seeing this.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Bruce of all Trades

    by thecheesegrommit

    Not doing to well in school are you? Your reading comprehension is shite. I read the same article as you and I saw no mention of Harry not liking the story or the characters. So you decided to project your interpretation of Harry's word. Dude just take what's on the page. A total fail on your post.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:31 a.m. CST

    Harry "kinda liked it", case closed then....

    by JayLenoTookMyJob

    ... it's Epic Suckage!

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:40 a.m. CST

    I saw this...

    by Harrigan

    And I think Benecio has 5 lines throughout the whole movie - all delivered horribly.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:43 a.m. CST

    you 'kinda loved it'???

    by Windowlicker74

    WRONG: you either like it, or 'kinda' like it or you love it. What the fuck does 'kinda love it' even mean?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:45 a.m. CST

    Vocabulary skills: moot, not mute

    by Dennis_Lynch

    "...discussions with Mark Romanek regarding his vision for the film... which frankly are mute - the second he left the film." He can still talk about it; he's not mute. You meant moot, which can mean "of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic." Can't wait to see the film!

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Benicio drew from his 1st acting experience for this roll...

    by Vulcan_CSC_Rep

    He was the dog-faced boy in Pee-Wee's Big Top movie. Guess he's just type-cast.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:10 a.m. CST

    harry--how about your fukken DVD column??

    by Six Demon Bag

    just cut and paste that shit...<P>30 minutes of yer day..at the most

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:11 a.m. CST

    Austin Chronicle Review

    by Aquatarkusman

    2 stars; laughable CGI, shit performances, and nonsensical plot.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:15 a.m. CST

    "Not doing TO well in school" - haha!

    by belasco_house

    Just sayin, fail, haha :)

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Sounds good

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    I've been psyched for this film since I heard Benicio Del Toro was cast as Talbot. That just seemed completely perfect to me. Then once I saw Baker's makeup, the deal was fuckin' sealed! The trailer is fantastic and I loved reading in Fangoria how they were going for big gore and a real horror feel. So glad that is intact.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:17 a.m. CST

    Saw this last night. It was all right.

    by D.Vader

    I sent in a review but I don't think AICN will post it. <p> The movie just felt... empty. It was missing a LOT of thematic subtext. It was missing scenes that really added weight to the tragedy of what had befallen Del Toro's character. It was missing some scenes between Emily Blunt and Del Toro to really strengthen their bond and relationship. <p> I'm not sure where the fault lies for that, or even if those scenes exist. Were they cut out after the studio fired and hired so many editors to figure the film out? <p> Also, EVERYONE in this movie knows what werewolves are. There's not a single scene in which a gypsy or someone explains what this curse is and how to stop it. Everyone assumes werewolf and then EVERYONE know silver bullets will kill it. I really missed that scene from the original between the gypsy woman and Talbot where she explains everything to him, laying on the atmosphere and dread. <p> Hugo Weaving is awesome but he needed more scenes. His best scene by far is in the local bar in which he tells off the barmaid who has lost her husband to the monster and who is upset he's not out there searching for him. <p>GOOD NEWS! We DO get a flash of some Emily Blunt side-boob! But its oh too brief... <p> There's a ton of gore, so that'll make gorehounds happy. And the Wolfman attacks at lightning speeds. Victims don't even know what's happened as they're bleeding to death. <p> Look for Rick Baker's cameo as a man in the woods with a gun during the gypsy scene. <p> Look for John Schofield, that scarred up actor from the pub in An American Werewolf in London. He was also in the latter two Pirates of the Caribbean movies as henchman to the East India Trading Co guy. <p>The transformations work for the most part (only the last one looks a bit too CGI). There are some effective jump scares. The makeup job is great. <p> But really, we needed more scenes to strengthen the relationships and to really explore that theme of Man vs Beast within, what it takes to not give in to animalistic desires, what it takes to be more than what we are deep down. <p> And we were confused by the end- do these werewolves remember what they did the morning after? No one suggested otherwise.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:26 a.m. CST

    Coppola's Dracula...

    by Azlam Orlandu

    If it reminds you of that film then count me in.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:28 a.m. CST

    BUT, considering how many hands this project went through...

    by D.Vader

    Its a success. Considering the director came in 2 weeks before filming, that they went through a number of editors and reshoots and whatnot, its surprising how well the film works when you weigh it against the reality of what it took to make it. <p> Also, Danny Elfman's score had strains that sounded like James Newton Howard's King Kong and Coppola's Dracula.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:34 a.m. CST

    The CGI stag and bear

    by D.Vader

    It only looked CGI to me when the Wolfman was approaching in the foreground and it was in the background going nuts, trying to leap away but it was tied down. <p> Uhhh, Harry, I'm pretty sure they went CGI for that oh so brief shot because they probably would have gotten in trouble with PETA for putting that animal in distress. Did you think about that? <p>As for the CGI bear, I think it was real in the first shot but CGI in the second. Either way, Johnston wanted the bear to stand up and ROAR even though its smack-dab in the middle of a crowd of people. It was a crowded shot with people on all sides of the bear. I think that might just be a tad too dangerous on set with a real one, dont you think?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:34 a.m. CST

    ONCE AGAIN GEEKS FELLATE MEDIOCRITY

    by reflecto

    OH, IT WASN'T THAT GOOD BUT IT WASN'T THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE, THEREFORE ITS "CLASSIC HORROR" AND "GOOD FAITH" CREDENTIALS MEAN MORE THAN ACTUALLY ADMITTING THE MOVIE WAS NOTHING SPECIAL - LET'S BE SURE TO TALK UP THIS MOVIE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, NO MATTER HOW BLAH IT IS, BECAUSE IT COULD BE OUR ONLY CHANCE FOR MORE "REAL HORROR!" GEE, WHERE HAVE I HEARD THIS HIT SONG BEFORE...?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:44 a.m. CST

    And BTW anyone who read the script knew this was lame

    by reflecto

    WHAT A SHOCK TWIST - ANTHONY HOPKINS??? WHO KNEW????

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:47 a.m. CST

    It was funny eustisclay

    by D.Vader

    I just kept expecting SOME sort of scene where a gypsy or his dad or someone explains to Del Toro just what he is. <p> Hell, the way the movie is right now, I think its possible Talbot has no freakin' clue he's a werewolf. All he knows is he transforms into a monster on full moons. I guess werewolves ARE common knowledge, but back then they weren't in popular fiction or media. They were fairy tales or real stories about real monsters. I wish they played up that aspect. <p> Also that scene from House of Frankenstein sounds hilarious.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:51 a.m. CST

    I was seriously worried by the review headline...

    by JasonPratt

    Please God, not another Blade2 review; please God, not another--whew. Thank You.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:53 a.m. CST

    HARRY KINDA LOVED IT...SURPRISE SURPRISE

    by JaPra

    Harry dislikes very few films, his discernment is shoddy at best. I AM looking forward to seeing this film, but if Harry 'kinda loved it' then i'm thinking it's not that great of a film.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Harry was never not going to praise this film

    by reflecto

    You can always tell the AICN wind-up when it comes. First skepticism, then mild skepticism with faint hope, then OMFG THIS IS AWESOME U GUISE EVERYONE SEE IT LOOK AT THESE ENDLESS BANNER ADS VIDEOS AND INTERVIEWS!!!1111 Case in point, the collected works of Adam Green. And then when the film comes out and everyone can tell it's mediocre or worse, Harry plays the tee-hee "kinda great, I dunno I'M JUST A BIG GUY WHO LOOOOOVES MOVIES!" game.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 10:10 a.m. CST

    I plan to watch this at home with a glass of scotch...

    by FlickaPoo

    ...I bet I'll have a nice time.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 10:25 a.m. CST

    Lest we forget

    by IAmLegolas

    Harry loved VAN HELSING

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 10:31 a.m. CST

    FlickaPoo...

    by Charlie & Tex

    ...we plan to watch it at the cinema - also with a glass of scotch! Lol!

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 10:38 a.m. CST

    My take **SMALL SPOILER**

    by wes

    It seems you take a little too much into account about the film's process/history more than the film itself, but it is *your* review, I would just hope you wouldn't let the background of it paint your picture as much since the readers will only be focusing on the finished product. Having said that I liked it as well, definitely couldn't use the word "love" in there, but I wish there would've bene another 15 minutes between Benicio and Blunt to solidify that storyline and wish (SPOILER ALERT) they'd have left that final fight scene on the cutting room floor, it was awful.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 10:40 a.m. CST

    Someone scratch under Harry's arm...

    by mr dark

    So he will involuntarily write a DVD column...Please...WTF Harold if you don't want to do it give it to someone who has the time and compassion to do the work...

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 10:44 a.m. CST

    The big REVEAL

    by earl of sandwich

    All I can say is, that reveal and it's subsequent outcome reek of Studio Ass-Hattery. All I could think about after that was...."o.k. when's are they gonna have it out". Cause you know some pinhead studio head just couldn't imagine the movie without a big fight at the end. Pretty cheap. And as much as a small portion of the audience will get the Gothic Hammer nods, I think a lot of people will be left a little disappointed. Especially if they let their dumb boyfreind/ husband drag them to see the Wuffman instead of seeing Valentines Day. Still, Blunt...so hot.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Completely forgetful

    by Plastic_shark

    Saw it last night and can't remember anything about it. No memorable performances, no memorable scenes, no memorable music...like most modern films instantly forgetful.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 11 a.m. CST

    Plastic_shark

    by frozen01

    Your life must be full of disappointments.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 11:04 a.m. CST

    D.Vader

    by frozen01

    I can't say for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if people did know werewolf lore back then. Before the Victorian period, there was always at least one person in an area that knew how to "handle" a vampire, and that was long before Bram Stoker, Max Shrek, or Anne Rice. This wasn't fanciful entertainment to them; it was necessary knowledge to protect their lives and souls. <p>That's vampires, though. I don't know about werewolves, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 11:07 a.m. CST

    It does make sense Frozen...

    by D.Vader

    I just wish there was a scene to build up the dread and atmosphere for the audience instead of jumping straight into the "we all already know its a werewolf!" No what I mean?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 11:17 a.m. CST

    I think I wouldn't mind liking this film either

    by Series7

    .....if I didn't have to fucking pay for it.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Sounds okay to me.

    by Vlad the Inhaler

    Like the 1941 original, this is "B" movie material, and not really worth expectations beyond having a pleasantly spooky time.<p> If they've got the lore and the look right; if it's atmospheric and the lycanthrope makeup is cool, then I'm in. Good scripting and good acting are a welcome -- but unexpected -- bonus.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 12:09 p.m. CST

    average

    by mexicant

    the trailer looks average. the only thing that makes me consider seing it are the actors.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Harry, give some love to Rick Heinrichs on set production!

    by DamjanD

    Gothic is this guy's specialty. Remember Sleepy Hollow?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Harry ...Coppolla's dracula?

    by mexicant

    Really. I don't need to see this piece of feces to know that's ridiculous.Dracula is a masterpiece.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 12:31 p.m. CST

    I can't wait to see this!!

    by venvariants

    Screw everything else - bring on The Wolfman!!

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Seeing this Saturday

    by Jabroni

    I have my tickets here in LA for the Arclight in Sherman Oaks, for Saturday. The wife has agreed to join me...she can't stand the horror genre, but this one seems interesting to her. I'm not looking for a reinvention of the medium. I am hoping to see a decent Werewolf movie that does just enough to leave me wanting more. I'm just happy that my wife is going, should be a fun day out. (We have kids, so a daytime showing is the best we can do)

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 12:43 p.m. CST

    No mention of the score Harry?

    by odo19

    Stranegely enough that's what I'm most interested about. It's been a while since Elfman has done something interesting.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Coppalla's Dracula does indeed rock...

    by odo19

    people comparing the new Wolfman with it is a good sign.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Hey, Harry...

    by immortal_pirate

    ...Gonna take the wife to see this flick on V-Day? A man I could marry. ;) Actually, my man is pretty much the same way. LOL! Anyway, thanks for the (somewhat) honest review here. Though I am gonna have to wait to see another review by another um...reviewer before Tim and I do go see it. And it may be on our V-Day movie list, too! Right after we see "Valentine's Day" of course. And believe it or not, i'd rather see Wolfman first.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 1:04 p.m. CST

    However...

    by immortal_pirate

    ...it wasn't really fair to compare it to Coppola's DRACULA, as it was the best and worst vampire flick ever made. Jussayin.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Just saw it - IT WAS SHIT

    by shaneo632

    Really bad. I wanted to believe that with this cast and crew it could be great, but it was dire. I can't believe it was the great Walter Murch editing this film; it had no "beat" like even mediocre films manage in the editing suite. Lots of awkward editing, shitty butter-smear CGI where you can't see what's going on, and a meh script that never allowed the actor to shine. REDEEMING FEATUES: Some gore (although uninspired), and great practicl creature effects from Rick Baker. Oh, and Hugo Weaving was good.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 1:24 p.m. CST

    So what!

    by ivorbiggun

    Who cares there's another werewolf movie that sucks? All remakes suck big fat elephant dicks - and as far as I am concerned they can stick their wolfbane right up their full moons!

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 1:32 p.m. CST

    pretty unproven in this genre

    by Series7

    Is there really any director right now that's proven in this genre?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Oh, and for once ARMOND WHITE was right...

    by shaneo632

    Although he called the film "technically pollished", which is quite laughable.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 1:45 p.m. CST

    A half-hearted, half-assed review

    by BillEmic

    doesn't instill much faith in the movie for me. But I still think Harry is crazy for not digging Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein movie. That's one of the best horror flicks of the 90's, alongside Coppolla's "Dracula."

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 2 p.m. CST

    Harry - how good would have Mark's film been?

    by hallmitchell

    I'm glad this has come out okay. This could have bee such a disaster.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 2:19 p.m. CST

    uh...

    by Dollar Bird

    If you "kinda love" something, doesn't that mean you like it? Why mince words?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 2:20 p.m. CST

    COPPOLA'S DRACULA IS FUCKING AWESOME EXCEPT FOR KEANU AND WYNONA

    by TehCreepyThinMan

    Otherwise it's a great piece of filmmaking.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 2:24 p.m. CST

    CHRISTOPHE GANS OR TOM TYKWER SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THIS!!!FACT!!

    by TehCreepyThinMan

    Silent Hill and Perfume : Story of a Murdered are HUGELY underrated and both have the style that The Wolfman needed.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Currently at 35% on RT

    by Stan Arthur

    However I did notice that all the top critics have given it a "fresh" review.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 2:44 p.m. CST

    WOLF MAN = DOG SHIT

    by AzulTool

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 2:53 p.m. CST

    I'm gonna rent this and love it in secret

    by L. Ron Bumquist

    like I did with The Spirit.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:07 p.m. CST

    RE:COPPOLA'S DRACULA IS FUCKING AWESOME EXCEPT FOR KEANU AND WIN

    by L. Ron Bumquist

    RE:COPPOLA'S DRACULA IS FUCKING AWESOME EXCEPT FOR KEANU AND WINONA True True. But what about that bit where Winona jogs down the steps in a nightgown but with no bra underneath, bouncing all over the place. Kinda makes up for the rest of her performance.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:16 p.m. CST

    How to make Harry love (even kinda love) your movie

    by skimn

    Rule 1: Have it set it 1800's England, see The Wolfman, From Hell, Sherlock Holmes, Sweeney Todd, etc. Yes, we're glad it wasn't a contemporary timeframe, ala Wolf, but that seems to be a major reason for seeing it Harry.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:28 p.m. CST

    fuck The Spirit

    by turketron_2

    Keep your love of that abomination to yourself L. Ron Bumquist

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:31 p.m. CST

    A mute point!!!

    by BangoSkank

    I kinda love that about you Harry, but I kinda hate it at the same time.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:39 p.m. CST

    turketron_2

    by L. Ron Bumquist

    It was a one night stand. I was feeling kinky.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Re: The Spirit

    by skimn

    Thanks for reminding I actually saw that waste of time and space. I had managed to wipe that clean from my memory. Thanks ass.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:46 p.m. CST

    But more importantly, what does The_Recruiter think?

    by WickedJester

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Harry likes a movie that is his corner animation? No way!

    by WickedJester

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 3:49 p.m. CST

    CHECK OUT MY WOLFMAN REVIEW...

    by shaneo632

    Warning: some spoilers follow. http://www.thefilmblogger.com/wolfman.html

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 4 p.m. CST

    RE: Branagh's Frankenstein

    by jorson28

    Sorry if I misspelled his name, but I always kind of enjoyed the 1994 Frankenstein with DeNiro. Yeah, it's over-the-top and way too into making its director-star into a shirtless romantic lead, but it's about as loyal to the book as most other adaptations without being tedious and, with the exception of the arctic scenes, has at least decent production value for that genre and period of production. I really don't think it's fair to say a movie is BAD because it wasn't made exactly the way one wants it. I, personally, have no taste for the dialogue-heavy vulgarity and blatantly unoriginal, ripped-off nature of most Tarantino and Kevin Smith movies, but I've quit labeling them as "bad" because I realized how unfair that was given how subjective my own criteria is.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 4:21 p.m. CST

    thecheesegrommit

    by Bruce of all Trades

    You are truly a moron, then? He mentioned liking EVERYTHING except those. I know that when I watch a movie, the most important things I keep an eye on are the plot, acting and characters. Not the fucking sets and the makeup. Yes, this is a period movie and yes, this is a horror. So naturally the look of the film, the makeup and the special effects should be up to snuff. But without good story, acting and characters, you'll never be able to have real, quality cinema. Just movies like Avatar.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 5:03 p.m. CST

    What does Massawyrm smell like?

    by YackBacker

    I imagine he reeks of cigarettes, beef jerky and Old Spice.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 5:40 p.m. CST

    HARRY -- your reviews are CONFUSING!

    by ninpobugei

    I like Harry's reviews, but he keeps writing things as if all of us are film geeks with nothing better to do than follow all the behind-the-scenes details, script readings, etc.</p> <p> The review just ended up being more confusing than explanatory. I get that you liked it (and why), but the things you didn't like were things that (I'm assuming) were left out from previous scripts. It was just very confusing. I don't care about what could have been; I care about what IS so I can determine whether I see the movie or not.</p> <p> Harry, please try to remember we're not all up on the background stuff. If you want to make mention of things that didn't make it into the movie, then tells us that...don't refer to "the Bela/Werewolf device" and not tell me what the hell that is. It really loses the reader. In fact, I was going to send a link to your review to some friends, but frankly, they'd be even more confused than me. And from that standpoint, the review just isn't helpful to anyone other than the serious film geeks...in which case you're just left preaching to the choir.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Harry - your review was good.

    by iloveaicn

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 6:07 p.m. CST

    in regards to Dracula...

    by immortal_pirate

    Who was it that said in so many words, "except for keanu and whynona"? That's why it was the worst vamp flick ever. And in the best vamp flick corner it was cuz of Gary Oldman...hands down. However, after reading some of these TB's...I'm convinced I don't really want to see it...Usually it's the Average Front Row Joe who has an unbiased view on the flick...(sorry, Harry) and therefore since you have smashed this to smitherenies....I may not see it at all. If I did, it would only because of Anthony Hopkins (all hail) and Benecio Del Toro. The end, period, dot.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Just got back from seeing it

    by alan_poon

    Some terible acting with Del Toro and my fellow countryman Hopkins the worst offenders. Emily Blunt is a babe although there was no chemistry between her and Del Toro. Plenty of gore for a 15 rated film and it looked beautiful. I'd give it 7/10

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 7:14 p.m. CST

    re: protagonist waking up from multiple nightmares

    by Castlemonster

    Landis stole that idea from Luis Buñuel in the first place, so no big.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 7:20 p.m. CST

    And he freely admits to stealing the device

    by Castlemonster

    from Buñuel, to be fair.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Sorry, Rick Baker he looks like the "Pooch Man"

    by Raymar

    The Monster Squad wolfman still has nothing to fear from it!

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 7:48 p.m. CST

    harry you're such a sell-out...

    by ladevastation

    you blow anything and everything these days just so the studios will still like you... fuck your horrible reviews. a 5 year old could provide a more honest and thought out review than you. i hope you realize that in the end, you may get paid, but you're now officially a piece of shit.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 7:52 p.m. CST

    I wanted to LOVE IT. I didn't.

    by blakindigo

    I did love the transformations and the brutal wolf attacks. But, the music was too 'on the nose' and at times it seemed like it borrowed from James Newton Howard's "King Kong" score.<br><br>The flashback sequences are sloppy in an attempt to be 'stylish' — they probably needed a more expressionistic touch. I think this would have been a perfect film for Christophe Gans or maybe Jonathan Glazer but, I'm not dismissing Joe Johnston. He made a watchable movie with an incredible time constraint and deserves props for what works. Rick Baker's work is convincing and extremely effective. Also, Walter Murch deserves a lot of the credit, I'm sure.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Nice, blakindigo

    by D.Vader

    I too thought the score sounded a bit like King Kong.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:28 p.m. CST

    Seeing it tomorrow. Reserving judgement until then.

    by SoylentMean

    However, Harry gets a big ol' fat hairy (see what I did there) fail for not even acknowledging his lack of a DVD column. What gives ginger snap?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:31 p.m. CST

    by Immortal_Fish

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:32 p.m. CST

    "I went back to reread what a wrote"

    by Immortal_Fish

    And what a wrote it must have been!

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:34 p.m. CST

    "I kinda loved it."

    by Immortal_Fish

    And I'm kinda pregnant.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:35 p.m. CST

    "So why do I like it?"

    by Immortal_Fish

    I thought you kinda loved it?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:37 p.m. CST

    "my nephew watched the film through his fingers"

    by Immortal_Fish

    Braille?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:44 p.m. CST

    That braille bit made me laugh, Fish

    by D.Vader

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Braille would make for one bumpy ride

    by SoylentMean

    to use a roller coaster ride metaphor. Oh, and how fuckin' scary would it be if you were blind and you had a friend trick you into riding a roller coaster?

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:05 p.m. CST

    Sleepy Hollow.....

    by HordePrime

    Did the whole "mother's death told through flashbacks" gimmick. Did Walker recycle it for this, too???

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 9:57 p.m. CST

    SoylentMean

    by The Dum Guy

    That would be hard to pull off.<br><br>"Dude, why are we standing around all these people for so long, and why do I hear screaming?"

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Maybe Sweden or Korea will make a good werewolf movie

    by Gozu

    Or Belgrade. "Serbian Werewolf Film." Now, that I'd see.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Were they frankly mute?

    by Gogo Bananas

    Or were they frankly moot? So hard to tell with this guy.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 11:23 p.m. CST

    That fucking nephew.....

    by Loosejerk

    has he killed another kid yet? Or did he start with animals first?

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 12:02 a.m. CST

    i've grown reticent of harry's optimism

    by Kammich

    but i'll still be seeing this movie on opening weekend, regardless. my dad's 50th birthday is coming up, and the only thing he wants to do is see "the wolf man." he loves the universal monsters and his all-time favorite movie is "american werewolf in london." for his sake i hope its pretty good.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 12:40 a.m. CST

    Just Seen It, blackindigo is exactly right

    by quantize

    The score stunk, there's a lot to like..the fx were xlnt, but those lame attempts to be 'stylish' with the double exposures etc during the flashbacks seemed try hard. The whole film never manages to be particularly creepy or romantic..there's a sense off hurry in the establishing scenes <p> It feels much more like an action film than horror. Surely I'm not the only one who found del toro's hair dye distracting. It looked like a wig. No man with a face like that has hair like that! His performance felt a little too restrained (he's meant to be a thespian!!!). Hopkins also seems to phone it in. Blunt & weaving were the standouts. <p> It's not terrible but it's a definite missfire. Scenes in London were best.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 3:01 a.m. CST

    Herc has been doing the DVD column for a while

    by CarmillaVonDoom

    At least the past 2 weeks.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 3:29 a.m. CST

    MUTE POINT, lol

    by polyh3dron

    I expect that kind of hilarious idiocy from forum posting bottom feeders and some talkbackers, not from a site's main content contributor.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 3:50 a.m. CST

    I don't have a good feeling about this

    by AsimovLives

    The review that our talkback friend Napolean Solo posted above rings very true about this movie. His opinion of the movie reflects my fears about it. I want to feel excited and interested about the movie, but i just can't. I just can't. This project sunk for me the moment Joe Johnson was hire. He's not a bad director, but he's merely a jorneyman. He's the guy you hire if you want to make a movie with lots of CGI. Even his creed with ROCKETEER is wearing thin by now. He's uninspired. You hire joe johnson is there's a producer or a star who wants to call all the shots without really having to direct the movie itself.<br><br>Frankly, to quote Han solo, i don't have a good feeling about this. The first moment the movie was announced, i was very interested. Benicio Del toro as a wolfman was brillant. The former director was an intriguing choice. The moment he stepped out, the moment they decide to go full with CGI, the moment Johnson was hired, i lost hope. Maybe the finla movie will prove my misguivings wrong. but i fear that our friend Napolean Solo hit the nail in the head. There's always the lovely Emily Blunt, of course!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 4:07 a.m. CST

    The Bear didn't start out CG

    by Pandorum

    It started out as a practical effect, a puppet if you will. It was comically bad and ended up being replaced with CG, which although not perfect, is a huge step up from what was originally shot.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 4:15 a.m. CST

    sansara07

    by AsimovLives

    Harry said what? He said that about the Matrix Reloaded movie in his review? That's so funny! It's time for me to do another archeological digging at AICN reviews from the past. complaining that there was no vampyres and werewolves in Matrix!! This is just too funny to be true, i have to read it to believe it!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 4:25 a.m. CST

    Just came back from it...

    by Kirbymanly

    The good? The look of the film, transformation scenes, Hugo, the London sequence. The bad? Everything else.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 4:25 a.m. CST

    Joe Johnstone...

    by Rameses

    The guys design {and propbuilding work} on the original star wars Trilogy was awesome.He designed the T.i.e Fighters!But his movies , whilst never awful are bland beyond belief.I knew we weren't going to get a full blown ass kicking horror film as soon as he stepped in.Jurrasic Park 3 was tedious and despite some on this sites love for the Rocketeer, that was tedious as well.He managed to make the hero seem like a clown and entirely ignored the comics biggest nostalgic pull,Betty page in a series of bondage inspired scenes.Jennifer C didn't even have the fringe cut for fucks sake!It looks like whatever the material Joe makes it bland ...

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 4:52 a.m. CST

    Hugo Weaving's Abberline character he plays...

    by AsimovLives

    ... is that supposed to be the hisotrical Frederick Abberline, the Scotland Yard investigator who was involved with the Whitechapel Murders? The guy's life alone would be worth a movie. He went from a Scotland Yard detective, resigned after his frustration qith the Whitechapel murders case lead to nothing, emigrated to USA and became a Pinkerton Private Detective. He late retired with honours. The dude's life is worthy of a movie.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 4:53 a.m. CST

    Rameses, Disney wouldn't allow the Betty Page material—

    by blakindigo

    — they wanted a 'PG' and anything Irving Claw related wouldn't have allowed them to get that rating.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 4:58 a.m. CST

    can we stops saying a film "has its flaws"?

    by Phil Connors

    very very very few films are perfect, especially nowadays when flaws out weigh the good.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 5 a.m. CST

    Mark Romanek is MUTE!

    by AsimovLives

    My admiration for him just raised. a mute who is still able to direct some of the most fascinating music videos ever and the very good ONE HOUR PHOTO, that's talent and skill way above most directors could ever dream having. Wow, a mute director that can overcome such disability and still make one hell of a job. As Darth Vader once said, impressive, most impressive.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 6:54 a.m. CST

    Joe Johnston is mediocrity personified

    by reflecto

    but geeks keep ignoring that by mentiong ROCKETEER over and over. ROCKETEER came out like 20 years ago and was not that great then.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 7:41 a.m. CST

    Hopkins looks to be playing Van Helsing again in WOLFMAN...

    by spud mcspud

    ...More of the same scene-chewing bollocks. Honestly, I think Hopkins' best days are way behind him. His Hannibal Lecter and Van Helsing were pure over-exaggerated panto level acting, and this looks to be no different. I'll take Del Toro as a convincing werewolf, and always Emily Blunt in absolutely ANYTHING - she's so icily sexy it's almost unbearable. But fuck Hopkins for recycling his ridiculous panto role from BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA for a movie that was obviously trying to be so much more than Coppola's laughably over-melodramatic piece of (admittedly beautifully shot) shit.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 7:49 a.m. CST

    FlickaPoo

    by AsimovLives

    What's your scotch of preference? Me, i recently discovered Glenroths, and it's divine! Glenroths and Johnnie Walker Green Label are now my favorite scotchs.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 7:49 a.m. CST

    FlickaPoo

    by AsimovLives

    What's your scotch of preference? Me, i recently discovered Glenrothes, and it's divine! Glenrothes and Johnnie Walker Green Label are now my favorite scotchs.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 8:03 a.m. CST

    re: Castlemonster

    by jeff_vader

    Thanks for the info!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 8:22 a.m. CST

    Guilhermo Del Toro was born to direct this

    by AsimovLives

    Specially since he has such great affinity to his movie's monsters. He would focus a lot on the humanistic elements of his movie, specially the monster's. I think he would be brillant for this. I'm sure he must be a huge fan of the original.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 8:44 a.m. CST

    oh God DON'T LET HERC DO THE DVD COLUMN!

    by Kaiser Soze

    Harry, please for the love of God, don't let Herc do the DVD column! Herc sucks. Sorry to be so blunt, but he does. He constantly professes his manlove for Joss Whedon to the point he won't shut up about it (nothing against Whedon), pushes shit like Jersey Shore and SNL (legacy notwithstanding, SNL has truly and unapologetically sucked for years), and completely ignores some of the best shows on television (Dexter, Sons of Anarchy, Big Bang Theory, Human Target, Modern Family, True Blood, Californication, and House, just to name a few) when HE'S the television guy!!! Herc is absolutely the worst "critic" on this site because he still hasn't figured out that, as a critic, you have to cover everything of note that you can, not just your personal favorites. Seriously, Joss has done some decent stuff (loved Firefly), but not in a long while (other than Dr. Horrible, but that wasn't TV). Please don't let Herc do the DVD's, too!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 8:44 a.m. CST

    Kirbymanly

    by AsimovLives

    Certainly Emily Blunt wasn't that bad...at least in looks!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Heed Kaiser Soze!

    by AsimovLives

    Powers That Be, please, heed Kaiser Soze!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 8:49 a.m. CST

    In fact, Let FATHERGEEK do it

    by Kaiser Soze

    Seriously, Harry, if you really have no desire/time to do the DVD column (which is obvious to all but you at this point), get your proud papa to do it. He's absolutely the biggest joy to read on this site, and just seems genuine in what he says, while most of the other reviewers here seem to have forgotten what AICN was supposed to be about. Remember when it was fans of film giving their honest opinions? Now it seems to be former fans of film who have now become studio shills so the studios will advertise on the site. Harsh, but true (dude, I saw Wolfman and GI JOE and while you "loved" them, they both sucked). Fathergeek is the only one who still truly writes what he feels. I honestly wish you'd go back to that!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 8:50 a.m. CST

    In fact, Let FATHERGEEK do it

    by Kaiser Soze

    Seriously, Harry, if you really have no desire/time to do the DVD column (which is obvious to all but you at this point), get your proud papa to do it. He's absolutely the biggest joy to read on this site, and just seems genuine in what he says, while most of the other reviewers here seem to have forgotten what AICN was supposed to be about. Remember when it was fans of film giving their honest opinions? Now it seems to be former fans of film who have now become studio shills so the studios will advertise on the site. Harsh, but true (dude, I saw Wolfman and GI JOE and while you "loved" them, they both sucked). Fathergeek is the only one who still truly writes what he feels. I honestly wish you'd go back to that!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Gonna see it tomorrow and my guess from the trailer

    by white_vader

    is (not really a spoiler 'cause I'm just guessing) that Larry's Dad is a Werewolf too. Hell, it could even be Dad that bites his own son and killed the other kid. That'd be fun I guess. We'll see... <p> All praise and worship to Rick Baker, Monstermaker!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 8:59 a.m. CST

    damn straight asimov

    by Kaiser Soze

    at least I'm not the only one who feels that way about Herc's "critic" "skills" (had to put both words in parentheses because neither word is accurate in regards to what Herc writes

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 9:07 a.m. CST

    Kaiser Soze

    by AsimovLives

    Your idea of having Fathergeek do a DVD column is brillant. I would love to know what the old geek would had to say about the movies on his own voice, and not through Harry's coments. Really, sometime,s i think there's too much "young" voices in here. A more mature voice regarding the movies would be a nice thing i read in here. Great idea you got, friend. great idea. Harry would do right to consider it.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 9:10 a.m. CST

    Kaiser Soze

    by AsimovLives

    It's not just Hercules that i don't have much of a good opinion about. Mr Beaks and Merrick are also pretty poor reviewers/opinion makers. And Massa seems to only make a decent thoughful review or critic if a movie is an old classic.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 9:27 a.m. CST

    definitely not the AICN it used to be

    by Kaiser Soze

    and that saddens me a little - this was THE site for filmgeeks. Now, I still come to it but more out of habit. Usually the "scoops" now were scoops on other sites days in advance, and this site has become one big ad for Amazon, Sideshow Collectibles, and that geek dating service with the scary goth chick that looks like Pugsley Aadams in a wig. Look at Herc's TV on DVD columns. He doesn't even review stuff, just throws every Amazon link he can think of on there. And when there are reviews, they are cut and paste bites from other critics, not him. In fact, over half of what Herc "writes" on this site is cut and pasted from other sites, he rarely has his own material. Worst kind of "journalism". I miss the sayd when you looked forward to what this site had to say about a film.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Addams, days

    by Kaiser Soze

    And when Lord, when's gon' be our time for an edit function!?1?!?

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Kaiser Soze

    by AsimovLives

    Well, the lack of the edit buttom did give raise to some of the most funny AICN's memes, like Michael Bay Denis, pwned, teh suck, and so many others.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Kaiser Soze...

    by ladevastation

    couldn't agree more. AICN has become a hack of a site.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 11:34 a.m. CST

    ladevastation

    by AsimovLives

    I do think some at the AICN still believe in the message, in their mission statement. Too bad EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM have sold their asses to JJ Abrams and half of them to Michael Bay. It's sad. Because i love the mission statement from AICN. Still, this is the only purely truly really geek site there is. Which makes one want to cry.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 11:58 a.m. CST

    People mentioning Coppola's Dracula in a Joe Johnston thread....

    by Hint_of_Smegma

    ....should be fucking ashamed if themselves. Coppola is normally amazing, but that Dracula film was a cinematic abortion. Fucking terrible from start to finish with career-worst perfomances fr some pretty great actors. Joe Johnston is a movie god simply for making Rocketeer. While his overall resume isn't quite the class act that Coppola's is, to say the least, Coppola didn't make Rocketeer and did make that fucking terrible Shitula film that still has Stoker's dry skeleton spinning faster than a Labour party PR man. So, swings and roundabouts. Coppola has made more great films. But he's made a film so bad even Uwe Boll can turn around to his friends and say, in all honestly and without ego, "I have made better films than that". I remember being so stoked to see that film before it came out, being a massive fan of the book since I was a kid. When I went to see it I couldn't believe what I was watching. Thought for a while I must have walked into the wrong theatre. Never been more personally disappointed in a film in my life. Fuck that film. And no matter what anyone here says, however Wolfman turned out I know I'll fucking love it because Joe Johnston hasn't disappointed me yet. The guy is a god. Even when his films aren't great, they're fun.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 12:29 p.m. CST

    "Joe Johnston is a movie god simply for making Rocketeer"

    by reflecto

    Uh....no. Also, Jurassic Park 3 was also shit but possibly not as shit as Wolfman. You're more hooked on a cult of personality based on hazy memories of a childhood favorite than on judging a current film on its actual merits - like 50-60% of AICN.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 1:07 p.m. CST

    Joe Johnson makes rocketeer and is a movie god?

    by AsimovLives

    Meanwhile, Christopher Nolan makes excelent movies, particulary in the comic genre, and people moronically bitch about him for the most stupid, feeble unimportant "details"? What the fuck is this shit, byzarro world? GET A FUCKING GRIP!!!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 1:14 p.m. CST

    " CG? For that? Why?" Because they can!

    by Orionsangels

    Hollywood is convinced that CG looks 100% real. That they can fool the audience. At rare times they can, but 90% of CG is rubbish! There used to be ambitious special effects artist, taking there time with CG, but now they pull out the software they need and go through the motions. Why a CG deer and bear? Several reasons. No risk to anyone on the set. They don't have to pay an animal trainer. Basically CG is the answer to saving time and money in Hollywood. As a result, movies have lost the magic and wonder they once had.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Reflecto...I pity you. And Asimov, wtf? Have you lost the plot?

    by Hint_of_Smegma

    Don't recall mentioning Nolan in my post. How you connected the two I don't have a fucking clue but whatever you're on, it must be strong.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 3:13 p.m. CST

    I couldn't see this today because the theater was blocked

    by SoylentMean

    by fuckin' snow plows. Al Gore's floating head is so damn wrong about global warming.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Just saw it. AICN owes me 12.50$

    by m_reporter

    Can't fucking believe everyone on this site loves the movie. It's a brainless, terribly paced and void of any atmosphere. No character progression, no subtext and completely inept direction. <p> The production values where great though, the cinematography and art direction especially.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Mute!?!?!?!

    by topfivevideo

    how many levels of retarded are you Harry.... although I do have to give you credit because you were nowhere near as arrogant as you usually sound and you didn't give away any key plot points to the movie. Now if we can just get you and your sausage fingers to spell properly you may pass for human.... fucking dolt!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Hint_of_Smegma

    by AsimovLives

    You didn't mentioned Nolan, that's true. but you rated Joe Johnson a god of film. And i was remined, "this jorneyman gets called a god of cinema, while wlesewhere some people can find stupid reasons to bitch about nolan? The jorney man can be caleld a genious,a nd nolan, the real genious, gets pissed upon? What kind of fucked up world is this?". that's my bewilderment. The complete lack of reason among so many fans. and no, Joe Johnson is not a godof film, specially not for making Rocketeer. There's far far far better filmmakers making far far better movies then Rocketeer. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Joe Johnston IS a God of film. but not because

    by white_vader

    of Rocketeer. Because he gave us the actual "look" of Star Wars. He was the concept and storyboard artist that defined the "used universe" look and characters like Fett in the second. For crying out loud, he boarded the At-At stuff! <p> I love Ralph McQuarrie too, but if you actually look at McQuarrie's character stuff it isn't just 'inspired by' Flash Gordon, it IS Flash Gordon (although they did go much closer to McQuarrie's stuff there in the prequels with Jango's headgear and the like). Also, McQuarrie and Colin Cantwell's ships are a world away from the detailed, worn, utilitarian look we all identify as being Star Wars. McQuarrie is awesome too though, his composition is just phenomenal, and hey, it was his initial paintings that were the turning point in getting the movie made after everyone had turned it down. So don't think I'm diminishing him for a second. But it's true that there's a back-and-forth in his paintings where he did have JJ designs to work from and therefore you see the more recognisable Star Wars 'look'. And another big part of it is John Barry and Norman Reynold's production design if course. And John Mollo. <p> The thing is that's obvious from every TB that has anything to do with Johnston that geeks don't really know their stuff. Just trying to redress the balance! And hey, he had a part (smaller) in the look of the Iron Giant too!

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Asimov. That's is exactly the definition of opinion.

    by Hint_of_Smegma

    When it comes to love of film, personal taste, there's no such thing as fact an if you think so then you need to look at what you've already said. I think Nolan is a great director. Flawed, but great. The one film he gets rated for above all others, The Dark Knight, I feel is actually one of his weakest movies but that's me. So if my very real love of the movie Rocketeer offends your sensibilities well - boo hoo. You think Nolan is a movie god, I don't. Ergo you stating "fact" is patently ridiculous. Oh and thisll really upset you - if there was choice and either all prints of Rocketeer got burned, or all prints of every Nolan movie ever made got burned? I'd still be watching Cliff Secord sparring with Tim Dalton the day after.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 9:36 p.m. CST

    New THOR Casting news here http://tinyurl.com/yz8l9vy

    by iloveaicn

    you should post this Harry

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 11:01 p.m. CST

    HARRY IS LYING TO YOU!!! I JUST SAW IT AND IT SUCKS!!!FACT!!!

    by TehCreepyThinMan

    Man, this flick was as subtle as your average Michael Bay movie and has about as much depth. I had to go because it's a Gothic Horror movie. But for those of you on the fence, don't waste your money on this. I won't call it a piece of shit because it had enough violence to satisfy my inner gorehound. But this movie has virtually no mood or atmosphere, despite some stunning photography, and that's because the pace is soo fast that it doesn't let you soak in Victorian era Britain. Mood and atmosphere isn't created with just dramatic lighting and fog but by allowing things to linger while using music and sound design to create an aura that The Wolfman completely lacks. Harry has, as usual, been paid off by the studio in some way to promote this so don't believe him. I would have waited to rent this but it's been soo long since I've seen a Horror film that I was desperate. The last good Gothic Horror films I've seen were Sweeney Todd and Perfume : Story of a Murderer. Trust me, wait for this to hit DVD and go rent either, or both, of the two I recommended.

  • Feb. 12, 2010, 11:50 p.m. CST

    TehCreepyThinMan is an asshole

    by iloveaicn

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 2:08 a.m. CST

    I thought it was pretty damn cool

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    Wasn't quite as gory as it had been built up to be. I suspect it was cut back a bit.</p><p>The biggest problem with the film is the almost complete lack of a love story. Other than that I thought it fuckin' rocked!</p><p>I thought all the CG was really well done. I didn't mind the CG bear because it was featured surrounded by extras, and screaming and people running around. I don't care how tame a bear is, you don't put one in that situation. As for teh stag, that clearly would have been animal cruelty so they had to use a CG one.</p><p>One slight caveat, and this is miniscule, is that the makeup didn't look quite as cool in the actual film as it does in the promotional pictures. I don't know why that is, but it took a little bit out of the movie. The promotional shots were so fucking fantastic, then in the movie it's basically a furry face with teeth. It's still cool, just not AS cool as I was expecting.</p><p>The CG action was really good, the acting was very engaging and the story was interesting, if a bit light.</p><p>I HAVE to mention the cinematography because it is GORGEOUS. Every scene is lit fantastic. The production design is great too.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 2:20 a.m. CST

    I agree the score was annoying

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    I forgot about that. It is annoyingly distracting because it doesn't feel in sync with the movie. It almost seems like a record playing too slow. No tension, no emotion. Danny Elfman has had some weak scores, but this takes the cake. It feels like he wrote the whole thing in a week.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 4:42 a.m. CST

    2 words...Loved it.

    by Carl's hat

    The scenes in London, including the one with Talbot, bound and gagged in front of London's high society, awesome. ,<p>Like the 41' version this was a horror movie so who the fuck cares if there wasn't more romantic scenes or some contrived bullshit 21st century need for a backstory and need to bloody over analyse and justify everything? This is a good horror movie. You know why? Because it pays off with the scares and keeps the spirit of the Wolfman alive.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 5:51 a.m. CST

    WTF there were NO SCARES

    by quantize

    what are you, little fuckin girlies?

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 8:54 a.m. CST

    Well, I guess I guessed right...

    by white_vader

    about Dad. Ah well. Benny the Bull was great, Hugo was great, but yes Hopkins phoned it in and relied on his "bag of tics" to get him through. With that and bumchin's unfocussed performance it seemed to me that Johnston was just letting them go and not really directing them with his OWN idea of what the characters should be. <p> And yes, the score was bloody awful. When he wasn't doing Dracula he was doing Batman (which he ALREADY shamelessly ripped himself off with for the Spiderman score). Really annoyingly lazy. I like some Elfman stuff, but I'm sick and tired of him when he's on cruise-control.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 10:33 a.m. CST

    The Wolfman humps Harry's leg.

    by cookylamoo

    And he loves it!

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Oh, there were scares . . .

    by adiehardfanwithalethalweapon

    but they're the type that get only the most infantile viewer. I haven't seen so many attempts at "BOO! I GOT YA!" in my life. They were so frequent, obvious, and ham handed it made them useless. And jut don't eeeven get my started on harrys review.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 11:37 a.m. CST

    Problematic but fun

    by cenobiteme

    I'm curious to see a director's cut of this film as it seems much of the character development, especially the love story, was not present. The action and scares are great. The look, especially the production design is a marvel but with no emotional power; eye candy can only go so far. I loved Elfman's score as well and I agree that at times I was thinking, "is that the score from Coppola's Dracula?" It seems the film was tampered with as the pre-release reports suggest so I'm going to keep an eye out for a director's cut before I condemn or crown the film.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Just dull dull dull...not a happy shoot I reckon.

    by daglesj

    Saw this a few days ago. Not a great movie by any means. Folks who say Hopkins phones in his performance are correct plus hasnt anyone else noticed he changes his accent in nearly every scene? Del Torro plays the whole movie in a sedated haze. He only moves his face when he transforms into the wolf. The dorector should be shot for wasting Art Malik, his character was the only interesting one and I was looking forward to some sikh-wolfman gunfest showdown. Nope just more crap acting from Hopkins and Del Torro. Teenwolf is more entertaining to be honest.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 12:10 p.m. CST

    A Death Fight . . . Between Two Beasts !

    by FlyingToupee

    The Beast Battle of the Century! His hideous howl a dirge of death! The Screen's Titans of Terror - Together in the Greatest of All SCREEN SENSATIONS! The Super-Shock Sensation Of All Time! He fought the hideous curse of his evil birth, but his ravished victims were proof that the cravings of his beast-blood demanded he kill... Kill... KILL! As you may be able to tell, I rather liked it. A wonderful homage to the Universal Classics, with a little dose of Hammer added for good measure. Not a perfect film, but a darn good monster movie of the old school.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 1:55 p.m. CST

    AICN reveiwers are getting soft!

    by Logan_1973

    The movie was absolutely horrible and the whole world knows it. How Harry, Mass, and Capone gave it a pass I'll never understand. No plot, no emotion, no characterization, no NOTHING!

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 2:14 p.m. CST

    "The Wolf Man" is a damn fine cinematic cheeseburger.

    by robzilla72

    How unfortunate that Monster Movie reviewers (NOT Harry, btw, this is more a response to the overwhelming negativity this film has been getting)forget that what they're going to see is a Monster Movie. Too often critics and "fans" review fun monster romps almost as though they were intellectuals deconstructing different aspects of classical literature. Lighten up, folks. What a LOT of people don't seem to get is that modern mainstream movies churned out by major studios are the film equivalent of fast food, "cinematic cheeseburgers", if you will. You wouldn't walk into a McDonald's and get pissed off that you got a McRib/Sprite combo and not a New York Porterhouse and a glass of Chardonnay, but it seems that is the case with many a modern filmgoer. What you're gonna get with major modern films are "cinematic cheeseburgers". And "The Wolf Man" is a damn fine cinematic cheeseburger. One from Red Robin or Texas RoadHouse. A Triple-Decker Mushroom & Swiss with bacon on a sourdough roll, with seasoned steak fries and a whiskey-laced mint chocolate milkshake on the side.Not very nourishing or good for you, but it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be FUN. I'm not here to defend "The Wolf Man". I, and the 12 year old Monster Fan that still lives in my brain, am here to praise it. It's everything he and I ever wanted and more in a classic/gothic fun Monster film. We couldn't give a shit about character development or more complex relationships between main human characters. If you want that, watch a fucking chick flick. Seriously. Monster fans should want MONSTERS, God Damn it. And "The Wolf Man" delivers.(Although I did want more Maleeva, and Emily Blunt is not NEARLY as hot as Evelyn Ankers.) Does it ever. Monster Movies are made to appeal to the 12 year olds that all of us Horror fans are deep down inside. It's a shame how many of us "Fans" seem to forget that.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 2:53 p.m. CST

    The Wolfman's last line was so awesome

    by the Green Gargantua

    "It had to be like this" and than that awful death in her arms! Hahahah. Not to state the obvious, but that was a double meaning. The movie had to end like this, sorry. Ugh. RAD

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 2:55 p.m. CST

    soo it's this years HULK?

    by MST3KPIMP

    I'm starting to put these refrences together in regards to the ending. Of course I actually love Ang Lee's film but ya, this one does'nt look so good.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Robzilla is right on.

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    This is a Monster Movie in the classic tradition and if you don't enjoy those old, black & white Saturday night creakers, then DON'T SEE THIS. It's full of flaws. The editing is wack-a-doo from obvious over studio tampering (ex. "I hear horses" CUT TO TALBOT MANOR, horses riding up). The gypsy Maleeva, a key character to the spirit of the original, is sadly sidelined here. There are several unintentional laughs due to silly lines and hamfisted delivery (usually by Hopkins), so it's basically an old school B-movie is the purest sense. What works are those things that worked before all the production trouble began. Rick Baker's Wolfman is a wonder to behold. The cinematography in the fog shrouded woods is beautiful. The sets are magnificent. Talbot Hall is truely an impressive aboad. Best of all, for fans like me, is they didn't take the easy road by turning it into a breezy, funny lite adventure. What I mean is it's more "Bram Stoker's Dracula" or "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and it's deffinately NOT "Van Hesling" or one of the "Mummy" movies. If the final product here is a noble failure, and I'd say that's the case, then so be it. It's still a grand ol' Monster flick with great scenes like the one with the Wolf Man rampaging through London and that is just enough to make it worth an addition to my Monster Movie collection. If you don't like this genre unless it's a masterpiece of the genre, then pass on it.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 4:25 p.m. CST

    THE BUDGET IS WHY WE'RE SOO TOUGH ON IT.....

    by TehCreepyThinMan

    This movie cost, what, 80-100 million? I can forgive a lot when I know a movie was made on a low budget (Ginger Snaps) but when you have tens of millions of dollars and access to top writers and production personnel there is no excuse for a movie like this to be as shit as it was. The real problem was that there wasn’t a single studio executive who took control and said “look, this guy Romanek is a fucking wanker, let’s fire him, shut production down and start from scratch. First, let’s take Andrew Kevin Walkers script and hire, say, Caleb Carr (The Alienist) and Mark Gatiss (League of Gentlemen) to work on it. Two, how about we hire Steve Bendelack who Directed that awesome League of Gentlemen Christmas Special which was dripping with Gothic atmosphere and give him a shot at it.” Couldn’t be any worse then what we got?

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 5:23 p.m. CST

    No 12yr old would find that scarey

    by quantize

    Seriously, there's some real soft headed fools on here...you can't serve up a 40's film today with just improved set design and fx. If they wanted it to be 'camp' and 'bad' they should have telegraphed it more obviously..Some of the people here are talking purely about the shit in their own heads..not what was on the screen.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 6:18 p.m. CST

    It's one of those movies where you just think

    by CherryValance

    at the end, why did they even bother? I mean people put time and effort into this and then you just don't even know why. There are remakes and useless remakes and I've been going easier on most of them lately. But in this case I just wish all these people had worked on something else. And from a technical standpoint, I don't understand how they can look at their movie nearly 30 years after American Werewolf in London and show their faces in public. Benicio has been one of my favorite actors for over a decade and I can't pretend he was even a saving grace in this. He wasn't good. It was mostly silly. At one point in the film I want to yell out "TEDDY BEAR FIGHT!!!" Really, I'm just confused by the whole thing.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 6:21 p.m. CST

    ASSHOLE LIVES HAS SEX WITH BEAGLES.

    by Sal_Bando

    Film at 11. Arrest at 12.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Jesus, Quantize, I HATE telegraphed camp!

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    Maybe I'm a "soft headed fool," but I hate it when the cheese factor is pushed through the roof ("Van Helsing," "G.I. Joe," "Transformers 2," "The Mummy," etc.) so people can see it as "dumb fun" or "turn your brain off and enjoy it popcorn flicks." That's like a free pass to make a stupid piece of shit with lots of CGI. I'd rather they spent the money making something serious, and then if we laugh a little at its expense, that's fine. In other words, I'd watch an Ed Wood movie a thousand times before a Stephen Sommers movie. I appreciate the effort made to tell a story without tongue firmly implanted into cheek even when it doesn't completely work. This reminds me of one of the lesser Universal Monster movies, like one of the "House" films or one of the Chaney Jr. "Mummy" films or "Ghost of Frankenstein." Are those great movies? No. Do I think they are a waste of time and that the only Universal monster movies worth watching are "Bride of Frankenstein" and maybe a couple of other top titles? No, I love all of those spook show flicks, just not equally. And this "Wolfman" isn't purposely bad in order to avoid scorn like those films I mentioned which are "critic proofed" by their own intentional stupidity. Is "The Wolf Man" great cinema? Not at all! I could bitch all day about various flaws in it, but if you can't enjoy the simple pleasures of watching Rick Baker's Jack Pierce style Wolf Man running around Gothic period London, and if you got not one ounce of entertainment from that, then I wouldn't want to hang arround with you.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 7:09 p.m. CST

    A scare is a scare is a scare..

    by Carl's hat

    and this film had more than the 41' version and I love the 41' version. But Robzilla and The Reluctant Austinite get it. It's a monster movie. <p>Did they wuss out on showing us The Wolfman? No. Did we see frightened villagers shitting themselves in the local pub and animals freaking out in the mere vicinity of the Wolfman? Yes. Was the howl there? You bet. The shots of the monn threatening to break through the clouds. Certainly.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 7:14 p.m. CST

    The Reluctant Austinite

    by quantize

    you're a fucking moron. Go read any of my other comments on the film. I clearly acknowledged the good. But there's a fucking busload of shit as well...enough to tip it over. The film couldn't work out what it was..if it was MEANT TO BE BAD, they should have made that clear. All the reviews are pretty much saying the same thing. And thanks, I'm not interested in hanging around with a twat like you either. Like i would give a fuck you self important tool.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 7:29 p.m. CST

    People like you make the world a nastier place.

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    Yeah, you Quantize for calling me "a fucking moron." And your other vile insults. I hate that people can say stuff like that in forums like this with nameless, faceless bravado. In person, I'd either be handing you your teeth back right now, or one of my many friends would have to be restrained from sending you to the hospital. Harry, I've never asked for anything before in 11 years in Talkback, but if you ban this gutless turd, I won't cry about it.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 8:05 p.m. CST

    del torro? more like del bore-o

    by HaterofCrap

    i do not get why del torro is so fuckin popular. he sucks. he did that one gimmick character in the usual suspects and as a result popular culture thinks hes wonderful. he is just more bullshit to add to the collection.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 8:20 p.m. CST

    no character developement? no pointless love story?

    by frank cotton

    i'm gonna love it

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 8:28 p.m. CST

    The Reluctant Austinite, mate calm down…

    by blakindigo

    It's not that deep. Everyone is discussing a flawed film that has a few effective parts but nothing to posture 'hard' over. Geezus.<br><br>Anyway, does anyone know the ratio of Baker-to-CGI in the movie?

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 8:54 p.m. CST

    The Reluctant Austinite

    by quantize

    stop blubbering like a baby, if you can't take the rough and tumble of a talkback and you need to be making physical threats, then you and your little gang need to grow the fuck up. I accept you liked a shitty film. Now go grow up and stop acting like a noob pussy

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 8:56 p.m. CST

    Reluctant Austinite

    by quantize

    also do yourself and favor and read my other comments before you go making a further fool of yourself.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Quantizen and Austinite.

    by Hint_of_Smegma

    Do everyone at the ER a favour. Put your handbags down before you start bitch hitting each other. Sometimes the buckles can cause a nasty injury you see and it is just so much unneccesary work for the Docs there. Oooh my friends this, grow the fuck up noob that. Both of you need to calm down. It's the Internet. It isn't that important.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Kaiser Soze...

    by ufoclub1977

    There's a "geek dating service"???

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 10:45 p.m. CST

    Absolutely these things should be FUN, but Robzilla

    by white_vader

    is making a well-meaning (at least he's not being the usual clichéd cooler-than-thou hater) but idiotic defence. In defending monster movies being inherently lousy he insults the fun and appeal of the genre itself. How ironic. Ineptitude is NOT carelessness. You can apply exactly the same logic to the action or adventure serial. <p> And then you'd NEVER get RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. <p> The main thing is this. This Wolfman is not an intentional "so bad it's good" flick. If it was, you'd have a point. It DOES try to have a love story and character interaction, and fails, so it should absolutely be called out for not working. The reason the original endures is PRECISELY because of the depth inherent in making it a sympathetic monster. And you don't get the tragedy without that sympathy or empathy which only comes from the relationships and performances being convincing enough to make all the cool monster stuff work. What we got was APATHY. In the story/direction, and therefore in reaction. We didn't care that much. So the cool stuff means nothing. The actual HORROR stuff isn't horror without a context or connection. It's just a bunch of pigs' guts spread around. And horror IS all about commitment and trying your hardest. You're doing your best to get people to believe a generally outrageous premise. I recently watched "The Flesh Eaters". Abominable, but great fun because they TRIED their best. Oh God how they tried. <p> If you loved this Wolfman, that's great. Really! But there's no point and no weight in arguing for people NOT making an effort/McMovies/Cheeseburger flicks as you say and excusing less than the best. The best EFFORT I mean. But many people are hard on it because in the end it WASN'T a fun monster movie. No rapport between the characters to get caught up in and sell all the monstery goodness. Like Austinite said, Ed Wood cared, so even if his best was lousy, the films still have some value. It makes no sense to ever argue at any time about ANYTHING that you don't have to do your best, or NOT to care so much. Even 12 year olds after the initial experience like Raiders more than Steven Sommers' stuff. My kid loved that awful Thunderbirds movie at the time the effects and sound was overwhelming him, and then went right back to watching the series, without any influence from me. Even 12 years olds will still like American Werewolf more than this. Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders and The Exorcist were all-time great fun GOOD popcorn flicks, but if saying popcorn or cheeseburger or whatever equals shoddy/"good enough" work then I argue you've got it all wrong. If you're fine with it, that's your prerogative. But trying to justify such a point of view or excuse those who perpetrate it is moronic. It just doesn't make sense. Defending mediocrity is idiotic. <p> It's exactly the same brainless argument that says, "It's only for kids" and why all-ages has become a euphemism for lazy, condescending and patronising work. It's why all-ages means "for kids who don't know better" instead of literally so good or all-inclusive it stands up for ALL ages. The argument that gives you Shark Tale instead of Toy Story. <p> It's the "we can get away with it" or "why try harder" approach (when it's the creators following this line I mean) which, worse still, is indulged by an audience that says, "sure, YES, feed us crap, 'cause we don't care about doing your best either". And you get a chicken-and-egg slide into garbage even for those who don't prefer it. <p> Frank, sure you're joking and all, but I think you might have misinterpreted things. It's not that there's no actual character development or love story at all. Those things ARE in there, but they're the worst parts of the movie. At least if they HAD left those things out you could admire that they were honest and direct and weren't making a half-arsed go just to say those things were in there and it's sorta like the original. <p> So to be clear here Blak and Quantise, even if the film itself's not great it IS worth getting worked up about the "it doesn't matter" thing that both excuses half-arsed work AND perpetuates it. That's absolutely worth making a fuss over, especially on a bloody film site with talkbacks. Jesus guys... what was that quote? "The only progress comes from the unreasonable (read: impassioned) man" or something? <p> But hey, Robzilla, if stuff like that doesn't matter too much and there's nothing that's worth getting worked up about or making an effort for, then consider that your own opinion therefore inherently doesn't matter either/enough to put forward, and in the end neither will you.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 11:08 p.m. CST

    Hint_of_Smegma

    by quantize

    tell him that Smeghead, not me, you're quoting all his hissy fit. No handbags here, your only paraphrasing precisely what i just said.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 11:11 p.m. CST

    white_vader

    by quantize

    quoting infinitely better crafted films like American Werewolf doesn't support your cause. This was beautifully art directed, and special effects driven LIMP drama. The first 15 minutes of American Werewolf remains infinitely more chilling, humorous and moving than the entire Wolf Man '10.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 11:29 p.m. CST

    Not that anyone cares (ironic quip), but

    by white_vader

    to make my own position on the film clear (which I didn't really talk about before), I'll just say this. I liked it, there was some cool stuff, but ultimately I was really disappointed because the thing just doesn't WORK. In other words, it was never better than the sum of it's parts, actually it was worse. I didn't go in looking for something to pick on. I desperately wanted it to be great fun. I love 30s and 40s stuff, I love the second golden age around 82, and I'm always ready to love some new Monster or Horror. Add me to the Let the Right One In lovefest. <p> Nothing to do with silly TBer/peer group pressure. I thought Benny the Bull did his best,and Hugo was great, but that the reason all of the characters failed was that Johnston didn't actually DIRECT them. He just let them go, which is why I made the crack about Hopkins and his "bag of tics" - he was just falling back on his usual performance and JJ didn't reign him in OR make it a more extreme character. Same with Emily Blunt. She does her best, but there's nothing strong enough in the direction to make her anything but a cut-out. <p> I thought it was even more frustrating because all the elelements were there to make it GREAT. But they were mishandled. I can think of simple ways that you could have even KEPT the lame bonding/stone-skipping scene and used it to justify the love story and make sense of her transferring her affections from the brother to him (which would therefore compound the tragedy of the resolution). I can think of how to fix the awful mishandling/pacing of the early reveal and ratchet up the tension of confrontation rather than being bored by the inevitability and frustrated by it's delay. I'm no genius but it wasn't rocket science! <p> With the effects I've justified my non-myopic view many times in the TBs and here I want to point out that just because the practical was great and CG was mediocre, I mean in THIS case, not always. You've got a genius at the top of his game using a technique that has been around for the best part of a century whose stuff is put right next to middling work from artists who are NOT masters of an only 2 decade old technique (if you take Abyss as the start of an unbroken line anyway). Ah well. But hey, Rick Baker working on a werewolf movie? How could I NOT want to love it? <p> Finally, the MOST frustrating thing for me was (SPOILER TIME, specifically END OF THE MOVIE SPOILERS) - the completely stuffed up ending, which looks for all intents and purposes like Johnston didn't understand dramatic effect enough to realise he already had the perfect finish! I was carried along well enough after the fight not to think about the obvious implications of Abberline getting wounded, and then when Weaving's realisation sinks in followed by the accompanying fantastic irony of his situation, and we tilt up to the FULL moon to tell us it won't be long before... AWESOME ENDING! BUT... INSTEAD of cutting to black with an orchestral flourish, there's a completely redundant coda to let ALL the air out of the tires. He didn't even have to DO anything other than STOP the movie! Which made me think that even using the iconic shot of the moon as a storytelling device was a lucky mistake. He obviously didn't realise it enough to know that was the perfect definitive fucking note to end it on. Gah! (END SPOILERS) <p> I will forgive a 'rough diamond' a LOT of dodgy stuff if it's hert os in the right place and has a GREAT ending, but a lousy or bungled ending really sours me on the whole thing, and that's my harshest crit - they already had it in the bag! And even the iconic cane was redundant. It wasn't used for any effect/to good effect even like the original. I'm not so beholden to the original that I don't see it's many flaws, but Jeez man... <p> So yeah. Liked a bunch of things in it, but they didn't make it a good or fun movie. And it had a great cast, great crew, and Rick Baker/Cinovation. It coulda been GREAT.

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 11:38 p.m. CST

    Hey Quantize,

    by white_vader

    like I said, in that earlier post I wasn't talking about this film as much as Robzilla's general defence that Monster movies are always silly so therefore this one is great. In the next post I explained what I thought of THIS one. <p> So sorry, I'm a bit confused how quoting AWIL doesn't support my cause. I was saying all along that the character and drama ARE what makes it all work and are what makes the monster and effects work. I absolutely agree that AWIL is superior. Actually I had oe of those dodgy choose-you-own-slogan t-shirts made with "A naked American man stole my balloons" made up. Completely forgot to wear it to this one! I also refuted the 12 year old thing with a bunch of flicks including American Werewolf over this one. Sorry if I wasn't clear about it, 'cause I'm certainly not concise!

  • Feb. 13, 2010, 11:40 p.m. CST

    And you're right,

    by white_vader

    the art direction was fantastic. I do that sorta thing so believe me, I appreciated it. I do effects too, and story, so I generally have a reasonably objective view of the whole. I hope...

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 12:39 a.m. CST

    What this movie needed:

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    Now keep in mind that I DID like it, but I know it could have been 5X cooler if it included the following:</p><p>1) Who the fuck is Lawrence Talbot? We get in passing that he's an actor, but that doesn't play into the story other than a sort of bizarre accusation by Weaving. We need to actually know who that character is before we can care about him. 2) If you're going to spend most of the movie mourning the death of a character we haven't been introduced to, have people talk about him and make us understand why his death is significant enough to warrent all this weepiness.</p><p>3) Having a skipping stones scene is just damn lazy. We need to understand why these characters are so drawn to each other. This type of relationship works like gangbusters in American Werewolf in London. Go watch that again and see why. 4) Why the fuck do we keep getting close-up shots of the wolfman's face as he's running on all fours? That looks ridiculous and we gain absolutely no information from it.</p><p>5) This film could have really used some more suspense. It pops up every now and then in the first half, and it's good, but all too brief and usually only as a precursor to a jump-scare.</p><p>6)Universal was right the first time when they booted Elfman because his score sucked. A good score would have gone a long way to creating mood and triggering emotion where it was needed.</p><p>The Wolfman is a good werewolf movie. I very much enjoyed it and I think it's getting way more shit than it deserves, but there are definite problems which I think we mostly agree on. The question is, why couldn't Universal fix these problems?

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 12:43 a.m. CST

    I really do hope...

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    That we get some sort of extended version at some point because I think if the movie spent at least 1/2 hour more on character development, it could have been really amazing.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 12:50 a.m. CST

    This movie was a complete mess.

    by MattmanReturns

    The pacing was all over the place. The attacks are so fast that I didn't even have time to enjoy them. I actually thought the practical makeup effects sucked more than the CG transformations. The alternating death of Lawrence's mom flashback was a lazy plot device. There were no sympathetic characters. The only good thing was the atmosphere, but even that is shortchanged by the frenetic editing.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 12:55 a.m. CST

    And Elfman is reduced to ripping off a better score?

    by MattmanReturns

    He deserved to be kicked. His music just made me want to listen to the Dracula score. In fact, the whole movie just made me want to watch Dracula, to rinse the bad taste out of my mouth.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 5:45 a.m. CST

    I thought it was WONDERFUL.

    by venvariants

    I was very satisfied with it - a very good attempt, and the best werewolf movie in year and years. Naysayers have their heads up their asses, and probably don't even like werewolves. Great, fun, creepy Gothic monster movie. I'm very happy with it. Plus - those jumps that are thrown in are great for a date. There were lots of girls clinging to guys in our audience, and those starts were very effective.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 5:59 a.m. CST

    Naysayers have their heads up their asses

    by quantize

    or just have some taste. If you though that was even vaguely creepy, much less a horror film...and any of those lead performances (bar Blunt & Weaving) even if they were (unlikely) intended to be stiff and camp, then you are the one who has your head up your ass. Loving genre movies doesnt mean you are so busy pulling your dick because Rick Baker did some great makeup that you can give a big PASS to shitty, editing, music, script..wanky trick. <p> What age where those kids? 2??? fucking hell, not a SINGLE SOUL in the screening i attended reacted in the slightest way..they were appropriately BORED despite the lovely design and fx.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 6:03 a.m. CST

    ps

    by quantize

    This is why Harry's reviews are like reading little girls idiot giggling. There is no genuine commitment to be critical of such obvious enormous flaws. <p> It's precisely the same air-headed shit that made so many 'geeks' who 'spoodged' etc etc to The Phantom Menace look and sound like such incredible retards. If you are so easily distracted with the window dressing then you might as just be easily entertained by ANYTHING.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 6:07 a.m. CST

    Sal_Bland

    by AsimovLives

    Kiss my ass and admit your goat fucking ways already, instead of pinning them on others. Nobody is being fooled, you know?

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Heh, no offence venvariants

    by white_vader

    but "the best werewolf movie in years and years" means absolutely nuffin! Considering that the last good one was American Werewolf almost 3 decades ago! What did you think the competition is? Werewolf in Paris? Underworld? Twilight? Howling3: The Marsupials?!

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 6:19 a.m. CST

    Asimov

    by white_vader

    off topic I know but did you hear the thing about them making Foundaion? With the Avatar technology - that's fine, whatever. But the director? ROLAND EMMERICH? Hope your heart is strong dude...

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 9:30 a.m. CST

    Wolf scenes are great. Everything else lacked vision and depth.

    by knowthyself

    Seems like when Joe was filming the were wolf scenes he knew eactly what he was diong. The human stuff was sorely lacking character development and I just did't know why I should care about Talbot.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 10:11 a.m. CST

    "Which frankly are mute"

    by peter_dickinson

    MOOT Motherfucker, the word is MOOT!

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 10:46 a.m. CST

    I should always remember to "not feed the Trolls"

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    This is the type of film ripe for arguments from passionate film fans because it is FAR from perfect and the core Wolf Man monster (very well realised by all accounts) holds a place of honor in the hearts of classic monster fans, but doesn't mean anything to the younger set. That said, I still much appreciate those of you that can have a civil discourse without name calling and insults. Quantize may be a nice guy in his real life, but doesn't seem capable of being civil in this forum if you don't share his opinion. I get angry when someone calls me "a fucking moron," because I put a lot of effort into my education (it wasn't easy or cheap and I'm the first in the history of my family to hold any kind of degree) and I don't think that's the way to handle an argument. In reality, you WOULD punch someone who called you that across the table. I hope he deals with people better in person, but I'm sure he does or he would be dead or in prison by now. Just because this is the Internet doesn't mean we can throw away our civil disguise and become beasts (BTW that topic is related to the film under consideration!). I've tried to restrain that type of vulgar instinct in here for years, but I do believe in the freedom of speech. Even at the Alamo Drafthouse, there are rules: You can't verbally make fun of the film MST3000 style if you don't like it because the Alamo is a church! People who think they're smarter and funnier than the film get kicked out. I wish AICN had some rules preventing smart ass jerks with insulting additudes and vile language from getting people like me, who really just want to argue/talk/complain/think about movies upset. Rant over. Bring on the vile reply. I'm done feeding.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Why did Universal hire Joe Johnston?

    by D.Vader

    Because they have a history together. Johnston was also given the troubled production of Jurassic Park III which didn't have a working script- the actors were often writing their lines on the day- and he managed to deliver. The fact that Johnston can turn in working movies from extremely troubled productions is still a testament to his abilities.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Was this Elfman's old score? Or a new one?

    by D.Vader

    After all, the story goes that they scrapped Elfman's score and fired him and then hired a new composer. Then they fired this new composer and rehired Elfman. Now, did they rehire him to create a brand new score or did they just use what he composed earlier? And if the latter is the case, did he have a say in where the music was placed or did the new group of editors change that up too? <p> Many many questions regarding the production of this movie. God I wish they address all it's troubles on the DVD but I doubt it.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Was this Elfman's old score? Or a new one?

    by D.Vader

    After all, the story goes that they scrapped Elfman's score and fired him and then hired a new composer. Then they fired this new composer and rehired Elfman. Now, did they rehire him to create a brand new score or did they just use what he composed earlier? And if the latter is the case, did he have a say in where the music was placed or did the new group of editors change that up too? <p> Many many questions regarding the production of this movie. God I wish they address all it's troubles on the DVD but I doubt it.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 1:06 p.m. CST

    Do you hear that, Mr. Talbot? That is the sound of inevitability

    by drunkenmonkey73

    I enjoyed it but the chinese meal afterwards was more enjoyable. Spare Ribs anyone?

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 1:20 p.m. CST

    Yes, I hope we eventually see different cuts of the movie.

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    To fix editing & odd pacing problems; to hear different score choices; and to see scenes that must have been elaborate to stage and shoot that were cut out entirely. There's a scene in the trailer of the Wolfman attacking at a masquerde ball! Where does that fit in?

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 1:21 p.m. CST

    "those jumps that are thrown in are great for a date"

    by MattmanReturns

    Honestly, do you need loud noises to get a hot chick to squeeze your arm? My date rolled her eyes every time the movie played a loud noise for a cheap thrill.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Mattman, the double "it's a dream" thing was okay ONCE,

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    but they had to do the exact same thing TWICE. That spoils even the loud noise gimmick. As I said, even though I had a good time, there are lots of bad choices in this film.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 1:43 p.m. CST

    CGI Bear? Really?

    by Cheif Brody

    Seems to me Anthony Hopkins was in a stellar movie featuring a HUGE live bear...Hmmm...what was that one called again? Oh...that's right..."The Edge"! A movie so chock full of practical scary ass bear work it deserves an honorary Oscar for on-set wildlife wrangling! <p> You don't CG the goddamn bear. If you are THAT worried about safety, you green screen a real bear and place him in the scene around the actors....OR you shoot the fuckin bear on set and green screen the damn actors in later. <p> CGI is the biggest corner cutter in the movie business today. Makes me fuckin sick.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 2:04 p.m. CST

    That's too much time and money, Chief

    by D.Vader

    I think Johnston made what he thought was the best choice, saving a troubled production lots of time and money by going with a cgi bear in an extremely quick take. From his perspective as a director for hire on this one, what's the point being the man for the job if you're just making things more expensive for your boss?

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 2:19 p.m. CST

    CG bear dodm

    by MattmanReturns

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Aaggh, stupid 'enter' key

    by MattmanReturns

    Anyway, the CG bear didn't bug me as much as the sloppy storytelling.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 3:36 p.m. CST

    It's MOOT not MUTE, ffs

    by ParagonComplex

    Come on, now. Take some Orson Welles advice, and do not use metaphors incorrectly. It's unimaginative writing.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Reluctant Austinite should remember to 'not be a pompous ass'

    by quantize

    Seriously, for you to take the 'high road' suddenly is breathtaking.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 3:46 p.m. CST

    just a quick reminder of that pomposity

    by quantize

    'if you got not one ounce of entertainment from that, then I wouldn't want to hang arround with you. ' <p> Your further rant about about the church of the Alamo Drafthouse and what a highly cultured creature you are for controlling your animal instincts only confirms you think your shit doesn't stink. Grow up.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 6:37 p.m. CST

    but I didn't call you a "fucking moron".

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    or "soft headed," "a twat" and "self important fool" and now immature. I did say I wouldn't want to hang around you, and I wouldn't. You said the same. You tend to use fightin' words. If we're done with this pissing contest, I'm fine with that. I'm done with you. Words can be powerful weapons, so when you just throw out there, "You're a fucking moron, go back and read my comments," you have to expect some kind of response. And yeah, at least I'm trying to be civil instead of just being an asshole which you seem to believe everyone who has "grown up" just becomes. Well, you certianly grew into a fine asshole. Enjoy yourself.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 9:02 p.m. CST

    Does Emily wax her asshole?

    by Star Hump

    and furthermore, does she bleach her wee wrinkled winking porthole?

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 10:40 p.m. CST

    White Vader - Dog Soldiers.

    by Hint_of_Smegma

    Pretty awesome werewolf movie right there and while it's got a few problems, it's the best I can recall since American Werewolf. The good ones are definately few and far between though. Not having seen Wolfman yet I can't agree with the naysayers as I'm still hoping that Johnston made another film I'll love.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Big D - it's the Alien 3 of the new decade!

    by white_vader

    Maybe in a few decades we'll get a "sort-of" tell it like it is doco like they did for the quadrilogy. Gotta love those crazy suits!

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Smeg

    by white_vader

    Yeah fair enough - I think I was a victim of the hype on that one as I didn't think it was half as good as people made it out to be. But hey, that's my subjective view based on the story and acting. <p> The one I DID forget though, was Ginger Snaps. Another low-budgety one, but I really enjoyed the whole female/puberty thing which is such a perfect fit for Werewolves what with women and blood and he tides of the moon affecting hormones etc. Sorta one of those "why hadn't anyone ever done that before?!". And I really liked that whereas in your usual teen flick they're all cool with the Whedonesque one-liners, in this it was a more realistic kids TRYING to sound or act cool. Been years since I watched it, hafta look at it again. Haven't seen the sequels though. <p> But yeah, not much to choose from, which was exactly why I said saying the best werewolf movie for years doesn't really mean much! Cheers mate.

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Oh another thing D. Vader on the Rick Baker dirt

    by white_vader

    Another troubled werewolf one I meant to mention was Cursed - I rented the damn thing knowing the history of THAT fucked-around-with werewolf flick, but was led to believe there was still a touch of Baker stuff left. Hell no there wasn't as far as I could see, and the worst thing was that they used Baker's name on the blurb on the back of the pack to get me in! Sneaky lying bastards! I'd like to know THAT whole story as it was arguably more troubled than THIS one, and see the designs Baker had cooked up for it. <p> I guess they've gone into the same black hole as the "Night Skies" aliens he did for Spielberg (my holy grail)...

  • Feb. 14, 2010, 11:58 p.m. CST

    Ginger Snaps

    by CarmillaVonDoom

    Definitely one of the better werewolf films of the past decade or so. Don't bother with the sequel, but the 3rd one is GREAT, takes place 100 years prior to the first movie.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 12:51 a.m. CST

    Cool!

    by white_vader

    Thanks Carmilla, I'll check it out!

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 2:23 a.m. CST

    Enjoy yourself.

    by quantize

    thankyou I do. feelin's absolutely mutual

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 3:37 a.m. CST

    Scary horror movies

    by MIYAGISAN

    Can any of the posters on this site please recommend any scary movies that are actually scary. I am looking to start watching a few a week with the goal of finding one that has the desired effect, as i don't believe i have ever seen a scary scary movie. I would love to discover the ultimate scary movie by Halloween this year. Any suggestions would be massively appreciated.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 4:43 a.m. CST

    white_vader

    by AsimovLives

    Man, the news that Roland Emmerich might be responsible mfor the making of a foundation movie is depressing like hell. I'd like to know who are the assclowns who think that financing Emmerich, of all people, for making a movie, which will be in all truth a complete epic of retardness, as an adaptation of a work by Isaac Asimov. Doesn't this money people might for once think that a retard like Emmerich is the wrong man to be given such a task?

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 6:33 a.m. CST

    MIYAGISAN

    by AsimovLives

    I'd would not say so much scary but extremely intense and so depressing it will ruin your mood for days, but check out the french horror movie MARTYRS.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 6:34 a.m. CST

    I'd say that in the 70s...

    by AsimovLives

    ... Dario Argento's SUSPIRIA must had been one of the most scary movie ever made until then.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 8:10 a.m. CST

    white_vader

    by AsimovLives

    The only good thing i got from CURSED is how hot Christina Ricci was in it. Otherwise, it's as if i never saw the damn thing.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 8:13 a.m. CST

    Need to watch GINGER SNAPS

    by AsimovLives

    I'm yet to read a negative review of that movie. And none were phoney positive reviews either. Must be damn good.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 8:55 a.m. CST

    THX Benicio, this is the wolfman i always wanted to see !!!

    by HessianHorseman

    ... as for an extreme universal monster freak, i was so happy to watch you in an entire new version of the 1941 Curt Siodmak screenplay, the action, the drama, the gore, the fights (spec. the vs. fight) that i cannot wait to see the 17min longer version on blu ray later this year. Really great movie, thx again.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 9:27 a.m. CST

    So how was Baker's Wolf transformation going to work?

    by the Green Gargantua

    Does anyone know what was planned?

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 9:30 a.m. CST

    BTW "You gotta flip it, flip it for real" I swear this was said

    by the Green Gargantua

    In the stone skipping scene, we laughed.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 9:59 a.m. CST

    SPOILER ALERT: Anybody notice--

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    --that Hopkins backstory of how he became a werewolf is bascially that of Henry Hull's character in "Werewolf of London." So the end fight is Werewolf of London VS the Wolfman. That's kind of cool.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 10:01 a.m. CST

    The skiping stone scene--

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    --comes dangerously close to being as funny as the infamous animal crackers scene in "Armagedon."

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 10:23 a.m. CST

    Very disapointing.Cappolla's Dracula was far superior.

    by Stalkeye

    Most of the character's were very bland especially Del Toro and hopkins was basically slumming through the film. the real star was baker's effects and the gorefest other than that, it lacked a true storyline or suspense.Me and the missus felt this should have been an hour long.<p>Even Let the right one in was a better horror film than this commercialized crock of shit.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 10:57 a.m. CST

    Mute

    by PTSDPete

    I think what you meant to say, was 'moot'...

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 11:30 a.m. CST

    DOG SOLDIERS IS SOO OVERRATED (on these boards)

    by the Green Gargantua

    The movie is totally dependent on ALIENS and Predator, there was no military re-search done by the writers beyond watching those two movies... All the scenes structure and blocking are pulled from them too.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Sounds like its Romanek who didn't trust Rick Baker

    by D.Vader

    Read here:<p> http://www.btlnews.com/blog-the-line/rick-baker’s-new-wolf/ <p> Sounds like Johnston and Baker saw more eye to eye as far as design goes.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Rick Baker comments on the CGI usage...

    by D.Vader

    Says he'd do CGI himself too.<p> http://www.cinematical.com/2010/02/13/junket-report-the-wolfman-filmmakers-director-joe-johnston/ <p> In the end, it sounds like the reasons to go CGI were because of the immense pressure to get this film made on time and on budget. Romanek left for whatever reason, leaving everyone to scramble in his wake, and light of that, I think the movie turned out okay.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 12:25 p.m. CST

    What movie did Harry see? Spoilers

    by Dkev00

    This isn't a very good movie. Where do I start? Well first off everyone phones in their performance. There was no depth of emotion to any of the acting. There was absolutley no fucking chemistry between Lawrence and Guen. Hugo was laughable. If he wasn't talking in a crappy British accent, he was talking like Agent Smith. I shit you not. I did like Del Toro's wolfman. It was a nice nod to the original. But Holpkins wolfman was so cheesy I started to laugh. The action scenes were decent but few and far between. And were not enough to keep this film afloat. And the end was fucking predictable making the scene between Maleva and Guen pointless. I wanted a good Wolfman movie. Instead I got a forgetable distraction.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 12:29 p.m. CST

    LOVED IT!

    by uberman

    Great flick-one of the few films I would see again. This is the WOLFMAN I wished existed when I was a kid. Big thumbs up for me all around. It was so much better than some of the reviews I was reading. Not a thing wrong with this flick-best creature feature in years.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 12:43 p.m. CST

    WTF Kevin Smith Is Too Fat To Fly?

    by iloveaicn

    saw this here www.fanboyweb.com

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 12:44 p.m. CST

    IRON MAN MARK 6 also on www.fanboyweb.com

    by iloveaicn

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 3:27 p.m. CST

    EXTENDED CUT CONFIRMED!

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    This is from that cinematical interview linked to by D.Vader: "On what we'll see on the DVD/Blu-ray: "There is an extended cut that will be the DVD that is basically what we cut out of the beginning. It's about 17 minutes longer, and it is what we cut out of our third cut in order to reduce the time between the beginning of the film and when Benicio transforms into the Wolfman, because we knew that that was the moment that the audience was waiting for. They knew it was going to happen, and they were, perhaps, less patient than I was with getting to that point. The restored footage puts those 17 minutes back into the first 40 minutes of the film."

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 5:06 p.m. CST

    I didn't see Hopkins performance as a problem

    by Hervoyel

    I enjoyed his performance and the detached manner he played the father was in my opinion intentional. I thought he played him very "Cheese slid off his cracker".

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 9:48 p.m. CST

    I liked.

    by _Lizarkeo

    Wolvster here was a bloody take-no-prisoners killer, but at the time of the sanatorium, I was rooting for the big fella. The CGI bear was good enough. Abberline - just like in From Hell - was non-fat again (and making a good impression of Mr. Smith too). Emily was hot. Black Widow hot (sigh). Del Toro wasn't pretty convincing at the beginning, but oh boy, later on, whatta tragic & noble character. Lecter was having fun again on screen, great to meet him after so many years. Joe gave us Millenium Falcon, Iron Giant, Rocketeer and October Sky. I said before, gonna say again: Cap is in pretty good hands. Cheers.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 10:05 p.m. CST

    I HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH WOLF-MAN

    by uberman

    I had read beforehand that 1. "Hopkins character was hammy to the max." What? I kept waiting for him to 'phone it in' as one reviewer said or go completely over the top. Neither happened. Not only did they NOT happen, he never even came close. 2. "The CGI parts didnt work." Not only DID they work, they were seemless, and I'm a guy who LOATHES CGI. The only part that kinda bugged me was the bear, but the transformation scenes? EXCELLENT! 3. "The film feels thrown together by different directors." Fuck. You. I have never been a 'lets get Joe to direct' guy, but he did a fantastic job with this movie. 4. "The wolfman ran too fast." No. He seemed to move just about right. I could go on, but rarely have I read reviews of a flick that are so misleading of a movie. I was expecting mediocre and instead got a classic, updated monster movie that succeeded beyond my expectations. Cudos to you, Joe, Rick, Anthony, Benico and the rest. Thanks for being true to source and treating this subject with the respect I wish crapheads like Sommers should have done. Here's hoping THE CREATURE is as goog.

  • Feb. 16, 2010, 5:47 a.m. CST

    Hopkins phoned it in...

    by quantize

    really, you REALLY didn't notice he was barely awake for most of the film? I'm sorry...you just weren't paying attention..you EXPECTED to see it so much you gave it a pass. It's a bad performance.

  • Feb. 16, 2010, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Fett, D.Vader, those articles

    by white_vader

    One contradicts itself in the same story! First Johnston came in two weeks after principal photography had started, then JJ himself says 3 before. The whole way along I've heard 3 and 4 before. <p> And that other article? I didn't get AT ALL that Romanek didn't "trust" Baker. The million variations thing is nothing new or unique. Romanek is well known for his perfectionism. But he's EXACTLY the same as Jim Cameron who wasn't "feeling" the designs until Jordu Schell nailed the Neytiri maquette and Cameron saw it in clay. <p> I worked on one infamous fanboy flick where I had to do God knows how many variations for a production designer (the director wasn't interested in anything but the actors) where I had to do a family monogram/crest. Actually I think my final design was like W23 or something, so up to major variation W, then into the smaller numeric variations. This went on for weeks. And we all knew that outside of embroidered monogrammed cushions and stuff on a deathbed, the only place it'd be seen was extremely foreshortened for a second at most down on a marbled floor where no-one was looking anyway. And this went for weeks. Many other stories from that one. On another fanboy reviled flick, the director was so incapable of making up his mind I had a 2gig file of colour variations for a living-room for him. And what should be pre-production actually went into the post-production timeframe. That one was crazy. <p> Point being, it's nothing unusual for a director to want a million variations. And they're right to do it while it's inexpensive with a few people and drawings on paper. Especially if you consider it was one of the most important things in the whole movie (the wolfman's look) - if that sucked, they'd be sunk. This is why storyboarding is important. It's a relatively inexpensive and efficient way to explore different ways to direct the movie BEFORE you go out on set and every time you change your mind you're haemorrhaging tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. At least if you're sure of your approach from the boards, once that's in the bag you can play and make it even better, rather than risk not getting what you need at all. But yeah, the artist or designer or whoever will generally be a bit narky about having to redo and redo concepts!

  • Feb. 16, 2010, 8:04 a.m. CST

    FINALLY worked out with the music

    by white_vader

    what was driving me crazy. Yes, it ripped off his own Batman score (which he'd already ripped off for Spiderman). Yes, it used the music from Coppola's Dracula shamelessly (and I'm not just talking sharing appropriately Gypsy instrumentation). But it FINALLY occurred to me what the other rip was - the main theme from Jackson's Kong remake. God that was driving me insane!

  • Feb. 16, 2010, 8:12 a.m. CST

    No, I had no problem at all with Hopkins performance.

    by Hervoyel

    I thought he did a great job. I've been around family members who have just lost a spouse (which I liken to Hopkins knowing that he'd killed his son, and the one he apparently favored at that) and I've seen that blank look before. I've had conversations with people who were grieving who sounded just as detached as he did in this film. Maybe it wasn't what you wanted from Anthony Hopkins but he didn't mail it in. He nailed it. That's the movie I saw. Just because I didn't see his performance the same way you did does not mean I wasn't paying attention or gave him a pass. I could take this approach and say that you people are just so cynical and intent on trying to find something to hate about every single film released that you can't let one slip by without a good flaming but I won't. Instead I'll say it obviously didn't work for you. Better luck next time.

  • Feb. 16, 2010, 11:30 a.m. CST

    Gotta disagree with you on this one, Harry.

    by Grandpa Bunche

    For a dissenting opinion: http://buncheness.blogspot.com/2010/02/wolf-man-2010.html

  • Feb. 16, 2010, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Lynch and Lucas, Animated

    by slummingangel

    Here's a cool animation about David Lynch meeting George Lucas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLAyo1wE4Vo

  • Feb. 16, 2010, 6:10 p.m. CST

    White Vader

    by Parallaxmjm

    Yes, I kept noticing the "King Kong" similarity too. It was distracting. Just didn't seem to go with the movie at all. I liked the movie overall, it could have been better. And it also didn't help that a spring snapped on our projector right as father and son began their final confrontation. At least the first frame that came back on once they fixed it told you all you needed to know about the outcome. LOL

  • Feb. 16, 2010, 9:39 p.m. CST

    'Better luck next time.'

    by quantize

    Ahem...you really think there will be a next time? <p> Either way, we were watching completely different films. I was watching the Wolf Man 2010. Heaven help you if that was your impression of fine acting.

  • Feb. 16, 2010, 9:41 p.m. CST

    32% on RT...no sign of an improvement either

    by quantize

    Hardly a resounding success...i read even that lame Valentines Day movie kicked its ass.

  • Feb. 16, 2010, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Grandpa Bunche

    by quantize

    xlnt review....clearly some people were not watching the film with WOWEE IM WATCHING THE WOLFMAN goggles on...they were expecting an effective horror film.

  • Feb. 16, 2010, 10:36 p.m. CST

    That was cool Slumming

    by white_vader

    The interview was from a few months back, at the Russian Tea Room or something. It's on youtube too. <p> I take it you go to Cartoon Brew? Good site.

  • Feb. 17, 2010, 6:16 a.m. CST

    When will filmmakers start to learn that...

    by AsimovLives

    ... over-editing a movie and making a whole movie very fast paced ruins the mood building. And without mood, a movie is nothing. Within a movie there's a time for everything, a time for fast pacing, and a time for slow pacing.

  • Feb. 17, 2010, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Yeah, I really think there will be a next time

    by Hervoyel

    I certainly hope this isn't the last movie you'll ever see quantize and that's what I meant by "better luck next time". I was wishing you well and hoping that the next movie you see meets with your satisfaction. I enjoyed this one and I hope you enjoy the next film you pay your good money for. I don't care that some of the other posters here didn't like Wolfman, I did. The group approval thing is nice but I don't necessarily need it to enjoy a film. Maybe I just wasn't expecting as much in this as you were. I've found that often expectations have a lot to do with perception in these situations. Example, I walked into Jurassic Park not even knowing that a book called Jurassic Park existed. No idea what the movie was about and didn't pay a thing to get in. It was some radio station premier thing that a friend got me into. It was fucking magical. At the same time I went into The Wolfman with no real expectations either. I was only vaugely aware that a remake was being done and my wife called me and asked me if I wanted to go see it with some friends of ours Sunday afternoon. I agreed and half an hour later I was sitting there eating popcorn enjoying the show. I didn't nitpick this thing at all and my reward for that was a fun couple of hours spent watching a movie. That's what they are you know, entertainment. I was entertained.

  • Feb. 17, 2010, 2:04 p.m. CST

    I LOVED WOLFMAN!

    by uberman

    Huge Universal Monsters Fan. HATED The Mummy movies, LOATHED Van Helsing. THE WOLFMAN fits in nicely with Coppolas DRACULA. Heres hoping THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON is a winner.

  • Feb. 17, 2010, 6:07 p.m. CST

    A big FUCK YOU to cgi animals...

    by Sulla

    Seriously, they can't afford a real goddamn Bear? Or a deer? I'm noticing movies doing this more and it's it's fucking stupid. Because of this and Benicio's acting, which was bad, this movie is a 'Meh' in my book. Liked the idea, hated the execution.

  • Feb. 17, 2010, 8:51 p.m. CST

    Meh...

    by rutgersjaffo

    A fairly large disappointment. Baker's effects were, of course, great...but the film was a snoozer. And really, did daddy need to be a wolfman too? Did we really need the stupid wolfman battle royale that you could see coming from a mile away?!

  • Feb. 18, 2010, 12:23 a.m. CST

    Rutgers

    by white_vader

    Take care next time man - the thing's only just opened and most people haven't had a chance to see it, yet you went and spoiled it without any chance to look away. At least I didn't give away the main character point and end thing in my post, it only took a start & end spoiler parenthesis.

  • Feb. 18, 2010, 10:11 a.m. CST

    The lame Valentine's Day movie got 17% on RT

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    and,yeah, it kicked it's ass at the box-office. A movie called "Valentine's Day" with a bunch of pretty stars in it playing on Valentine's Day weekend is a no-brainer box-office winner. Reviews and box-office have nothing to do with one another.

  • Feb. 18, 2010, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Harry, don't bother with the

    by Ateball

    DVD/Blu-Ray New Release column you used to do, I guess writing 3 sentences about a DVD you were giving for free can be taxing.

  • Feb. 18, 2010, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Sequel will have Michael J. Fox - "The Teenwolfman"

    by jawsfan

    This movie sucked.

  • Feb. 18, 2010, 9:45 p.m. CST

    Reviews & box-office have nothing to do with one another.

    by quantize

    Except of course the Wolfman has had plenty bad of both...

  • Feb. 18, 2010, 9:49 p.m. CST

    'No-Brainer'

    by quantize

    sounds like the kind of audience required to think it was a satisfactory horror classic. <p> Ohh i better watch out, or the reluctant austinite and his team of flabby super-geeks from the mutual masturbatory club of the Alamo will come kick my ass for daring to be critical. <p> oh pweaase...one of us one of us..

  • Feb. 18, 2010, 11:24 p.m. CST

    WOLFMAN was GREAT!

    by uberman

    OK, the CGI elk and bear sucked, but barely so as the rest was great classic monster movie with all the gore we could only imagine as kids. I'm pretty tough on what I see generally, and I liked this flick. I liked it 1,000x more than AVATAR, and I am a big Cameron supporter (HURT LOCKER is a much better picture). A SERIOUS MAN was good, as BOOK OF ELI was great also. WOLFMAN is not a movie for men who were into Barbies as children.

  • Feb. 19, 2010, 6 a.m. CST

    Rick Baker interview here ...

    by HessianHorseman

    http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/pl_screen_wolfman/

  • Feb. 19, 2010, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Watch out for our belly-fu, quantize!

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    I guess expectations really count. Knowing all the problems this film went through to get to release (and adding in my non-conditional love for the Wolf Man monster), it was better than I expected. I'm not slamming you for being critical, just for your insults on those who don't share your opinion. My expectations for "Shutter Island" were much higher, so I was more critical of that film over on Capone's review.

  • Feb. 19, 2010, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Not a great flick, but certainly not a bad one

    by Luscious.868

    It was a hell of a lot better than that cinematic abortion known as Van Helsing.

  • Feb. 19, 2010, 11:53 p.m. CST

    The Reluctant Austinite

    by quantize

    here's my objection ...you come the high and mighty about 'abuse', and insults..but in my universe saying poncy shit like 'i wouldn't want to see a film with you..etc etc' sounds like a little boy club hoping to making me feel left out...thats lame drivel..i'd have infinitely more respect if you just said 'fuck you' and left it at that, instead of reaching for this little precious attitude you have.

  • Feb. 20, 2010, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Well, you still hate Soldier, Harry.

    by Knuckleduster

    Aren't you a little wrapped up in the preciousness of that film's original script?

  • Feb. 20, 2010, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Okay, quantize, I'm sorry.

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    That's the only thing I said, intially, was that I wouldn't want to hang out with someone who couldn't have at least a little fun with "The Wolfman." At first it wasn't even meant to be directed at you personally, just in general, but I wish I hadn't said it. I'm not high and mighty; far from it. I'm from the ass end of the economic food chain, and I've got a chip on my shoulder about it. No doubt. As far as club mentality goes, I'm one of those Monster Kids who grew up on Monster Movies like this, and we were usually the outsiders and weirdos in our schools. I was often picked on and made fun of for liking stuff just like this. It wasn't until we got older that Geek became mainstream and places like this cropped up. I guess I expect anyone who comes to AICN regularly to understand the love of Monsters I have, even when the films are far from perfect. I was baffled that you didn't understand that anyone could think this was anything but crap, and that reminded me of growing up with those attitdues around me. But I'm sorry I got into a pissing match with you. Instead of "fuck you" I'll just say "sorry." Oops! Do over!

  • Feb. 20, 2010, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Saw it on, err... Tuesday?

    by Kammich

    its all my Dad wanted to do for his 50th birthday. he's a big fan of the Universal monsters and "American Werewolf in London" is his all-time favorite film. my sister came too, and all 3 of us dug it. I won't give the typical shpeel of "turning your brain off," because it barely applies here... only in the sense that the script, in its final form, is really sloppy. Things happen for really no reason at all, and even the important plot points are brought up in sort of random ways. For instance, the asylum scene with Talbot locked up in front of a full moon. I understand these doctors find his claims to be lunatic, and that this could very well be a pertinent method of therapy in the late 1800s, but it just sapped a lot of the tension and scare out of what should have been a highlight of the film. But I thought there were WAY too many positives to give this one a bad grade... Del Toro does the most with his material, and the elegant british HOTNESS that is Emily Blunt brings to life a character that was written so thinly you could see through it. Great effects, great design that stuck really closely to the Lon Chaney look, and a Danny Elfman score that I didn't even realize was his until I saw his name in the end credits. Usually I can tell an Elfman score before the first line of music is even finished. I found the score a little overbearing at times(perhaps a result of truncating a 150-minute score to the shorter running time of the final movie), but it was a pleasant surprise to not immediately peg one of his scores.

  • Feb. 20, 2010, 4:11 p.m. CST

    re: CGI animals

    by Kammich

    had I not already heard on here that there was a CGI bear, I probably wouldn't have noticed. they did a pretty good job of making it convincing by keeping the bear modestly lit and physically stationary. but I found myself question on a few occasions... was Anthony Hopkins' dog CGI at times? probably not, but there were a few of the close-up, sustained scenes where the dog came off a little unnatural. oh and i forgot to mention the main reason my father, myself, and any other red blooded male surely has to enjoy this movie... emily blunt side boob!

  • Feb. 20, 2010, 5:23 p.m. CST

    I raise my glass to side boobage!

    by The Reluctant Austinite

  • Feb. 20, 2010, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Harry, Are You Nuts, Or Just On Uni's Payroll!

    by extremecinema

    I saw The Wolf Man with my wife tonight, and without a shadow of a doubt, this was far and away the blandest, shallowest, emotionless version of this tale that I have ever seen! My wife LOVES Benicio, and thought that he was acting dosed up on Valium. There is definitely something wrong with a film like this, when you leave feeling NOTHING for Talbot -- I mean NOTHING! Hopkins looked like he was phoning this one in -- little more than a paycheck for him. The only one who registered a performance at all, was Hugo Weaving. What a dissapointment and total waste of time and money. Arghhh! Movies like this with so much potential that turn out like this just make me sick!

  • Feb. 20, 2010, 9:51 p.m. CST

    GOOD FLICK

    by uberman

    May seen it AGAIN tonight. Loved it, and I grew up on FAMOUS MONSTERS of FILMLAND. Just saw SHUTTER ISLAND. Good, but not as entertaining as WOLFMAN. After so many suck as werewolf movies in the last decade, we get a good one. This is no VAN HELSING, no THE MUMMY, no UNDERWORLD. Nope. This is classic horror done right.

  • Feb. 21, 2010, 7:34 a.m. CST

    The Reluctant Austinite

    by quantize

    Listen..your heartfelt description of geeks in love with monster movies strikes a very similar just as intolerant of that being an excuse to give a major pass to a 'monster' movie ...seriously..that did not have ONE, not ONE convincing scare, much less was even vaguely creepy...and if anyone here can put their hand up and say thats 'OK' because we got Baker and some nice cinematography and art direction should hand in their fucking geek card today. You're brain is mulch, you might as well say AvP is great cinema too. <p> Harry might be happy to cast 'geek' culture as a bunch of goofy lard ass 'enthusiasts' only too happy too spruik shit for a set visit or two - But THIS was the Wolfman...if you're gonna go there..DONT FUCK IT UP, just dont. The film aint even creepy and it's only got a couple of lame winks to the audience of hammy matinee horror. It aint even FUNNY enough. <p> It wouldn't have been good enough for Carpenter's Thing much less any successful remake. <p> All I'm saying is if you come out of that film saying 'great' then are you really encouraging more cool horror films to be produced? or are you waving a white flag for Hollywood to continue mindlessly shitty on iconic characters?

  • Feb. 21, 2010, 7:35 a.m. CST

    correction

    by quantize

    ..a very similar chord with my life..however im just as intolerant

  • Feb. 22, 2010, 2:34 a.m. CST

    one of the worst films of the year

    by Dragon

    This movie was absolute garbage. It's greatest sin was that it was boring. Also a horrible non-performance from Del Toro. The effects were shit, Harry doesn't know jack if he thinks the CGI stuff was good. The director must be a hack, the film was full of those "false scares" where sudden movement and music is used to get a cheap reaction from the crowd. It was also just plain LOUD. Terrible, terrible movie, avoid at all costs.

  • Feb. 22, 2010, 7:39 a.m. CST

    On those Bad girls boxes, is that Dita Von Teese?

    by white_vader

    Sure looks like her. Mmm. Fetishalicious!

  • Feb. 22, 2010, 7 p.m. CST

    Oops, obviously that was meant

    by white_vader

    for the DVD TB.

  • Feb. 25, 2010, 7:59 p.m. CST

    SCRIPT WRITER SHIT HIMSELF: WAS SCARED BY THE WOLFMAN

    by tazzzer

    Yes u c the script writer was going to take this classic and turn it into well a classic but alas the thought of the Wolfman made him shite himself which explains how he managed to produce such a HOWLING piece of TURD! Well i suggest he and basically everyone involved with this mess follow their own advice. So... Never look back Johnston. Never look back. For the past is a wilderness of horror's!!!! (with this movie being the ultimate horror turd). I did love the never look back line ironically and the trailer was wicked. Love Hopkins so fantastic british guy kickin ass but not as well as i had hoped but then he had a turd to work with so SHIT HAPPENS !!! Johnston may do the next Jurassic Park movie. PLEASE DON'T FUCK THAT UP or ill send the Wolfman to shit all over u with shite that was done badly in CGI but then after making this monster mess u would b used to bad cgi. SOMEONE TELL ME THIS: How the FUCK can American Warewolf in London STILL be the best there is all these yrs later i mean for fucks sake now they should b able to best it and mayb they could have done but seems that everyone not just the script writter got the shits by the wolfman. Ah well..never look back people. Never look back...Such a shame tho like i say the trailer was wicked i shit u not :)

  • Feb. 28, 2010, 8:42 a.m. CST

    Didn't Like It

    by richievanderlow

    Outside of Hugo, terrible acting. More nude Emily Blunt would have salvaged it for me. Brief side boob doesn't cut it.

  • April 7, 2010, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Jordan wholesale

    by wholesale

    http://www.xolook.com free shipping --------------------- The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. --------- handbags(chanel,prada,gucci,lv,fendi,juicy) $ 35 earring (chanel, gucci,coach) $15 purse (lv,gucci,juicy couture) $18 sunglasses (chanel,versace,coach,edhardy) $17 activewear $ 35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25 ----------- http://www.xolook.com Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after another the right clothes? So, also waiting for?Immediate action bar! Welcome to :http://www.xolook.com sure you will find what you need. Moreover, the company has a good reputation, product quality standards, at reasonable prices. Over the years, has been well received by overseas friends for their support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase. !!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.xolook.com !!!!!!!!!!!!

  • May 6, 2010, 12:39 a.m. CST

    SHIT SHIT SHIT. That's a analysis of the script, people

    by JonChambers

    What a bland, recycled, unmitigated waste of money. WHY DON'T THEY GET FUCKING GOOD WRITERS? EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE MOVIE WAS UP TO SNUFF. THE STORY SINKS THIS TURD. TWICE!

  • May 6, 2010, 9:21 a.m. CST

    SHIT SHIT SHIT is the plot of Human Centipede

    by orcus

  • June 20, 2010, 5:15 a.m. CST

    Can't Walk In Heels???

    by alen

    Can't Walk In Heels??? Iam the worst at walking in heels lol! I have only worn heels probably 3 or 4 times in my life. Each time, I was practically falling down stairs and tripping over my own feet haha. I bet a GUY could wear them better than me lol. I just dunno how to balance. it makes me more attractive in heels but really a pain for me...We specialized in trading high quality and lower price shoes, Such as, Nike, Air Jordan, Air Max, Puma, Air Force 1,Timberland and so on ,and we also have some accessories: clothes, trousers,hat ,watch, bag , ball, glasses ,strap, and electronic products. It's a good way that depresses your stock costs They have many kinds of style.they quality is AAA ,we will offer you lowest price, safe delivery, and best service. For more details information, pls contact with us.mail me if you are interest my collection.. web:http://picasaweb.google.ca/shoesmarket1 mail/msn:candy-seasky(at)hotmail.com Yahoo/ mail: nicebuybuy(at)yahoo.com skype:candy-seasky editor:alen

  • June 20, 2010, 5:16 a.m. CST

    Ed Hardy Hoodies

    by alen

    Fashion and popular.Ed Hardy Lady Hoodies capture the world's attention.Ed hardy is a famous brand today.Sustaining consistent brand personality:One of the main aspects of Ed hardy is its personality and its identity in the marketplace.Wide range of styles and sizes.Ed Hardy Lady Hoodies is internationally recognized for its quality and versatility.Edhardy designs that bring glamour to your life and will be cherished always.These fashion Ed Hardy Lady Hoodies products will brighten up the eyes of any that look at it.With just one look, you'll find yourself mesmerized to its personality ensures that you purchasing experience will be a peasurable one.100% satisfaction Guarantee.Now you can personalize one for yourself with our Ed Hardy Lady Hoodies. web:http://picasaweb.google.ca/edhardymarket mail/msn:candy-seasky(at)hotmail.com Yahoo/ mail: nicebuybuy(at)yahoo.com skype:candy-seasky editor:alen

Top Talkbacks