The Wolfman (remake)
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Pbartender
First Post
The wife and I just got back from seeing for our Valentine's Date.
As a remake of a classic B-rate monster movie, it does what it's supposed to do... Don't expect it to Academy Award material, but it was quite enjoyable to watch.
Hugo Weaving, in particular, does a fine job.
As a remake of a classic B-rate monster movie, it does what it's supposed to do... Don't expect it to Academy Award material, but it was quite enjoyable to watch.
Hugo Weaving, in particular, does a fine job.
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
Saw it. Very enjoyable but lots of blood and guts. Better than the five bucks I paid for the first show of the day. A good remake that honors the original and builds on it for the sake of the modern audience and technological advancements in filming. The acting exceeds expectations, particularly for a horror movie. I agree that Hugo Weaving is a stand out in his role. Very good performances by all, including Blunt, Del Toro, and Hopkins, who I felt was perhaps getting to the point in more recent films where he was phoning it in, but here does a remarkable job. It is cinematically excellent, and the costumes and settings are top notch, given the necessary focus of such films (horror requires a closer, narrow POV to heighten the tensions).
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
Lots of blood and guts? A big cast? Not the Wolfman I know, or want to know. I'll pass.
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
The cast, I think, is similarly "big" for its time ( The Wolf Man (1941) - Full cast and crew ) with originals being persons like Claude Rains, Ralph Bellamy, Bela Lugosi, and Lon Chaney Jr.
I think the blood and guts are necessary for a modern audience to accept it as a horror film.
Just got back from the first half of my Valentine's festivities seeing the film. We enjoyed ourselves.
The cast is "big" not in the sense that they are the people who get paid millions to make blockbusters, but in the sense that they can actually act. This is not so much a modern horror flick as it is a classic monster movie - as much about the drama as anything else, which is refreshing.
Yes, there's some blood and guts, but it isn't gratuitous, and they don't linger on it.
Pbartender
First Post
Yep... It's the blood and guts you would expect to see from a wild animal eviscerating and partially eating a man.
Oddly enough, the oogiest part for me was when he was shown drinking straight from the Victorian Era Thames River.
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
That's one of your scienceman words, ain't it?
I agree.
The Thames drinking made me wonder if the wolfman problems would be ended by disease rather than silver bullet.
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
Maybe its worth watching after all. But I won't pay money to see it. (Because I'm cheap! 
)
)
Pbartender
First Post
That's one of your scienceman words, ain't it?
Yes. Yes it is.
One other observation about the movie...
Despite the fact, that they made the action sequences fairly packed with action, they didn't feel the need to ruin it by making the entire movie an "action" movie, as has been done with so many remakes lately (War of the Worlds and The Day the Earth Stood Still I'm looking at you!). The greater portion of the movie remains suspense/horror/drama driven, which in my view kept the movie better than it would have been otherwise.
Similar Threads
