HammerDave

The film has undergone massive production problems. Initially the wolf was going to be done old-school, with Rick Baker using prosthetics to effect the transformation and creature. Since then, US test audiences said that the wolf man on 2 legs was 'stupid,' so the post production schedule has been extended to allow for a more wolflike CGI creature to be added.

Also apparently there have been major re-shoots of the ending, with Vic Armstrong saying at the BFI's Bond Weekender that he'd just come from shooting a wire-work battle between werewolves. Maybe it'll still be good but I don't think any of the above bodes well.

Films Wanted:
THE BIG DAY (1960)
DON'T PANIC CHAPS! (1959)

PM for trade list, Thanks!

batman

Test audiences ... don't you just love 'em. One of the things that appealed to me was that it was going to be done 'old school'. It now seems that, because of the test audience, they are going to swamp it with CGI/wire-work overkill. Ho hum.

"Aha Mr Aubergine ... that's where you're wrong!"

will.15

I'm not a fan of extensive use of CGI in action scenes because, despite what they say, it doesn't look real and it kills the suspense. I get bored if it goes on too long, which probably makes me the only person on the planet that doesn't get excited when a new Spiderman movie comes out. They could have made the standard makeup way work if they shot and edited it right, but that would require a talented director and there aren't too many of those anymore working on big budget movies.

batman

This review has appeared on IMDb ...

"The Wolfman is a very earnest remake, with few of the self-conscious conceits of modern horror movies. Which is both good and bad. As a period piece, it enables us to watch without inserting a lot of our own biases and preconceptions on the story and characters. However, anything that does remind us of our own lives then pulls at the suspension of disbelief necessary to watch a film based on the supernatural.

Such things as Benicio Del Toro's accent. The story about an English kid sent to live in America would naturally make the audience pay attention to the way he talks, and when you scrutinize Del Toro's speech, you realize he gets about a B+ on accent, but this still leaves about 10% of the familiar actor you know. Or Anthony Hopkins' history. This is a guy whose most familiar role is a psychopathic cannibal; any nods to that in a movie about characters who lose control and eat humans are jarring.

The film is really well acted, and the story, while predictable, is well-told, with plenty of suspense, and empathetic characters. I could have done with a little lighter hand on the stuff that was meant to be suspenseful. There are no literal cat scares, but we get bird scares and dog scares and plenty of stuff put in to make us jump because of loud sound editing. The gore is amped up to eleven, with very graphic maulings, disembowelings, and beheadings, showing just about every way a body part can be damaged and/or severed by a set of claws and/or fangs.

A theme touched on briefly in the film is the question of whether lycanthropy is all in the brain. When we first meet Hugo Weaving's character, we learn he had previously investigated "The Ripper," and is convinced the crimes he is now investigating are similar. This is mentioned, then forgotten. I would have loved more of this, which would have meant more of Hugo Weaving, which is never a bad thing. When Del Toro's character is captured and sent to the asylum, his "doctors" are convinced he is a psycho, that he believes he's a werewolf but is really just a maniac whose delusions are triggered by the moon. This would have been a very interesting angle to pursue; if the audience was left with a question of exactly how much control a werewolf might have over its actions, how much man is left inside a wolf-man? A third instance of this is the 'origin' backstory; the first character to be infected with the wolf virus, as it were, has much more choice in the matter, and much more fault, and it could have been very interesting to see the character struggle with the blame for subsequent events. Even if it didn't fit in the current story line, it would have made for a richer backstory, and richer character development.

As it is, it's a story you've seen before, but still a good, very watchable, typical horror movie."

"Aha Mr Aubergine ... that's where you're wrong!"

didi-5

Part of it was filmed at and around Richmond Theatre as well, quite some time ago. Scenes with Del Toro though, not Hopkins.

will.15

Good trailer.

paulcornelius

Put me in the anti-CGI camp as well. That said, judging from the trailer Will posted, The Wolfman looks interesting. In fact, it reminds me of Bram Stoker's Dracula, which made much of using in-camera sfx way back then in the early 1990s. Sooo, maybe I'll give this one a chance. Somebody, somewhere, somehow just has to make a good movie in this day and age. It must be true that cinema did not die along with Kieslowski.

batman

I hate Bram Stoker's Dracula, it just meanders about for two hours plus with no real sense of danger or excitement. Oldman does the best he can but Hopkins is awful.

Cinema did not die with Kieslowski, it just that not many people can make/have made films as good as his.

"Aha Mr Aubergine ... that's where you're wrong!"

paulcornelius

batman,

I had the same reaction as yours when I first saw BS Dracula (I guess I shouldn't have abbreviated that way). But the thing grew on me. Even the bits with Keanu, the biggest flop in the movie for me. But I'll tell you what I always remember about it: the scene with absinthe and the magic lantern show. Just terrific mood setters for me. Even the shoplifter did a good job with her role at times.

will.15

7 Clips From The Wolfman

If you can stand sitting through all the commercials, this link has seven brief clips, but each one is prefaced by a commercial.

christoph404

I also hate "Bram Stokers Dracula", it didn't exactly set a trend for style over content but is certainly up there as a prime example of a naff film preoccupied with visual pyrotechnics. What little I've seen of "The Wolfman" reminds me of that, with a liberal sprinkling of the CGI that swamped "Van Helsing". Im generally so cheesed off and cynical with the Hollywood trash on offer these days that I will more than likely give this a miss. As for Hopkins? Fantastic actor but he sold out years ago...I guess now that he is a US citizen living amongst the Hollywood elite he needs to bring in big bucks to maintain the lifestyle,... Im sure he is getting paid well for this one, successful actors often have the privilege of choosing work that has some artistic merit as well as bringing in some wages, I would imagine this is solely based on the wages, good luck to him.

Mr Pastry Time

I am looking forward to viewing this one, but the big question for me will be can I cope without Bela Lugosi not being in it as "Bela".

Cheap to keep and easy to please

Gerald Lovell

And dear old Mme. Maria Ouspenskaya as his mum!

will.15

I liked the trailer, but I'm not getting a good vibe fron the clips now available. It's reminding me of that Coppola Dracula, not a good thing.

HammerDave

I saw it last night at a preview - here's my review...

The first time I saw the trailer for Universal's remake of The Wolfman, I thought it looked pretty cool. Of course, the first time I saw the trailer was at Movie-Con in the summer of 2008, and at that point it had already missed at least one release date. Then ugly reports began to filter through, of CG replacing Rick Baker's makeup FX because test audiences thought they looked stupid. In spring 2009, Vic Armstrong mentioned at the BFI's Bond weekender that he was currently working on a big wire-fu werewolf fight for the film's climax. And as yet more release dates came and went, rumours were circulating just a few weeks ago that director Joe Johnston and the studio were each working on their own competing edits of the movie. Well finally, The Wolfman has escaped and having just returned from a screening, I can tell you... it's not terrible. It's not great either, but it's certainly better than it might have been.

In this version of the story by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self (and let's face it, who knows how many uncredited polishers), Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) is a famous stage actor, estranged from his doolally father Sir John (Sir Anthony Hopkins). When his brother Ben is killed by some kind of wild beastie, Lawrence returns home to find out what happened, having been summoned by a letter from Ben's fiancee Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt). Lawrence, having a history of mental illness, is one of the suspects singled out by Inspector Abberline (Hugo Weaving), latterly of the Jack the Ripper case. And then there are gypsies, and biting, and full moons, and quite a lot of entrails...

So; first the good. Well, the flick looks sensational, like the most expensive movie Hammer couldn't afford. In fact some of the outdoor scenes were even shot in Hammer's old stomping ground of Black Park. Thankfully though the production designers didn't go too overboard piling on the gothic, like in Branagh's deeply flawed Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or Coppola's sheer bloody awful Bram Stoker's Dracula. Also the makeup FX, while not as iconic as the original design, are certainly good. They reminded me quite a bit of Roy Ashton's work from Hammer's Curse of the Werewolf, in fact. The CG enhancements aren't great, but they are used sparingly - only one shot of an incredibly fake-looking CG bear looked completely ridiculous. There's fun to be had from the cast too; Hopkins lets the fact that he's Anthony Hopkins do most of the work, while Hugo Weaving steals every scene he's in. The score, by Danny Elfman channelling Wojciech Kilar, is good too. And the big set pieces, including one that is a nice homage to An American Werewolf in London, are effective. I also rather liked how with a couple of exceptions, everyone in the movie seemed to accept quite readily that werewolves existed.

Then there's the bad, which mainly involves the large chunks of the script that are clearly missing. Del Toro, looking uncannily like Lon Chaney Jr. at times, never stops for long enough to develop a character, and his relationship with Blunt's somewhat bland love interest also seems to have ended up mostly on the cutting room floor. Some characters like Sir John's faithful Indian retainer Singh (Art Malik) barely have time to register, while Talbot's brother Ben, despite an IMDB credit, doesn't appear at all. It seems that the rumours about the editing have some truth to them; the IMDB lists the film as over 2 hours, but the finished cut we saw was just about dead on a brisk 1h 45.

On the whole then, this is a fun monster romp, registering somewhere between 'average' and 'solid.' It's not going to be regarded as a classic, but it clips along nicely and my wife jumped in the right places. Was it worth the 3 years it took to slap the thing together? Probably not, but it's worth a look. And hopefully the eventual blu-ray and DVD might fill in some of those missing bits.

Films Wanted:
THE BIG DAY (1960)
DON'T PANIC CHAPS! (1959)

PM for trade list, Thanks!