+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: The Wolfman (open spoilers)

  1. #1
    Elephant terrifel's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default The Wolfman (open spoilers)

    Well, I liked it, and it was pretty bad.

    I knew it would be, of course. I was absolutely certain when the release date kept getting pushed back, from Halloween all the way to Chinese New Year. But it would have been a safe bet anyway, simply because it was a werewolf movie, and the number of good werewolf movies ever made can be counted on the toes of one paw.

    Why should this be, exactly? What is it about the werewolf myth that all but guarantees terrible movies, and to a lesser extent terrible literature? One would think the subject ought to be irresistible to the creative storyteller, encompassing as it does such diverse and colorful elements as folklore, psychology, and the philosophical dichotomy between man and beast. Yet for all this, actual decent movies based on the concept are as rare as... well, a blue moon.

    So this movie basically started out with two strikes against it already: not only is it a werewolf movie, it is a remake of the grandddaddy of all bad werewolf movies. Name recognition aside, it has to be acknowledged that 1941's The Wolf Man was a terrible, terrible film. (Why "The Wolfman" this time around, Universal? Did the title "The Wolf Man" offer fewer copyright guarantees, or what? I'm just curious. It seems an odd choice for such an explicit remake. Also, I hope you know that you now risk being sued for defamation by Marv Wolfman.)

    Anyway. Given that it is a bad film, does 2010's The Wolfman compare favorably to other werewolf films? I would say: yes, absolutely. It has virtually everything you might ask from a reasonably big-budget contemporary werewolf movie. For starters, it sensibly and effectively backdates the original film's setting to the much more atmospheric Victorian Era, which allows them to cram in the Gothic Romance tropes by the truckload.

    The film definitely plays to its strengths: there may not be gifted filmmakers lining up to create werewolf movies; but every creature makeup artist dreams of creating a lavishly budgeted werewolf transformation, and every set designer dreams of creating a lavishly budgeted Victorian production. If anything, this becomes distracting at times, as you are always aware that you are looking at highly elaborate and lovingly crafted movie sets. This movie does not aim to depict Victorian England, but rather "Victorian England," that mythical cinematic land where color did not yet exist and everything was baroque and vine-shrouded beyond all belief.

    Rick Baker, who has won six Academy Awards for Makeup so far (in fact I think the award was basically created in acknowledgement of his earlier effects in An American Werewolf in London) does a wonderful job here as expected, though apparently also augmented considerably by CGI. The transformation scenes are first-rate, and the monster itself is credibly terrifying while at the same time paying homage to Jack Pierce's original werewolf makeup.

    Benicio del Toro, I am convinced, is deliberately spoofing Lon Chaney Jr.'s famously not-especially-good performance in this reprise of the character. Practically every word he utters is mumbled from the back of the throat in a terminally bland Midwest accent. The result is especially comical when one realizes that Larry Talbot, in this version, is an internationally famous American stage actor-- so renowned, in fact, that he can play Hamlet, at age 47, in London, to a full house. Del Toro also does a credible job of emulating Chaney's perpetual hangdog look, though that may just be his face these days.

    Also, in order to account for del Toro being the son of Anthony Hopkins in this movie, Larry Talbot's mom is depicted as an almost ludicrously Frida Kahlo-like woman who prefers to wear Spanish-style attire even while raising her family in England. Honestly I would not have considered del Toro's physiognomy to be a credibility problem in this situation-- let's face it, Chaney didn't look any too much like British nobility either-- but the filmmakers apparently felt otherwise.

    I think I can safely say that Anthony Hopkins does everything that one would expect Anthony Hopkins to do in a film like this. Once his character appears and utters a few syllables, you know pretty much what his deal is going to be for the rest of the film.

    There are a few novel and interesting interpolations in this remake, mostly having to do with the revised Victorian setting. As previously mentioned, Larry Talbot is now a professional actor rather than a telescope repairman or whatever the hell he did in the first film. There are also some interesting bits which link the werewolf lore to the "Wolf-Boy" accounts of colonial India, and the events of the film take place in the shadow of the recent "Jack the Ripper" killings. Hugo Weaving plays a supporting role as an inspector from Scotland Yard, who is apparently still smarting after famously failing to catch the Ripper, and this eventually gets taken out on Larry. There are also some gruesomely atmospheric depictions of 19th century psychiatric care, which all leads up to a scene of cinematic payback which should delight anyone who has ever felt badly used by the mental health industry.

    The plot features many elements from the original film; but again, as befits the Gothic Romance setting, the previously threadbare storyline is baroqued up and convoluted far past the limits of believability. In the end, nothing really makes a lick of sense, but it moves along at a reasonably good clip before the wheels really start to come off. There are some good scares, a lot of highly implausible behavior from everyone concerned, and a fair amount of graphic but good-natured gore all around.

    The up-to-the-last-minute editing of the film is also highly apparent. I venture to guess that a relatively large number of scenes involving characterization and foreshadowing were cut in favor of more werewolfery-- not necessarily a bad thing, but it should be interesting to see what turns up on the DVD. I think I caught a brief glimpse of the 'pentagram' symbol introduced in the original film, but it is never actually mentioned in this version, so I suspect it was excised.

    I bet there were more scenes with the Gypsies, too. As it turns out, I don't think anyone ever recites the famous poem from the original ("Even a man who..." etc.), though they did see fit to include it in the title sequence, in the form of a carved inscription. Which is then repeated in voiceover, for the benefit of viewers who can't read, I guess. Thank you so much, Universal. Fifteen seconds into the movie, and already my intelligence has been insulted. If I hadn't known the movie would be bad already, I might have been disappointed.

  2. #2
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Excellent review terrifel. I just saw this last night. It was a fun movie and very much a throwback to the old universal movies that I like despite them being not very good. It was odd seeing Gollum in the movie though, especially as (badly acted) Elrond showed up as the inspector.

    Hopkins was of course great. Everyone else was ehh. The love story made zero sense. Plenty made little sense, but it was a fun ride. The special effects were excellent.

  3. #3
    Elephant terrifel's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Excellent review terrifel. I just saw this last night. It was a fun movie and very much a throwback to the old universal movies that I like despite them being not very good. It was odd seeing Gollum in the movie though, especially as (badly acted) Elrond showed up as the inspector.

    Hopkins was of course great. Everyone else was ehh. The love story made zero sense. Plenty made little sense, but it was a fun ride. The special effects were excellent.
    Now see, I thought the romance element was significantly improved from the original-- which admittedly isn't saying much, but at least it was more of a piece with the whole Gothic Romance ambience. It made sense to me that Gwen, as John Talbot's bereaved fiance, might "bounce back" from her loss by becoming enamored of his brother in turn, especially when she feels obligated to help nurse him back to health. Indeed, the setup gives her an excuse to be at the estate in the first place. Even as her affection for Larry grows, it strengthens her resolve not to lose him as she lost his brother.

    I suppose one might argue that her reaction is too much of a cliche'd modern relationship dynamic, and that a proper Victorian woman would not allow herself to fall into this sort of vaguely creepy situation. On the other hand, it seems to me that this sort of star-crossed, doomed romance works well in the company of all the other heavy Gothic tropes. In fact I think the movie might have been improved if they had pushed that aspect a bit further, to provide more of a contrast with the tension between Larry and his dad.

    Or maybe I just wanted to see Emily Blunt's bodice ripped at some point. Anyway, it worked a lot better for me than the original film's romantic setup: "You say you've been looking into my bedroom with your telescope? How intriguing! We must spend more time together."

  4. #4
    Elephant terrifel's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Speaking of Elrond: while I thought he did a decent job as the square-britches police inspector, the fact remains that he played Elrond, and also that robot guy from the Matrix, and this really inhibits my ability to appreciate him in lower-key character roles.

    "I'm Elrond!" his face seems to say. "They tried their best to disguise me behind these colossal mutton-chops; but here I am! Police Inspector Elrond of Scotland Yard, at your service! What am I doing in Victorian England? It's all thanks to elven magic!"

    I'm not quite sure exactly what sort of character actor role Hugo Weaving is best suited for, but it's certainly not "British police inspector." I mean this in the best possible way, but his face has a certain ambiguously thuggish or at best antiheroic quality about it. I could buy him playing an aging punk musician or something along those lines. He's just got this low-budget Australian indie movie vibe. He seems like he ought to be a Star Trek villain. He could challenge Jonathan Frakes to a bugging-your-eyes-out contest.

    That said, I admire the way he has apparently set himself up as the go-to supporting actor for high-profile Hollywood fantasy/sci-fi. Yes, it is a career niche from which it is nigh-impossible to escape; on the other hand, it's got to be a lot less painful these days, when studios regularly drop 100 million dollars on such films, than it was back when guys like Bela Lugosi and John Carradine were filling the same sort of function.

    It'll be interesting to see whether the final scene in The Wolfman pays off in terms of a sequel, and cinema fans everywhere will be treated to the exciting spectacle of Elrond the werewolf in Curse of the Wolfelf.

    Half-elven, half-human... and now, when the moon is full, half-wolven!

    "Fair Ithil... NOOOOOO! --GGGAAAAAUUUURRR!"

    Tonight... the waters of Brunien run red with blood!

    "My Lord Elrond? Visitors have arrived to seek the counsel of OH MY GOD AAAUGGH NOOOO SOMEBODY HELP HHGGKKAAGGH"

    "--NGWAWOOOOOOooooOOOOOOoooooo--"

  5. #5
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Perhaps you should watch Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and enjoy Elrond in drag.

  6. #6
    MOON GIRL FIGHTS CRIME Myrnalene's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,597

    Default

    Letter from Twilight fan accusing Universal of "ripping off" the werewolf concept from New Moon:

    To whom this may concern:

    This movie was a complete waste and I feel that it offends ALL Twilight Fans around the world, that including myself. For one, it was a COMPLETE remaking of the Wolf Pack from the Twilight Saga: New Moon. It gives the werewolves a bad name and makes them look like some deformed mutation of a rabid dog. I actually started to like werewolves after seeing Jacob Black and all his awesomeness on the big screen at the movies. That was until I saw your crappy remake of what you call to be a "were wolf"......

  7. #7
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Bonus points to terrifel for having Elrond gurgle out the old elvish word for wolf.

    Mryna, I am not a violent person, but can we not put that letter writer away somewhere at least before she harms others?

  8. #8
    Elephant terrifel's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Myrnalene: you wrote that letter, didn't you? Come clean. You wrote it the other day when everyone was being all Twilight-happy in chat, right? It's okay, you can admit it.

    Hm, so apparently Twilight werewolves are not killed by silver bullets? Based on the pictures, I assume they are killed by forcing them to wear boxer shorts?

    How to recognize a Twilight werewolf: total lack of any body hair whatsoever. I really didn't need to see that much of that guy's groin basket, but now that the poster has called my attention to it, the fact is undeniable. Twilight werewolves have no pubes.

    Also, they have rouged that guy's nipples. Dude, you are playing a werewolf with nipple rouge. I hope all the screaming girls make it worth your while. (Actually I suppose it probably does.)


    Anyway, this does raise an interesting point: the manner in which our culture slowly reframes these archetypes of folklore, to make them more acceptable and ultimately desirable. It's most noticeable with the vampires in Twilight, but obviously the same effect is at work with werewolves. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Universal Studios decides to build their Wolfman sequel around a smooth-limbed, willowy 20-ish protagonist with a troubled past.

    In summary: despite its various flaws, clearly The Wolfman could have been a lot worse. It makes werewolves scary again and unsettles the kids, and that's a respectable achievement for a horror movie to aspire to. The Wolfman honors its predecessor while surpassing it in many ways.

    Frankly I think this is exactly the sort of thing Hollywood ought to be doing more of. As mentioned earlier, the original Wolf Man movie was really not very good even by the standards of the time, but the concept itself had great potential. If we must have movie remakes (and it appears that we must), then instead of trying to outdo the classics of film, why not remake some of the many, many less-good films which nonetheless had interesting and memorable premises? Movies that could be readily enhanced by a judiciously reconsidered script and an embarrassingly high special effects budget?

    (PETER JACKSON'S KING KONG PRODUCTION NOTES: DAY ONE-- REBUILD NEW YORK CITY)

  9. #9
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default

    The similarities between the two pics below have kind of put me off this film.

    Benecio Del Toro as The Wolfman

    Bungle The Bear
    Last edited by ivan astikov; 20 Feb 2010 at 08:41 AM.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  10. #10
    Resident Troublemaker beebs's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    786

    Default

    Without those captions I would've never been able to tell the difference.

  11. #11
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by terrifel View post

    I'm not quite sure exactly what sort of character actor role Hugo Weaving is best suited for, but it's certainly not "British police inspector." I mean this in the best possible way, but his face has a certain ambiguously thuggish or at best antiheroic quality about it. I could buy him playing an aging punk musician or something along those lines. He's just got this low-budget Australian indie movie vibe.
    It's funny you say that, because about 90% of the films he does are low-budget Australian indie movies (the other 10% just happen to be worldwide blockbusters that make billions!), and in fact off-hand I can think of 3 separate films in which he plays an aging punk rock musician!

  12. #12
    Elephant terrifel's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Rude And Not Ginger View post
    It's funny you say that, because about 90% of the films he does are low-budget Australian indie movies (the other 10% just happen to be worldwide blockbusters that make billions!), and in fact off-hand I can think of 3 separate films in which he plays an aging punk rock musician!
    Okay, that is downright uncanny. I swear I had no idea about that aspect of his career.

    So apparently there is some objectively discernible quality, when present in an actor's face, which predestines them to appear in Australian independent films, specifically in roles as aging punk musicians.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts