*** Official THE WOLF MAN Discussion Thread

 I enjoyed this quite a bit. It is certainly relevant that I grew up with the 30s 40s 50s horror films, not Matrix. 
Loved the locations and the set design and costumes. Those are a real biggie for me. Hugo Weaving sitting down in a pub and ordering, "A pint of bitter" is just icing on the cake.
Came closest to cracking up when they got to the final confrontation and (remember now, this IS the discussion thread) as I was wondering how we were going to tell the boys apart, "Hopkins" (you KNOW he wasn't even on set) character ripped his shirt off.
Yes, shirts and skins, that's how we'll tell. 
I was sure Blackmoor was a matte, I was wrong, it's Chatsworth House.

I thought it was great fun. Liked the actors, the dialogue, how it was shot, the make up and effects...it does have flaws primarily in the plotting but nothing that crippled the experience for me. I kind of think of it as the horror movie answer to last year's Star Trek, which was similarly entertaining despite having some pretty sore spots. This film probably sets a new standard for werewolf rampaging :)

Coming out of the theater, my wife and I agreed that the love story doesn't really work, but then again I watched the original film again last night and realized that that film also has a wafer thin love story. Doesn't really excuse the remake but...

I liked it a lot, though the more I think back on it, there was more evidence that there had been some tinkering and some information has gone missing. Still ... for a straight, no-laughs and non-silly monster movie, it delivered the goods more than I ever could have hoped for. The Victorian setting is nice, the werewolf looks great and is savagely frightening, and I thought the entire cast was well chosen and top notch. The last idea for the ending was annoying and not necessary

I must agree with Andy Sheets regarding the "wafer thin love story" even in the original 1941 film. Lord knows that I'm a huge lover and defender of the old Universal 30s and 40s horror classics, but THE WOLF MAN (1941) was always flawed as well to some extent, with plot holes as well. And no way is it any more believable that Evelyn Ankers would or could fall for Lon Chaney so quickly or easily, given the few scenes they share together (where Ankers is already engaged to Patric Knowles). I still very much like the 1941 film, and I just think both versions (while imperfect) are just as good in their own separate ways; just different. And if they're going to do remakes, at least they ought to be somewhat different. If I was asked to pick which of the two I prefer, it would still be the '41, but I think the 2010 WOLFMAN is the best of all the "modernized werewolf movies" of the past 30 years.

I didn't think much of the recent STAR TREK film.
Edited by Joe Karlosi - 2/18/10 at 4:35am

And the same can be said for those "objecting" to the "weak love story" in the same new 90 minute film.

For what it's worth, both love stories in both films work well enough for me; I was just playing devil's advocate by also mentioning the 1941 "romance", like Andy did, if anyone wants to quibble with the new one.

And while suspension of disbelief is required for a Wolf Man, a romance between two human characters should be pretty straight forward and we shouldn't have to "suspend disbelief"!  

I caught it this afternoon and thought it was better than what some of the people in the review thread made it sound like but it's nothing great. At 95 or so minutes, it really moved (maybe even too fast) and the makeup effects were good. I'm not one to complain about CG but the CG and makeup didn't blend at all. Overall, I'd say it's worth watching on video or cable but that's about it.

Robert - no "chip" here. I liked the new movie.

I enjoyed it: it had some great visuals, I loved the werewolves, and the gore was done in a very fun way.  That doesn't make it a good film, which it really isn't. It moves much to fast in the beginning and in the transition to London. The characters are barely there and there's little suspense.

The one thing that really bothers me is how everyone seemingly ignores the first werewolf. They all understand it attacked Del Toro and that he now bears the mark of the beast, yada yada. And once that happens they forget about it entirely. And presumably it was Hopkins who attacked Del Toro though I don't think they actually established that. In fact they went to lengths to explain how Hopkins escaped to kill Del Toro's brother, but did nothing to explain his release when Del Toro was attacked.

After watching movies like Avatar I thought this was a real throwback to the 50s type of movie with the same type of makeup.  I liked it but it didn't really strike me as a great movie.  This movie should have gone straight to DVD.

There were several things I enjoyed about it, and several things I didn't.  Loved the Werewolf designs, the London sequence (and yes, I noted the AWIL homage as well), and the beautiful settings.  It didn't connect much with me at the level I believe it wanted to, but I enjoyed the carnage and the visuals.

And I disagree that Blunt's character was pointless.  The role was thankless, but I thought Blunt did a great job with effectively nothing.  Agreed about Benicio.  I'm not sure whether to drop the load on him or the script.

It needed a better story, but it could have been a lot worse.

Take that as you will.