|ExtraTorrent.cc > Articles > The Wolfman: Disappointing Failure of Projecting a Certain Image, Well- Cast and Performed Movie|
The Wolfman: Disappointing Failure of Projecting a Certain Image, Well- Cast and Performed MovieAdded: Thursday, February 18th, 2010
Category: Bit Torrent Freedom > Movie Reviews
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
We all know who werewolves are now, don’t we? After all those The Wolf Man, Underworld and even Harry Potter along with Twilight Saga we can definitely tell they are just the sensitive creatures in the world of the monsters. The only ones among those ripping, werewolves still have some remorse but no control of their actions. Haven't we all been a sort of them, boys?
The first famous werewolf appeared in classic The Wolf Man in 1941, performed by Lon Chaney Junior. That film brilliantly combined mythology, clever make-up and added fog. This new one is a remake, again from the same studio.
Lycanthropy is shown as libido. The new film has the same characters but the story happens much earlier – in 1891. The movie opens with a scene of ripping the head off some Ben guy (Simon Merrels), then goes on with Miss Conliffe (Emily Blunt) writing a languishing letter to well-known actor Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro), pleading him to return in order to find her missing love. Lawrence runs into his father Sir John (Anthony Hopkins) and knew his brother is dead.
Briefly, the film is well-cast, atmospheric and well-performed, sometimes tense and violent, but still a disappointing failure – it becomes duller and duller as we trudge through the story in which no one character is developed. It’s not quite clear what did they get such a great cast then for.
There used to be humorous and inventive films of the sort - John Landis’s An American Werewolf in London, for instance. But now people want something new and different, but they don’t get it.
The original film made in 1941 was really fun with no claims – good cheap horror. But the remake has a huge source of talent which it doesn’t challenge at all.
Probably the director Joe Johnston was at a disadvantage and tried to depend just on dim lighting to make it through.
Some good words for actors – they all try. Broody, enigmatic and magnetic – whatever they are, they can’t float the movie because there was almost no heartbeat in any of their characters. We can suggest the thoughts of the director were somewhere else – perhaps concentrating on the effects. Actually, if you remember him beginning his way in effects on the late Star Wars trilogy of George Lucas, then this fact would not surprise you at all. As you can see, he (unluckily) has got a directing experience there as well.
February 18th, 2010Posted by:
Thursday, February 18th, 2010
|posted by (2010-02-18 12:05:03)|
|Nice artice SaM..an american werewolf in london is still my tops tho,also the budget for is was like next to nothing compared to the coin spent these day..Beware the Moon,Beware the Moon...lovely.|
|posted by (2010-02-18 14:40:12)|
|I didn't think it was all that bad... It's just a movie.. Purely entertainment.. It's a horror movie none-the-less... Sometimes I think people expect way too much out of movies that are not made with a sense of winning an oscar or being some greatly held piece of art especially horror flicks.. It's just a movie where there is more emphasis on other things instead of the greatest acting ever..|
The movie could have been better but if you went in expecting way too much you were let down obviously because this movie wasn't aimed at "oscar" audiences and it wasn't aimed at the audience that cares so much about every little nuance of acting.. If you went in expecting to see a movie about werewolves and people getting slaughtered than you weren't disappointed.. I thought the twist about it being his father was pretty cool.. Kinda saw it coming but then again didn't see it coming.. But yea..
|Yeah thanks sam for the post, agree with BHM american werewolf is the nuts compered to this one, but a good try :)|
|well i got to say sam nice write up but i have to say your wrong, the wolfman is a decent remake of the 1941 lon chaney movie in my view it is better during to the fact this one was actully filmed here in the united kingdom, the 1941 version was shot on a back lot at universal, the atmosphire of the new remake in my book is far more superior than the 1941 version the only thing i found disapointing in the story was the aberline character had the first name francis stupid stupid script writers why dont they do the research saying he was the man in charge of the jack the ripper hunt, anyone with an internet connection could easily find it was infact fredrick aberline and not francis lol, and it nice to see Geraldine Chaplin back on the screen shes such an underated actress unlike her dad the late great charlie chaplin, this film might not be an oscar winner but its a lot of fun to watch|
|posted by (2010-02-18 18:44:33)|
|I am willing to state that a reliable essays online service seems a light on the path of good term paper composing. Hence, all people are able use it anytime they want buy essay.|
|posted by (2010-02-18 19:08:44)|
|Actually, Sam, I'd say that you got it backwards. The performances were decent while the filmmaking itself made the film awesome. It's not a great film but it is a good one simply for the way it looks. The cinematography, art direction, costumes, soundtrack, and atmosphere are ticker price enough.|
Del Toro is terribly miscast, even though he does look like Lon Chaney Jr., Blunt is beautiful, Hopkins is awesome, and Hugo Weaving is hilarious, but the movie works just because of the fact that it's gorgeous to look at.
|Not a Bad movie but Was deff. not all it was Hyped up 2 be!|
|posted by (2010-02-18 21:29:15)|
|Yes...fantastic actors who have given powerful performances in past fims but I heard it wasnt all that & predictable, as Dirk & Sam stated =( Also, it's still in #3 spot under Valentines Day which I heard was all bad. Oh well, Im still excited 2 c DelToro & Em! Waitin 4 a good copy. Thanx for the review Sam!!|
|agree with the fact that there was a powerfull group of actors cast in this movie however The facts are this is kina of a retread of the classic and as such there was not a whole lot that the studio could do to stray from the original. But I am biased and totaly love all of those black and white unviesrsal studio movies. Thanks for the article.|
|i enjoyed it,it isnt supposed to be a definitve version of all wolfman films,i like the fact it was more old school than trying to put a new twist in their.it wasnt a american werewolf in londen...but that was a 80s classic,but i doubt their will be a wolf film that tops that,like a wiseman once told me...."anyone can be a critic" =)|
|*london sorry,been a long day at work|
|I actually went to the cinema and watched this one,sure it's not breaking new ground but it is a very good re-telling of a classic,besides if you've been a film fanatic for a number of years there is'nt alot that is going to blow your mind in this genre by now.Alot of fantastic actors in this one that maybe were'nt used to their full potential but nonetheless this is a very solid entry into the werewolf legend.The atmosphere created in the film was very errie and drew you into the story.I like the more "classic"vampire and werewolf films,not vamps/wolves in leather pants cruising around in sports cars or hanging out with a bunch of "emo"kids.||
Most Popular Stories