|
|
Post by Bartwald on Jan 27, 2005 3:22:28 GMT -5
Well seeing as 2 guys turn into werewolves i would say yes. It's just a CRAP werewolf film. ;D It's got a good beginning, let's admit that, at least. The snow-bound Vermont makes for some great atmosphere there! |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jan 27, 2005 12:57:42 GMT -5
It does have a great set-up and watching Jack become slightly more and more animal-like is pretty cool, but the whole thing turns pretty silly. And let's not even get into the fight between Jack and James Spader. Ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Jan 27, 2005 13:09:02 GMT -5
It does have a great set-up and watching Jack become slightly more and more animal-like is pretty cool, but the whole thing turns pretty silly. And let's not even get into the fight between Jack and James Spader. Ridiculous. Yup, that's what I think, too. |
|
|
|
Post by 42ndstreetfreak on Jan 27, 2005 13:13:41 GMT -5
It's the fact that "Wolf" tries so hard NOT to be a horror film. Which is exactly what the makers said it wasn't when it came out!!
Almost like it was below these oh so big names to dirty their hands on such a genre.
Well a film that has a guy turn into a werewolf and has a scrap between two werwolves...is a freaking horror film! It's not a damn social commentray on the state of the World as we know it.
Nice idea, badly pulled off.
Horror mainly aimed at a yuppy audience.
Who also flocked to "Silence of the Lambs" as that was fanatically pulled as far away from the horror genre as possible so the folks in the dinner suits would not get them dirty!
I would have loved to see them sit down unexpectedly and watch "Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer"!
But at least "Silence" is a pretty good film...unlike "Wolf".
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Jan 27, 2005 14:19:29 GMT -5
But at least "Silence" is a pretty good film...unlike "Wolf". I'm glad you added this last remark, 42nd. I also always felt Silence Of The Lambs is too restrained, but it does NOT mean it's bad in this case; Hannibal is the opposite of it: I always praise Scott for being so brave and giving us all the gory details, but did I enjoy the film? Not much. |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Mar 8, 2005 2:01:31 GMT -5
I don't think Silence of the Lambs was meant to be a horror film. I never ever thought of it that way. Psychological Thriller, yes. Horror, dear me, no.
And I too loved getting the goods (aka, the gore) in Hannibal--what a shocker that had to be to the average viewer! I appear to be one of the few that is a fan of all those movies (Red Dragon, as I haven't seen Manhunter), they just suit me.
I'm not going to bitch cuz everybody seems to hate Wolf--I always thought it was a nice classy werewolf-ish movie that showed the "werewolf" as a romantic figure--the way wolves are often percieved. Dog Soldiers, though, that movie just rocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by LivingDeadGirl on Mar 8, 2005 18:54:02 GMT -5
I don't think Silence of the Lambs was meant to be a horror film. I never ever thought of it that way. Psychological Thriller, yes. Horror, dear me, no. And I too loved getting the goods (aka, the gore) in Hannibal--what a shocker that had to be to the average viewer! I appear to be one of the few that is a fan of all those movies (Red Dragon, as I haven't seen Manhunter), they just suit me. You should def. make it a point to see Manhunter, great movie, even better than Red Dragon which I like very much. I'm a fan of all 4 of the movies, and of course the 3 books. We had a discussion awhile back on here about the movies, I don't remember exactly where it's at though.  |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Apr 13, 2005 1:08:20 GMT -5
I finally caught Manhunter on... TCM or AMC. Watched it with my baby. But don't worry, little guy was sick and slept on me through the whole thing.
I prefer Red Dragon overall. To me it's classier, and the ending was deeper.
Which film was closer to the book?
|
|
|
|
Post by 42ndstreetfreak on Apr 13, 2005 3:50:19 GMT -5
"Red Dragon" is closer. But you can keep it.
**SPOILERS***
The reason Mann removed the ending is because it so damn obvious!
Only a cinemtic virgin would be fooled by the old off screen death that just happens to make identification impossible trick! It was obvious he was not dead, because you never saw him die!
And that he pops up at the end at the house just adss to the eye-rolling obviousness of it all.
Add to that all the 'my Mummy picked on me' psychology is far too hammered home in "Red Dragon" and again seems old and cliche.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Apr 13, 2005 18:32:52 GMT -5
Yup. Red Dragon was rather predictable, I still prefer it over Manhunter. Sorry to let y'all down!
Woo! Ed Norton!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenril on Apr 22, 2005 22:15:06 GMT -5
Yup. Red Dragon was rather predictable, I still prefer it over Manhunter. Sorry to let y'all down! Ah, 's'okay. It'd be boring if we all preferred the exact same movies. See, that's one of the things that dissapointed me about Red Dragon. I think Edward Norton is an amazing actor, but he's horribly miscast as the main character. I think he would have fared a lot better as the killer. I've been finding out that people's preference between "Red dragon" and "Manhunter" seems to depend strictly on which one they saw first. The exact same thing that happend with "Ringu" and "The ring" [Altrough I saw The ring first and I still think that Ringu is a hell of a lot better] As for Wolf... it was intriguing at first, atmospheric and slow-paced (in my book, this is not a bad thing); but in the end, nothing much happened... I think it's just plain boring and not at all the "werewolf metaphor for middle age" its filmmakers seemed to think they were doing. |
|
Graveworm
New Member
George Andrew Romero
Posts: 31
|
Post by Graveworm on May 14, 2005 7:49:21 GMT -5
Dog Soldiers is easily the better werewolf movie of the lot in my opinion. It is an adrenaline rush of a movie, and no other werewolf movie in my eyes can come close to even making you feel even close to the way DS made you feel first time round, or even second time either.
*sorry edited due to speed typing and mis-spelling* lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jul 8, 2005 10:48:44 GMT -5
Dog Soldiers is easily the better werewolf movie of the lot in my opinion. It is an adrenaline rush of a movie, and no other werewolf movie in my eyes can come close to even making you feel even close to the way DS made you feel first time round, or even second time either. *sorry edited due to speed typing and mis-spelling* lol Don't forget, those were some damn good-looking werewolves. And not a drop of CGI! |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Jul 28, 2005 10:34:41 GMT -5
If I may offer my thoughts:
Dog Soldiers is perhaps the best werewolf movie...of the last 20 years. Ginger Snaps is good, but watching a woman wonder about her first period for an hour isn't the kind of entertainment that a lot of guys want to watch. I viewed it as a more femine horror film, with a few scenes of gore to lure in the men. Dog Soldiers is action-packed, has a thrill a minute, great characters that you care about, and some of the best gore this side of Monroeville Mall. (If you don't get that reference, do some horror homework.) Granted, that last part isn't important to a film, but it worked for Dog Soldiers, as the werewolves become that much more vicious if we know what they can do to you. That to me is far scarier: knowing what a creature can do to me and not feel any remorse about it, (The Ferocious Killer) vs one knows what it can do and doesn't want to. (The Reluctant Werewolf) I prefer Dog Soldiers because it kept me more entertained all the way through than other werewolf films.
However, I still think of The Howling as the best werewolf movie. I think it's better than the way too overrated American Werewolf in London. There was only one great scene in London: the opening attack on the moors. A couple of other scenes were good, but I like The Howling better. I even like the design of the werewolves far more. They look better than London. London had too much of David Naughton's look in it, and it didn't look all that impressive.
One last thing: why is the transformation scene in London the more favored between the two? It looks so cheap and fake that it becomes a distration. To me, The Howling looks far more accurate as to what a person would actually look like if they were to transform right in front of you. The creepy design of the wolves to begin with, mixed with the lighting and the seriousness of the scene, make it, to me, a far better werewolf transformation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenril on Jul 31, 2005 14:22:54 GMT -5
One last thing: why is the transformation scene in London the more favored between the two? It looks so cheap and fake that it becomes a distration. To me, The Howling looks far more accurate as to what a person would actually look like if they were to transform right in front of you. The creepy design of the wolves to begin with, mixed with the lighting and the seriousness of the scene, make it, to me, a far better werewolf transformation. It's a matter of personal opinion. Personally, I prefer the one in "AWIL" because it isn't so much scary as it looks downright painful. In "The howling", it mostly felt like a re-enactment of the opening scene, and I didn't much care for the way Dee Walace just stands there, watching the guy transform. Granted that the trasformation itself is impressive, but I'm the kind of guy who prefers emotion over effects. I enjoyed "Ginger snaps" quite a lot. I'm not sure about it being a "feminine" horror movie (frankly, I'm not sure there is actually such a thing as "feminine" or "masculine" movie), I just found it to be a moodier, more reflective creature feature. I love "Ginger snaps" and "Dog soldiers" equally, at that. On a loosely related note, the director of "Dog soldiers" has just released a new movie (apparently also a creature feature) called "The descent", which I definitely can't wait to see. |
|
