The Big Bad Wolfman

The Wolfman Huffs and Puffs and Blows

Comments

1
Stop being so fucking judgemental. It might not be the greatest film ever, but it looks like a well-made interesting film. And god dammit, it looks FUN. So shut up.
2
Wait, you're defending a movie you have yet to see? The author saw the movie, thought it sucked, and said so. And you want her to "shut up" and not be "so fucking judgemental" because you liked the trailer? I...just...no words...so stupid...
3
Yeah like i say before, noone on the Merc's editorial staff is of authority to even comment on Horror! I'm sure went the THE CRAZIES [re-make] comes out later this month, that will recieve a lame, flippant
review" as well.
4
That's because it will probably be a lousy film.

And if by horror authority, you mean the type of people at Bloody-disgusting and co., that shoot their load over anything with enough heaping doses of gore, mindless nihilism and dehumanization - not to mention bonus points for misogyny (look at the hoopla over "The Human Centipede) - then thank god.

Merc's film dept. may be lacking (although in its defense, Portland's film scene is lacking) but in this regards, no. Your not asking for a horror authority. You're asking for a horror apologist to give a pass to any lunkheaded film, as long as its in the genre. The fact is, the amount of good horror films is, like the amount of good films, relatively small, and for the most part, Mercury's fair with those that get distributed.

It's directed by Joe Johnston for crissakes! Whaddaya expectin'!?
5
I own the original Wolf Man film (it came w/a monster pack of Universal's included w/Van Helsing), and it was never a great film. It was probably kinda' fun back in those days. I am sure this one is better (it can't be worse). I am gonna go spend money on it today, just for the fun factor, and because I like horror films. Why does every "movie critic" ala film snob at the Mercury, only root for indy dramas? Geez, this movie even has Blunt and Del Toro (who used to receive rave reviews for everything they did from this publication). Oh, yeah, it gets a bad review because they are in a large budget film, and Portland hates to see artists get paid. Jerks.
6
"And if by horror authority, you mean the type of people at Bloody-disgusting and co., that shoot their load over anything with enough heaping doses of gore, mindless nihilism and dehumanization - not to mention bonus points for misogyny..."

You make this all sound like such negative things. Look, by sheer definition Horror is suppose to be HORRORFYING. And by that i mean REAL Horror films like SAW, HOSTEL, MARTYRS(French), etc. I just watched DAYBREAKERS last night (witch the Merc also panned sourly) & it was an awsome & very BLOODY film! I don't feel that anyone who'd trash The WolfMan or (up-coming) The Crazies films are real Horror fans anyways.
7
I just came back from watching it. Now without ignorance (btw, this review WAS pretty oblivious to not notice that Lawrence's mother -aka a gypsy- is where he would've gotten his darker looks from), I can tell you that it was fun. It was good.
8
"You make this all sound like such negative things...."

Because they are. There's difference between a film that confronts nihilism, and one that simply is nihilistic; a film that explores violence, and one that indulges in it; a film that is sympathetic to the terror of misogynistic violence and one that fetishizes it. Bad horror films are usually the latter.

Horror films are HORRIFYING when they touch the nerve on a fear or terror that's genuinely human, not when they're dehumanizing in their sordidness and stupid in their aloofness to the material they're using. Martin Scorsese once described Cronenberg's films as "internal metaphors, external horrors", and that's a pretty good description of good horror films. All horror films are about the fear of the repressed - the terrors that are repressed in society and in ourselves. A smart horror film knows it, and knows how to use it.

If "Saw" and "Hostel" are real horror films, then god help the genre. Both try to hide behind messages about the "value of human life", but both films hold human life more cheaply than any of the baddies doing the killing within the film. They're exploitative, plain and simple.

And I'd like to think a real horror fan would take one look at "The Wolfman" or "The Crazies", and get mad at Hollywood for fucking the corpses of better films and filmmakers. Then again, I'm sure the torture porn crowd gets a kick out of necrophilia.
9
@ PeretDesnos

And since when are Horror films "teahing tools" to learn from? By it's very nature, HORROR is exploitive! Horror films are SUPPOSE to indulge in nihilism & violence. And i personally hope they keep raising bar. I feel that the SAW, HOSTEL, & various other 'realist/torture' films are simply being honest about it. And let's face it, just how effective do YOU think HELLRAISER would've been had it but afew drops of blood - deemed "safe" by MPAA?
10
Wolfman's got nards!
11
"Wolfman's got nards!"

LOL!!!
12
bummed on this review mostly because i really enjoyed the simpleness of this movie. so many movies have too much going on (characters, plot twists, etc.) IMO


My purpose manifests, I am void of delusion
I am born into this wolven form in seek of human flesh...

I will to feast upon the bones of the meek
The marrow of my enemies