Café de Nuit

I have to say that I wasn't disappointed...!!
Without giving anything away, this is a whole diffrent flick then the '41 version. The only thing that this movie has in common with the Chaney flick is the bare bones premise of the original storyline -
and even that gets "tweaked" here and there. And to put people's minds at ease: this is NOT Van Helsing -
This movie keeps the feel and tone of a classic Universal monster movie very well...!! I swear there were times when Benicio Del Toro was channeling Lon Chaney Jr. - but, this isn't one for the kiddies...!! When this Wolf Man is on the prowl things get nasty...!! You can tell Rick Baker did the effects, the transformation from man to wolf has a very 'American Werewolf in London' feel to it, and the cgi isn't bad at all...
It's actually quite believable.
I do have one or two "beefs" with this retelling - but nothing to make me write off the entire experience...

I'm looking forward to seeing this again tonight at the Forest Lake 5 theater near me, where it'll be shown on a double bill with the 1941 Wolf Man...!!

Gwynplaine wrote:Without giving anything away, this is a whole diffrent flick then the '41 version. The only thing that this movie has in common with the Chaney flick is the bare bones premise of the original storyline -
and even that gets "tweaked" here and there.
I do have one or two "beefs" with this retelling - but nothing to make me write off the entire experience...

I'll tell you two more things that I noticed: No CG animals were harmed in the making of this movie, and no minorities were maligned.

Catman Jim wrote:

Gwynplaine wrote:Without giving anything away, this is a whole diffrent flick then the '41 version. The only thing that this movie has in common with the Chaney flick is the bare bones premise of the original storyline -
and even that gets "tweaked" here and there.
I do have one or two "beefs" with this retelling - but nothing to make me write off the entire experience...

I'll tell you two more things that I noticed: No CG animals were harmed in the making of this movie, and no minorities were maligned.

So is it worth the price of a movie ticket to go see the movie?

Assuming you're not too broke, yes.

Saw it.

Visually stunning, and I loved the gothic look to the film.


[Spoiler - sort of...:]
Benicio del Toro can't act his way out of a paper bag. His expression never changed once. I think the director realized this, because there was an inordinate amount of scenes shot where he was talking but the camera was looking at something else, or the back of his head. Inexplicably, his mouth was wide open in every scene. It was like his nose was filled with gauze and he could only breath through his mouth.

Also, the musical score was good, but at times it was clear that Elfman was deliberately trying to copy Wojciech Kilar's soundtrack to Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Just saw it tonight.

Quite good-- but it fell short of greatness. It felt a tad underwritten somehow.

As for Del Toro, I haven't seen enough with him to know if he's a bad actor or if the role was not well-written.

Nice transformation work-- looked like a very careful mix of practicals and CGI (I don't think pure CGI would've rendered the hair that well).

ETA: And for those of you who saw it-- did any of you think that the asylum doctor was channeling Peter Lorre just a tad?

Can you tell me, how close it is to 40's version?

Paladyn wrote:Can you tell me, how close it is to 40's version?

Not very, though they do retain the aged gypsy and the "Even a man who is pure at heart" verse. The gore level is higher, of course, and one killing rampage felt like a (more successful than not) attempt to channel the black humor of American Werewolf in London.

Also, del Toro's hair and clothing seemed designed to make him resemble Oliver Reed in Curse of the Werewolf. I suspect that was deliberate.

Seems to be "must see". Maybe this Sunday?

Tween fan Taylor Lautner thinks it's a blatant ripoff of Twilight. Enjoy:
http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-l ... #idc-cover