258.
Yesterday I spoiled myself more than I probably should have. I left Best Buy with four CDs (Iron & Wine's "The Creek Drank the Cradle"; Mika's "Life in Cartoon Motion" and "The Boy Who Knew Too Much"; Lady Gaga's "The Fame Monster") and The Matrix Collection (the trilogy plus The Animatrix). No matter how ridiculous that series got towards the third installment I still have intense ladywood for it. The little bit of sci-fi geekery in me is all thanks to the Wachowski brothers. Don't you judge me!
Caught The Wolfman with Joe and Jacqueline last night as well. None too thrilled with it, sad2say.
Benicio Del Toro, who looks quite lupine to begin with, was nonetheless miscast as the lead. He's well-suited to darker, more dramatic roles and the character of Lawrence Talbot was rather shallow. Del Toro's not at fault, he plays it as well as he can considering how poor a job the writer's did fleshing out his character.
Sir Anthony Hopkins wasn't anything noteworthy, either. His character was sauve and sort of crazy, just like every other role Hopkins has had for the past two decades. Think Professor Van Helsing meets Hannibal Lecter, who are both still far more interesting and unsettling than Sir John Talbot.
Emily Blunt, however, was outstanding. Her role called for several very emotional scenes and she performed them all beautifully. She didn't simper, she didn't whine. She retained all the sensitive dignity of a grieving woman in the Victorian era.
Speaking of the Victorian era, for a horror film set in the 1890s it had absolutely no atmosphere whatsoever. Sure, there's a spooky, palatial estate overlooking a misty moor, but it was nothing more than a backdrop. Even the vibrant coterie of a gypsy caravan early in the movie seemed very bland.
Another major gripe I have were the highly inappropriate musical cues. For instance, Emily Blunt is flipping through a book on lycanthropy, which could be a mildly tense scene if it weren't for the shrieking violins in the background. Danny Elfman, in a tip of the hat, composed the soundtrack in the same manner that Wojciech Kilar did for Bram Stoker's Dracula, and anyone who has seen that movie knows what a headache-inducer the soundtrack could be. The only difference is that Kilar knew when to hit a crescendo at the perfect moment while Elfman, who actually tones it down for his Burton films, did not.
That's not to say that The Wolfman was completely dreadful. The transformation sequences were nothing short of incredible. You viscerally felt every shift of bone and strain of muscle as Lawrence succumbed to the werewolf's curse time and time again. The CGI didn't look like CGI, but rather like a painstakingly perfect stop-motion technique using only makeup and prosthetics, which were all that comprised the gorgeous final product. If Rick Baker (who sports an impressive resumé) doesn't win some kind of award for his work I will be genuinely surprised. The wolf man of 1941 convincingly looked more wolf than man, but Baker's efforts definitely trump the original in that Del Toro is terrifying.
I was very satisfied with the violence, too. It was savage and swift with limbs flying, guts spilling and heads being lobbed off the same way people flick fuzz from their wool sweaters. It was animalistic, out of control and remorseless, just as it should have been.
In closing, for anyone who is going to see this movie I extend this warning to you: if The Wolfman had a subtitle it would be Jump Scare. I lost count out of how many times the filmmakers tried to frighten the audience out of our seats. It was effective at first, but grows tiresome around the one-hour mark.
Overall: ** ½ out of *****
EDIT; LOL OH YEAH Happy fuckin' Valentine's Day.
Caught The Wolfman with Joe and Jacqueline last night as well. None too thrilled with it, sad2say.
Benicio Del Toro, who looks quite lupine to begin with, was nonetheless miscast as the lead. He's well-suited to darker, more dramatic roles and the character of Lawrence Talbot was rather shallow. Del Toro's not at fault, he plays it as well as he can considering how poor a job the writer's did fleshing out his character.
Sir Anthony Hopkins wasn't anything noteworthy, either. His character was sauve and sort of crazy, just like every other role Hopkins has had for the past two decades. Think Professor Van Helsing meets Hannibal Lecter, who are both still far more interesting and unsettling than Sir John Talbot.
Emily Blunt, however, was outstanding. Her role called for several very emotional scenes and she performed them all beautifully. She didn't simper, she didn't whine. She retained all the sensitive dignity of a grieving woman in the Victorian era.
Speaking of the Victorian era, for a horror film set in the 1890s it had absolutely no atmosphere whatsoever. Sure, there's a spooky, palatial estate overlooking a misty moor, but it was nothing more than a backdrop. Even the vibrant coterie of a gypsy caravan early in the movie seemed very bland.
Another major gripe I have were the highly inappropriate musical cues. For instance, Emily Blunt is flipping through a book on lycanthropy, which could be a mildly tense scene if it weren't for the shrieking violins in the background. Danny Elfman, in a tip of the hat, composed the soundtrack in the same manner that Wojciech Kilar did for Bram Stoker's Dracula, and anyone who has seen that movie knows what a headache-inducer the soundtrack could be. The only difference is that Kilar knew when to hit a crescendo at the perfect moment while Elfman, who actually tones it down for his Burton films, did not.
That's not to say that The Wolfman was completely dreadful. The transformation sequences were nothing short of incredible. You viscerally felt every shift of bone and strain of muscle as Lawrence succumbed to the werewolf's curse time and time again. The CGI didn't look like CGI, but rather like a painstakingly perfect stop-motion technique using only makeup and prosthetics, which were all that comprised the gorgeous final product. If Rick Baker (who sports an impressive resumé) doesn't win some kind of award for his work I will be genuinely surprised. The wolf man of 1941 convincingly looked more wolf than man, but Baker's efforts definitely trump the original in that Del Toro is terrifying.
I was very satisfied with the violence, too. It was savage and swift with limbs flying, guts spilling and heads being lobbed off the same way people flick fuzz from their wool sweaters. It was animalistic, out of control and remorseless, just as it should have been.
In closing, for anyone who is going to see this movie I extend this warning to you: if The Wolfman had a subtitle it would be Jump Scare. I lost count out of how many times the filmmakers tried to frighten the audience out of our seats. It was effective at first, but grows tiresome around the one-hour mark.
Overall: ** ½ out of *****
EDIT; LOL OH YEAH Happy fuckin' Valentine's Day.