MovieChat Forums > An American Werewolf in Paris (1997) Discussion > Much better than I remembered...

Much better than I remembered...

posted 10 years ago by ActionJunkie007
5 replies | jump to latest

I'll be the first to admit, I had a distaste for this film when it first came out, being such a diehard London fan and the whole Practical versus CGI effects debate, I firmly planted my feet, made my stance, and never once looked back after seeing it in 1997.

Well, after having watched London during our current movie marathon, my wife, who always felt Paris was better, wanted to give it another go around. So we tracked down the dvd and to my suprise, I actually had alot of fun with it! While the CGI is still a tad lacking, it was 1997 so I can give it a pass and overall, they did TRY to match the look a bit from London, so that aspect didn't bother me at all. It has some good humorous moments, and overall, a decent enough story that moved along pretty well!

While I still have to give the "best" title to London, I would not have any issues having this sitting next to it on my shelf. But come out with a bluray, dammit, the dvd wasnt even enhanced for widescreen tvs! Solid 8 out of 10 though...

What say you?

Best Bond - Pierce Brosnan, Best Bond Movie - Die Another Day

[–] Electric-101 10 years ago

Is the DVD pan and scan or letterbox non-anamorphic widescreen?

[–] ActionJunkie007 10 years ago

The one I had was non-anamorphic. I noticed something was up right away, everyone seemed too wide and stubby, I know I have a setting to correct it but many times, the image then becomes overblown and its too zoomed in to fit right. Not a deal breaker, and thankfully, not pan and scan, but still, a proper 1:85 ratio Bluray would be nice!

Best Bond - Pierce Brosnan, Best Bond Movie - Die Another Day

[–] americanadian25 10 years ago

Personally I despise An American Werewolf in Paris, not just because I love the original but because it's just not a good movie. Most of the actors seem lost, a lot of the characters are unlikable, the effects are heinous (as you mentioned), and the attempts at humor are painfully unfunny.

Even in the original, if you took away the top-notch practical effects, you still had a film with a fascinating concept, likable characters, and a writer/director who not only had a good understanding of comic timing and suspesne but also a genuine love for classic Hollywood monster movies. None of that came through in the sequel

Actually did a review of the films right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tam-q9GR87Q

[–] beto_sp0004 10 years ago

I always loved that movie, but I confess that Tom Everet Scott's blue eyes and Phil Buckman's shirtless body have a great part in my liking this film...shallow I know, but what can I do about it.

;-)

[–] Dan_Garten 9 years ago

Cool.