MovieChat Forums > The Wolfman (2010) Discussion > Top ten reasons this movie flopped

Top ten reasons this movie flopped

posted 15 years ago by lunchbox0427
66 replies | jump to latest

10- Nobody owned an X-Box

9- Although this movie had a high body count none of it was done with the use of machetes or chainsaws

8- No Teenagers were beheaded while having sex in the woods

7- Nobody owns an Ipod

6- The absence of any bling

5- Nobody gets drunk or high

4- Almost all the actors are over the age of 21

3- Nobody sparkled in sunlight

2- No mention of Myspace or Facebook

1- No rap music

any sarcasm that may have been implied during this posting is completely intentional

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] huwdj 13 years ago

Probably all true but if I may add - I think they had too much money to spend. It all looked great - but did they really need a London rooftop chase or so much cgi ? Perhaps also the cast was too strong ? If you have Hugo Weaving, Art Malick and Anthony Sher then I guess you have to give them something to do but without them several scenes could have gone and a tighter film resulted. Having said that I thought Geraldine Chaplin made a great Maria Ouspenskaya http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0653642/ and I wish there had been more of her. I actually liked the film but I can see why it would struggle at the box office.

[–] Prichards12345 13 years ago

Thanks for the amusing original post. I'm not sure why it flopped but here's a few reasons I didn't like it.

1. It was a poorly-paced, uneasy mix of period horror and gore - It felt to me that the brass at Universal panicked and threw a load of blood and body parts at the viewer to try and make it more interesting to the very market the OP is attacking.

2. It isn't a patch on the original. I don't like re-makes generally, but 60 years apart in this case makes it perfectly acceptable. I just think the original has a better story, better drawn characters, and to be blunt, better actors. The make-up has dated, of course, but it's still a much better film than the re-make.

3. I like Hugo Weaving a lot but I thought his role was totally pointless. It sort of smacks of some exec saying. "Gee wouldn't it be cool if that Jack The Ripper guy was in the movie." The twist at the end was really painful. And anybody who didn't see the guff about Hopkins' character coming hasn't seen enough of these movies.

4. It looked great but was all style and no substance. The whole movie smacked of studio interference.

5. The love story was utterly unconvincing. Emily BLunt buries her fiance and then instantly falls for his brother? Come off it! A bad writer's contrivance.

Just my opinon, of course. I'm happy if people liked it: it did nothing for me.

Don't cheese me off.I'm running out of places to hide the bodies.

[–] psychocosmic-1 12 years ago

Agree with you totally! I just wanted to add one more point which I was disturbed by. Del Toro, whom I like and believes has plenty of talents and a special charisma, plays someone who seems not to be able to reach out with his emotion. To put it more clearly: I dont find the mr wolfman himself sympathetic at all. Feel nothing for him aside of all terrible things that he had gone through. The core of the heart of any werewolf/lycantropy film should be that we feel for the cursed one. And the talented Del Toro, achieved nothing. I bet he was directed to act the minimum, so common in these days. And that goes for the other actors as well. A cold film for a cold audience!
Thanks!

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] belva0308 11 years ago

I agree. This movie is so much better than the reviews on it that it astounds me. The look of it is gorgeous. The score is beautiful and sweeping and the acting is tremendous. That alone should give it a much better score. Frankly I'm past caring what others think. I own it and I am happy I do.

"We accept you, one of us! Gooble Gobble!"

[–] Just_Alex 11 years ago

I will give my 3 reasons:

1.- At some point, people get tired of genre films when they feel the market is oversaturated with similar films.

10 years ago, fantasy epics were very well received in the box office (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean), but at some point, there were too many fantasy films and films like The Golden Compass or the Narnia sequels underperformed.

People sometimes need to rest from genre films a couple of years. I think that The Wolfman created little buzz because it was released after all those Underworld, Van Helsing, and vampire movies.

2.- Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving are all good actors, but they are not box-office attractions, someone like Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, etcetera PROBABLY could create more interest with the audience.

3.- In addition to the little interest, word of mouth and reviews were not very kind. The visual and special effects are a mixed bag, some are good, some are kinda lame, so the reviews noted this, and it affected the film's reputation.

Also, too much gore, blood and guts for a mainstream movie, so, in the end, The Wolfman ended up as a niche film, probably hardcore horror aficionados have a greater respect for this film than the average moviegoer.

________________________________________________________________________________

My ratings:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5531916/ratings

[–] mam13143 11 years ago

If you look at the original, you see characters, not actors, with real emotion, and the wolfman was a wolf man. I think that really got lost in this one. And sadly I like Weaving but he was too obvious in this one. It might have been nice in color too instead of those washed out half tones they like today. Was so disappointed.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] biggiedickson 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure the mental patients (including Del Toro) were high as *beep* on old school psychotics.

[–] sean_currie7 10 years ago

I thought it had a good plot and I enjoyed most of the characterizations but the real weak points for me were the CGI effects and the Wolfman itself. Classic transformation scenes in An American Werewolf in London and The Howling looked realistic due to the latex effects and other methods which were employed. With this movie, the obvious CGI scenes ruined it for me. I also thought the actual appearance of the Wolfman could have been improved and he could have been made to look more feral and Wolf-like. It just looked to me like a guy running around in a hairy Wolf outfit and the torn clothes looked a little cheesy.

Overall, it wasn't a total disaster but it could have been way, way better. I still prefer the older Werewolf movies previously mentioned and I came away from this movie feeling a little disappointed.

[–] first-things-first 10 years ago

Awesome post. I will add pretentious even with the high production values.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world