ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Aug 7 08 1:29 AM
Aug 7 08 1:40 AM
I personally feel that it would be really stupid not to take advantage of what can be done with CGI, just as I think it is stupid not to take advantage of what can be done with makeup effects as well. A marriage of the two techniques ,I think, would make for the best transformation.
Aug 7 08 2:32 AM
Dr Borgo wrote: I agree. Well put Johnny.
Thank you Herr Borgo! And I agreed about the CGI morphing werewolf. As done in VAN HELSING it looked exactly like what it is--a computerized effect. You can practically see the pixels shifting shape and being manipulated while viewing. What I think is so neat about AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON's transformation scene while it involves prosthetics and even robotic components to achieve the effect--because they're actual physical objects (and not digital information)--it also looks like a physical person (of some sort) with warped proportions...and seems as real as something as fantastic as a werewolf can be. Though I know it's a special effect it's so natural looking in execution I barely realize that it's an effect...something that I can't say for the werewolf in VAN HELSING (or that movies take on Mr. Hyde).In fact I'd say the transformation in AWIL is so good (and ground-breaking) it has yet to be matched in subsequent werewolf pictues.
Aug 7 08 5:51 AM
In other words, I like the way Rick did the transformation in AWIL. Though obviously not CGI, it was really believable as what a human turning into a werewolf might be like. Hot flashes, bones breaking and just an all around painful ordeal for poor ol' David Kessler back in 1981. Morphing werewolves are just boring and take me out of the movie.
Aug 7 08 8:01 AM
Aug 7 08 11:20 PM
Aug 8 08 1:19 AM
Aug 8 08 3:00 AM
Aug 8 08 7:23 AM
Aug 8 08 5:20 PM
Dr Mirakle32 wrote: ALL good horror movies need little comedy to balance things out. Sure, AWIL has more than most, but let's look at some of the greats: THE INVISIBLE MAN, THE BLACK CAT, KING KONG, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, DAWN OF THE DEAD, THE EXORCIST, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, and the EVIL DEAD series, to name a few. All are noted for both their horror, and their humor.
I despise the EVIL DEAD sequels and DEAD ALIVE (aka "BRAIN DEAD"), as well as films like those silly RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD jokefests. I think there is a difference between "comic relief" in horror films and comedies masquerading as horror films - like AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. I love BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN even though there's comedy, but it's still more of a fairytale story to me than anything, so it works for me.
Aug 8 08 5:52 PM
Aug 8 08 8:09 PM
Burgomaster
Aug 8 08 8:25 PM
Aug 8 08 8:38 PM
Aug 9 08 3:55 AM
Joe Karlosi wrote: I think there is a difference between "comic relief" in horror films and comedies masquerading as horror films - like AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.
I think there is a difference between "comic relief" in horror films and comedies masquerading as horror films - like AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.
I don't think it's quite fair to say these films are masquerading. I don't think they were trying to trick anyone into thinking they weren't going to be funny. Horror and comedy can make a great blend and a really entertaining picture. What about Young Frankenstein, or the recent Shaun of the Dead? I love these films.
American Werewolf in London is an extremely entertaining movie and I'll always adore it.
Aug 9 08 6:13 AM
Aug 9 08 6:27 AM
I don't think it's quite fair to say these films are masquerading. I don't think they were trying to trick anyone into thinking they weren't going to be funny.
Horror and comedy can make a great blend and a really entertaining picture. What about Young Frankenstein, or the recent Shaun of the Dead? I love these films.
Aug 9 08 9:23 AM
Well, I do. I went to the theater in 1981 thinking I was getting a horror movie and I got a silly movie which did not take itself very seriously. Those dumb scenes with the guy's dead decaying pal visiting him and cracking gags was the height of stupidity for a "horror movie".
Aug 9 08 9:37 AM
Aug 9 08 9:48 AM
GaryP11111 wrote: Well, I do. I went to the theater in 1981 thinking I was getting a horror movie and I got a silly movie which did not take itself very seriously. Those dumb scenes with the guy's dead decaying pal visiting him and cracking gags was the height of stupidity for a "horror movie". Those are genius! With that little piece of wiggling flesh? Genius! What I find enchanting about the humor in AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is that it feels real. That's how two buds walking across the moors would talk to each other while confronted by a howling, growling unknown. Those first scenes set up the relationship between the two and the later visits from the dead friend remains consistent to those opening sequences. Even in the unreality of those visits their relationship is convincing. They're two close friends with a dizzy sense of humor. That's also how a lot of people face very serious situations. Genius!
I feel the same way as Gary. Genius!
The entire opening of the film, from the time the guys get off the sheep truck to the time the werewolf is gunned down on the moors, is some of the scariest film making I've ever seen.
The visits from Jack later in the film are both humorous (in that you almost forget he's a corpse) and chilling ("Beware the moon, David"). I think the humor fits because David doesn't know for sure if Jack is really there or if it's a hallucination. Rather than acting like a spooky zombie from beyond, Jack is acting just like he always did, casual and amusing, yet grim and stern when time starts to run out for David. It all adds to the surreal nature of what's going on (Is David imagining this? Is Jack real? What the heck is going on here?!).
Maybe not everybody's cup of tea, but certainly one of my all-time favorite films.
Share This