Considered a comedy horror film directed by Anthony Waller, An American Werewolf in Paris was stuck in development for six years! Waller had to co-writers Tim Burns and Tom Stern […]
Considered a comedy horror film directed by Anthony Waller, An American Werewolf in Paris was stuck in development for six years! Waller had to co-writers Tim Burns and Tom Stern to help out with this much anticipated sequel to the John Landis film An American Werewolf in London and was shot in the UK, Netherlands, France, Luxembourg, and the United States.
The film revolves around our hero, Andy McDermott (Tom Everet Scott), who is a hapless tourist seeking excitement in Paris with his friends Brand and Chris. When atop the Eiffel Tower planning an illegal bungee jump in the middle of the night, the beautiful Serafine (Julie Deply) arrives looking grim and sad. Holding a suicide note she leaps from the top of the Eiffel Tower in an attempt at suicide. Andy leaps off in a heroic gesture and catches Serafine before she meets her doom with a bungee jump.
Andy immediately falls in love and then goes on a stalk the woman of his dreams. Too bad for Andy she’s a werewolf and you kinda get the plot by now I’m sure. Star crosses and cursed from the start let the heart eating commence!
Unlike American Werewolf in London, Rick Baker has nothing to do with the film so it relied on CGI rather than Baker’s Oscar award winning makeup and special effects. It looks and feels completely different, even the chase sequences use a lot of CGI and it really doesn’t look that good.
American Werewolf in Paris never reaches the success of American Werewolf in London but they definitely had the budget to try. This is a great film to watch still. Perfect no, but it’s a good time killer. The acting is good, story-line isn’t a complete lost cause, and it’s good indicator of how a horror franchise can go in the wrong direction right from movie two.
So tie those bungee cords tight and your woman even tighter! This is still a good spooky thrill!
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors
You must log in to post a comment.