Movie Review: The Wolfman (2010)
It's not bad, but it's also not that good
Photo: Universal Pictures
I am not against remakes. They're hit and miss, most of them simply bubble just above average since they are typically working with a scenario that worked once already so why wouldn't it work again? It's not as if Hollywood remakes films that were previously misses and turns them into hits. Instead we get the same story over again, simply adjusted for the modern era, which is really what makes Universal's The Wolfman such a sad commentary on the state of movies today.
In a world where movies are aimed at 13-14-year-olds (even the R-rated ones) and the fate of the film's finale is decided by 300-500 member test audiences we get the CG-driven blood bath devoid of story that is The Wolfman. Plot twists and turns are decided before you're given time to even consider the alternative and only the monster effects are left to applaud. A quality cast is laid to waste as The Wolfman's been in production since 2006, when Benicio Del Toro first signed on to star as the title character. It's had its share of production issues, which is all quite obvious in a final product that does nothing more than howl at the moon with a story left in hibernation.
The cast includes Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"The Wolfman" is a Universal Pictures release, directed by Joe Johnston and is rated R for bloody horror, violence and gore. The running time is 1 hour 42 minutes.
Del Toro is excellent casting and the creature effects — a combination of practical and visual effects (more for the transformation sequences) — are superbly designed by the Oscar-winning creature effects designer Rick Baker. However, making sure you have a film that looks good compared to a film that is good are two different things. For the most part I wouldn't say The Wolfman is a bad movie, it just isn't a good one. It's a film where all you are really looking forward to are the creature transformations and once that's happened the rest is just noise and growling.
Emily Blunt is wasted in a role that simply exists so she can write the letter bringing Lawrence home as well as offer something pretty to look at. Anthony Hopkins, playing Lawrence's father, is channeling any number of creepy roles we've seen him in prior to this one. Hopkins, for the most part, has become inconsequential. His casting in a movie no longer brings excitement as much as it means his name will be second or third in the film's billing.
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the film is its dedication to cheap thrills. Jump scares are the order of the day here. There is no sense of dread as much as there is just the hope you won't jump too high when whatever is hiding in the darkness pops out at you. Even worse, Johnston employs double jump scares in multitude. Oh, did something frighten you in the mirror? Well don't get too comfortable because it's going to … do it… again… right…. NOW! Gimme a break. Okay, you scared me. I jumped, but at what cost and what does the film gain? Nothing, I'm still watching the same boring story and pissed off because the scare wasn't genuine or lasting.
If you like creature effects and a bit of gore (but not overly so) you won't be sorely upset you caught The Wolfman in theaters, but I don't expect many will be rushing home telling their friends they must see it. Like I said, this is a film that is neither good nor bad, it just is.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 11 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
this movie has no interest and very forgetable with or without Del Toro
The double scares were a lil much. Fool me once…it got bad when they tried it again the second time.
Weaving's character in the film was not utilized like it should have been. Like Hopkins character, they wasted him away to only a few scenes where the actor did not get a chance to shine. Del Toro was good, but this movie was a let down to me.
Also look out for Andy Serkis as Gollum in this movie too.
The problem with this movie, in my opinion, is that there are too many cliches being used. And since there were so many, I could predict exactly what was going to happen, even though they were obviously trying to bring a new spin to the old story. It didn't work for me, and I was really sad about it as the credits rolled. Del Toro is a great actor, obviously, because only top quality acting (Blunt and Hopkins and Weaving included) can droll through something like this. Why don't they make 'em like they used to?
@Brian: Yes!!! I totally thought that too!
How about that ending? Horrible ending. I could have at least tolerated having had sat through this movie if it wasn't for the terrible conclusion.
I went to see this last night. Brad, I think your judgement on this one may have been swayed after watching two terrible movies that this wasn't as bad.
I thought it was way worse than you said, felt very rushed and terribly edited. Del Toro was the only shining light.
First the movie was touted as staying traditional to the 1940s. So why must Hollywood inject "2" villains like the Hulk, Ironman? The original had a man bitten by a gypsy werewolf he kills in the attack. Then he carries the curse until his father kills him. Simple, clean. Why do we need "2" werewolves?? Total waste, I "think" it showed weak screenplay writing. I liked Del Toro, he showed dedication to the part. Hopkins stunk, sorry. He reminded me of Nick Nolty in the Hulk, wasting camera time to fit him in the overall mystery. 1 werewolf occupying the movie and his struggle with the curse was all that was needed. Secondly, the makeup looked more like an angry poodle than wolf.
Lastly the howling was 1970sish, needed more a painful howl then what was given.
The double jump scares were ridiculous and pissed me off. And what the hell was Gollum doing there?
This movie possessed an array of excellent actors thrust into shallow, empty roles to which they were unable to bring any real semblance of life. Every bad modern-day horror movie trait was used in abundance – and built upon to previously unseen heights (or, more precisely, dug to previously unseen lows) as with the "double-jump" scares. Add to that the fact that psychological terror and dread is completely absent, in favor of a gore-fest unrivaled by almost any other mainstream movie that I've ever seen; it's enough to give Peter Jackson a warm, sunny glow. The only good thing about this movie was the casting of Benicio Del Toro as the main character; the man fails to disappoint, as usual. It's a pity that nobody else does.
Ok I had to say something, I grew up in the 50's, but come on, its been 60 years. I hated this movie, so boring, also if your legs grow and hands why not your face. I hate the fact that wild best don't mind a shirt, vest and a tie. I felt like I was watching XMEN, I can't get my dog to wear a hat. And he is happy not crazed by the moon. Ok that's my rant. even tho I was watching the same movie and screen writing for hours. OK here is the good stuff. They had all the great technology at there disposal and what great actors. Good jobs guys and ladies. I use to be an art director. Maybe they should of asked for some of their imput. I don't think a copy of an old 50's theme is a not a good idea. We where scared at the drive in but I need more now, Good lord I've seen Avitar.. How about a story line that went along these lines. The inspector and werwolf have a common bond, a fight to the fittest in body and mind? leave the girl as a secondary theme. I think, and I bet anyone that is reading this has some sort of intellect, We need more than just boo here and there and that the bad guy is ugly and stinky, grrrrrr he is ugly but, where is his snout, lol
Ok I'm an ass but this is my opinion and that all it is.