I thought this was a very well-done remake of Universal's 1941 "The Wolf Man" (one of their last "classic" horror films with all the famous monsters we now know and love). Although yes, parts of the storyline were different from the original 1941 Lon Chaney Jr. version, I was still quite glad to see how much detail and care the 2010 Benicio Del Toro version gave to recreating (as if in direct tribute to) the overall "feel" of the original, particularly in the visual/atmospheric sense.
The gore, shock, and special effects of today were there, but none were overdone and all were well within the context of the story. These shots were usually shown quickly and/or in shadowy darkness, yet still you saw enough to realize what actually was happening or had happened.
Now some of the negative reviews here seem to be from people who may not be too familiar with films from the past to put "The Wolfman" in proper perspective; the "bad" acting or "understated" acting is one complaint in particular. On the contrary, the "understated" acting was not "bad" and actually served a strong purpose: to show the contrast between the calm and the following storm. Just like in "Silence of the Lambs", it was that eerie calmness of Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Hannibal Lecter that made him even more terrifying when we finally get a glimpse into the depths of his true savage nature.
As a fan of older movies, the current films I do enjoy are those that can use (not OVER-use) special effects and such that appeal to today's jaded, de-sensitized audiences, but yet stay respectfully true to the classics of old Hollywood where it all began. Perhaps I'm simply not as cynical and "cool" as are those who grew up with the gorefest-slasher, blowup-everything-in-sight, CGI-to-the-max, and sexius-gratuitous movies that have so dominated the box office today (albiet not always succe$$fully) ...and I'm proud of it. :)
So my thanks and my hat's off to director Joe Johnston and the entire cast and crew ...I even liked Hugo Weaving without a mask! lol
The gore, shock, and special effects of today were there, but none were overdone and all were well within the context of the story. These shots were usually shown quickly and/or in shadowy darkness, yet still you saw enough to realize what actually was happening or had happened.
Now some of the negative reviews here seem to be from people who may not be too familiar with films from the past to put "The Wolfman" in proper perspective; the "bad" acting or "understated" acting is one complaint in particular. On the contrary, the "understated" acting was not "bad" and actually served a strong purpose: to show the contrast between the calm and the following storm. Just like in "Silence of the Lambs", it was that eerie calmness of Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Hannibal Lecter that made him even more terrifying when we finally get a glimpse into the depths of his true savage nature.
As a fan of older movies, the current films I do enjoy are those that can use (not OVER-use) special effects and such that appeal to today's jaded, de-sensitized audiences, but yet stay respectfully true to the classics of old Hollywood where it all began. Perhaps I'm simply not as cynical and "cool" as are those who grew up with the gorefest-slasher, blowup-everything-in-sight, CGI-to-the-max, and sexius-gratuitous movies that have so dominated the box office today (albiet not always succe$$fully) ...and I'm proud of it. :)
So my thanks and my hat's off to director Joe Johnston and the entire cast and crew ...I even liked Hugo Weaving without a mask! lol