User Reviews

Viewers at IMDb have not been kind to this film with a 5.8 rating (as I write this). I didn't think it was all that bad, with an intriguing story line and Rick Baker's special effects to bring the wolf men of the story to life. The segue of Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) spending some time in an asylum for a year after witnessing his father (Anthony Hopkins) slitting his mother's throat made for some creepy background to their conflicted relationship. The darkness of the sets add to the sense of foreboding once we know what will happen to Lawrence after he's bitten by his Dad, the half man/half wolf creature who's destined to kill the ones he loves. The one thing I'd criticize would be some of those sequences that show the wolf men on all fours during an attack; those scenes looked a little clunky to me. Something the picture didn't make any hay out of was the eventual fate of Scotland Yard detective Francis Aberline (Hugo Weaving). Seems to me he was a candidate to become a wolf man in waiting once he got slashed during his brief encounter. The look on his face said the worst was yet to come if anyone had an idea about a sequel.

The Wolfman its a remake of the 1941 horror classic The Wolfman, both movies are really good and rely on their atmosphere and their effects.

This movie its actually a bit better than the original but its a very disliked film, for some reason.

The film has everything that you want from a horror monster movie, the Gothic atmosphere, the gore, the effects, the characters.

The make up effects are the work of Rick Baker, who has worked on another really good werewolf film, American Werewolf In London.

The directors cut its amazing, I don't know if the original Theatrical release had this much gore, but its great anyway.

The film takes the best from the original universal classics and the best from the Hammer era, a must from horror fans.

"The Wolfman" is a perfect choice for updating. So much of the 1941 flick rested on good production and make-up design and now we have this lush remake from director Joe Johnston and screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker. The plot comes up a little short but for the most part they've created an awesome-looking film that also comes in just right in the spooky/gory department.

Benicio Del Torro takes over for Lon Chaney jr. as Lawrence Talbot, returning to his London home many years after the suicide of his mother. He is reunited with his estranged father, Sir John (Anthony Hopkins), and with his brother's grieving fiancée, Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt). There have been many killings in the village and most of the mutterings among the villagers are of a lunatic let loose in the forest. Lawrence soon comes face to face with this evil as it attacks him one night, leaving bite marks before escaping. The attack leaves the villagers very wary of Talbot and even Scotland Yard Inspector Abberline (Hugo Weaving) takes a considerable interest in him as a suspect. Of course none manage to stop him before turning into a werewolf on the prowl. As Lawrence tries to control the beast within himself, he learns of a terrible secret about his family that could put Gwen in danger.

Even the original was meagerly plotted at only 70 minutes. This "Wolfman" hovers around 95, wisely excising more of the meaningless talk (about Lawrence possibly be deluded, and lycan mythology), changing some plot points around (I liked the family dynamic introduced at the mid-point), and still keeping most of the better drama in-tact. Essentially the movie is a creature-feature-actioner (there is even a final showdown between two werewolves) but when you have production values, scares, and excitement like this, that's hardly a bad thing. Johnston nails the atmosphere just right, dark, dreary and foggy and with very ominous shots of the moon. The film has a quick pace and is helped out mightily by Rick Baker's phenomenal make-up effects, Danny Elfman's haunting score, and a bloody good time where heads, arms, and so on are ripped from bodies. The creature effects, from the transformation to the carnage, is a lot of fun and exactly what people want to see from a flick like this. Benicio plays the tormented hero perfectly, wearing the emotional and psychological strain of being cursed all over his face. Blunt holds her own pretty well in an unfortunately underwritten love story and Hopkins is as sly as ever as Sir John Talbot. Flawed, but a howlingly good re-boot

Written: October 7, 2009

While I was waiting in line to see Paranormal Activity last Friday, I was invited to an early screening of a 're-imagining of a classic horror film'. Today, I took my invitation and went across town to get to the early screening. I didn't know what the hell they were going to be showing us. Many were hoping it would be A Nightmare On Elm Street or The Wolfman. I thought that either would be too good to be true. Every seat was filled up in the theater, and I was sitting next to some film critics and some film industry big-shots. After an hour of waiting in my seat, a lady came up in front of the screen and announced that we would be among the first to see The Wolfman. Everyone in the theater cheered loudly, and one guy even stood up and held a fist in the air screaming. I'm sure he made a mess in his pants due to his excitement.

So this is my review of what I was shown. There may be some minor changes done to the film before its theatrical release, but I doubt its anything that would alter my review.

'The Wolfman' Review The film is a remake of the 1941 horror film of the same name. The central plot follows Lawrence Talbot (Benicio del Toro), a man who re-unites with his father (Anthony Hopkins) after learning his brother has been brutally murdered. Talbot, who has had a distant relationship with his family, decides to stay home in order to discover what happened to his brother. As he gets deeper into his 'investigation', he unravels secrets from his childhood and crosses path with the werewolf, which eventually bites him and makes him a target.

Let me start off with some of the positives of the film. The performances in the movie were absolutely fantastic. Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Hugo Weaving, and Emily Blunt all delivered and really brought their characters to life. It's always good to have great performances in a horror/action film. Everything seems genuine and all of the characters are very engaging. The set pieces and cinematography are all beautifully created. There's a lot of eye candy in this film just as far as the sets are concerned, and I really love the atmosphere this film created. The visuals I saw were pretty cool, although some of them were still in progress. I imagine the visuals will be awesome when the film is released next year. The music is also pretty unique and memorable. I rarely comment on the score of a film, but this one really had some great music.

Some other things that impressed me were the action sequences and the 'kills'. The action sequences are pretty exciting and they'll keep you at the edge of your seat. Just when you think it's safe... something crazy happens and mayhem ensues. The 'kills' are also pretty awesome. The werewolf in this film is pretty insane, so expect to see a lot of blood, gore, and human body parts flying around all over the place. The violence, along with the dark atmosphere, really gave a suspenseful experience.

While the film had lots of positive sides to it, it also had its fare share of negative attributes. The one thing that aggravated me the most was the pacing of the film. It starts off slow to introduce the characters and setting, and then all of a sudden it kicks to high gear. After it has some fast scenes (which sometimes feel as if you just skipped ahead and missed something entirely), the film will go back to a slow pacing. What I'm trying to say is that the film's pacing was pretty inconsistent. The pacing stems off and creates other problems, such as poor story elements. I feel as if some of the mysteries in the film were just solved by adding a few lines to the script. The writers probably said amongst themselves:

"So, how does this happen?"

"Umm...I don't know, let's just add this line or sub-plot"

The story even forgets to answer some questions that may have been burning in your mind, and when you leave the theater you wonder why these questions were never answered (you can blame the writing and fast-paced scenes for that). Emily Blunt's character also seemed to be useless, and was just added to give off some romance. Finally, the ending wasn't that great. I wish it gave off more of a conclusion, but the ending just wasn't for me.

Overall, The Wolfman is a fun horror/action film. The acting is great, the sets and visuals are awesome, and the action sequences are pretty cool. There are also some pretty nice kills in this one for all of you blood/gore fans. While the film can be fun, the plot suffers from the film's inconsistent pacing, which eventually leaves some plot holes. Trust me, the trailer makes this flick seem a lot cooler than it actually is. Just eat your popcorn and leave your mind at home...it's just brainless fun.

Overall Rating: 6/10

The movie seemed to start with promise. Great opening scene filled with atmosphere. But it quickly grew old. The "characters" had no depth and I neither believed or cared about them. The music was intrusive, not giving you a moment to maybe let you decide how to feel about a scene or two. It was if it was trying too hard to be a stereotypical horror movie. It just seemed to miss the point. You know the way sometimes the most frightening parts of a horror movie, are the moments where you don't get to see the horrific act or scary monster. Its left to you the audience to imagine it. Well this movie doesn't do that. And we all know we can conceive worse scenarios than are portrayed on screen. The director doesn't trust us. The cinema was emptying around me around the half way point of the movie and I wished I had joined them now. But I thought it might redeem itself in the end. Instead I was left feeling bored and wishing I had spent my money on something, anything else!

Remakes, especially of horror films, generally tend to fall into three categories: 1)Crap. 2)Improvement. 3)Ones which improve on some things, but aren't so effective at others. This film is a textbook example of #3; it manages to come up with a remarkably clever twist on the original's plot which ties together a lot of disparate elements of the original and fleshes out character back-story. But it also fails at capturing the magic of the original's themes, or comes up with great new ideas, but does little with them. For example, here we are given a plausible back-story for Larry Talbot(Benicio Del Toro, who looks like a cross between Lon Chaney Jr & Oliver Reed)'s estrangement from his father, Sir John(something only vaguely explained in the original), a traumatic event in his childhood which builds up sympathy for him, and a plausible reason for why everyone dislikes and suspects him(he was once committed to an asylum in his youth). But the pathos Lon Chaney Jr built up in the original was based off of how no one believed him and thought he was insane; here, he gets caught after his first night out! A major theme in the original, subtly handled(not often you can say subtle discussing a Universal horror film)was how Sir John was inadvertently the film's real villain for his terrible parenting; here, Sir John flat out IS the villain!!! Another example of this problem comes from this version's handling of Larry's romance with Gwen(Emily Blunt); it comes up with a plausible reason for why she falls in love with him so swiftly(she was engaged to his deceased brother, who he reminds her of), but their romance doesn't come into play until late into the film, so no one really cares by that point.

These aren't the film's only flaws either; Benicio Del Toro is a fine actor, and he manages to capture Larry's suffering and lifetime of hardships, but he doesn't get to do anything else before he's bitten and becomes a werewolf. In the original, we got to know and like Larry, who was a horny, fun loving, not-too-bright, but likable fish-out-of-water. It was what made his fate all the more tragic. While I'm not saying that Del Toro is not as good an actor as Chaney Jr(Jr never could compete with his famous father in the acting department), he doesn't get a chance to make us get to know or give a crap about Larry other than: 'His life sucks, he's depressed'. Like I said, this isn't a slam against Del Toro, but he doesn't get a chance to turn in a really good performance. His dialog delivery also sucks; he's one of those actors who can emote excellently, but always flubs his lines. The film is also too fast-paced at times; this is literally a "blink and you'll miss it" sort of film.

Inspite of these flaws, the film still works as an out and out monster bash. For anyone who grew up as a "Monster Kid" in the 60's and 70's who made up their own monster scenarios in their head; this is everything they ever liked about Universal, Hammer(yes I know they made only one werewolf film) and Paul Naschy's werewolf films rolled into one. I can safely say that in terms of action, monster-design, atmosphere and gore, this is the best werewolf movie ever made: It's what you wanted, but never got. And best of all, the werewolf isn't some lame CGI effect that looks like a walking dog(like the crappy 'werewolves' of "Underworld" etc.), it's an actual guy in makeup(the transformations are CGI though, but that I can forgive). That alone makes this film praise-worthy. I always find it more satisfying to actually have something in front of the camera. The high-point of the werewolf scenes is when Talbot transforms in front of a bunch of Nazi-like psychiatrists and slaughters them before going out and wrecking London(yes, this version is in London, not Wales).

The atmosphere is great. The cinematography is the best I've seen in a modern film. It's like Mario Bava, Freddie Francis and Terrence Fisher(horror's greatest visually-oriented directors) all came back from the dead and collaborated on this. Every scene is like a painting. I'm definitely buying one of those "Art of" books for this movie.

The murder sequences are also awesome. My favorite is when a guy gets stuck in a bog while fleeing from the Wolf Man; He tries to kill himself, but his gun is jammed, so the Wolf Man decapitates him in one swipe. That alone is worth seeing the film for.

The acting is also good, Hugo Weaving is great as hypocritical police inspector Aberline(former foe of Jack the Ripper), this guy is one of those lawman antagonists you love to hate. Anthony Hopkins(as Sir John), as usual, steals the show. Whoever it was playing Maleva the gypsy was good too, I just wish she was given more screen-time, Maleva was my favorite character in the original.

Not great art, and certainly flawed, but a fun thrill ride for lovers of classic horror. I just wish that Paul Naschy(aka. Jacinto Molina), who starred in many werewolf films in his native Spain, had lived to see it(he died last year). I dedicate this review to him.~

"The Wolfman" is a 2010 horror drama directed by Joe Johnston starring Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins. ⚪ All in all, Joe Johnston feral remake of the classic Universal feature might have its lengthy (lunar) phases and takes a long time until it bares its newly sharpened teeth, but when it does, the howling becomes monstrously, the snarling beastly and the claws razor-sharp, as the outstanding effects by maestro Rick Baker are downright brutal and shocking, and the performances as well as the script are decent enough (not perfect) to make it an atmospheric, moody, yet undeniably flawed reimagining of a classic that is way too stylishly and traditionally crafted to deserve the hate it has received received. ⚪ Even thought the full moon hasn't shown its beauty tonight, I thought I would spend the second Saturday of Spooktober with a title that I consider to be underappreciated and underrated. As it is a favourite of my father, I have received it from him as the second Blu-Ray for my new collection after I have bought my first player, hence this film and I share a long history. It has been a while since I have watched and initially liked it, hence I was afraid that it, now that my taste in films has massively changed, would not hold up to the praise I expressed back in the day. Even if it wasn't exactly as great as then, I was yet positively surprised by the outcome. First of all, let us talk about the cast. It has its undeniable pros and cons, I am not gonna whitewash it. Emily Blunt has probably delivered one of her poorest performances in her whole career, Hugo Weaving was terribly underused as the leading investigator and Anthony Hopkins has seen better days as well, but I am still impressed by Benicio Del Toro's indisputably fantastic performance as the titular lycanthrope. Not only does he bare a scary resemblance to Lon Chaney Jr., (for those who don't know: the actor playing the titular in the original from fourty-one), he also captures the tortured and haunted natured of Lawrence Talbot superbly. Aside from this, I also just love the whole style of the film. Gritty set pieces, a chilling cinematography and picture-perfect costumes are the three main reasons why the movie appeals to me so much - and I haven't even mentioned the most masterful aspect of the whole thing: the effects. Rick Baker, the man responsible for the genre defining special effects in John Landis' horror comedy gem "An American Werewolf In London", returned to the lycanthropy category, with the aim to use the modern technology to make it even better than in the early eighties. Let's put it this way: saying that he has outdone himself would still be an understatement. While the creature design is extremely true to the one that has been used in the Chaney feature and hence isn't that terrifying, the transformation scenes and what the beast does therefore are still some of the best effects I have seen (and it literally has been a decade). From cracking bones to slowly growing fur and bleeding teeth, the metamorphosis sequences offers all to make you cringe (in a good way), and once the monster has been unleashed, it wreaks havoc in exquisite detail. Torn off limbs and impaling are only the beginning of it, what I totally admire are scenes like decapitation or when the beast literally eats a man alive. Absolutely terrifying! Next to the graphic brutality and violence, there is also another aspect that I think has been undeservedly ignored: the dramatic core of the whole story. Unlike in the original, Lawrence and his father, John Talbot, share and unhealthy relationship that has a metaphorical aspect to it. It is implied that Lawrence hasn't really recovered from the untimely death of his beloved mother and has always secretly thought that it was his father who was responsible for it, even when different treatments have talked him out of it. What I find so interesting is that there is a whole domestic abuse metaphor hidden in plain side of which the core statement is that men sometimes can become beasts that kill what they claim to love most. Noticing this made me appreciate it even more, especially when Lawrence finds out about the truth. The entire allegory unfolds even more when our protagonist is also infected with this "curse" and unwittingly begins to cause the same kind of damage his father has done, something he swore to never do. This becomes even more clear when he falls for Gwen Conliffe, someone who later tries to tame the beast that is also the one she loves. Do you know what I mean? It is subliminally philosophic and toys with the concept of where to draw the line between man and monster, and I think this is kind of brilliant. What is it, then, that keeps me from bestowing it a higher score? Simple answer: the narration. From start to finish, it is extremely unbalanced and painfully lengthy at times, and in many sequences lacks the kind of suspense it should have built up. It is undeniably eerie throughout, but far away from being the spine-tingling, horrifying terror it should have been. In this case, it is a huge disadvantage that it wanted to recreate the same, spooky atmosphere from the original. In the forties, it worked this way, but the modern standards are way heavier than this. Thus, the atmosphere feels terribly outdated and the film should have orientated on the modern horror film, at least in this case. Oh, and then there is this infamous wolfman on wolfman fight sequence that might please the inner child in me, but is undeniably ridiculous for a film that up to this point wanted to go in a serious and dramatic direction. Other than that, it is an enjoyable treat for the simple horror fans who like themselves some werewolf action, a pinch of Victorian England, and brutal effects. I don't say that it is a perfect film, but honestly, I have seen higher rated and critically more praised films that were a thousand times worse than this. I know it doesn't please everyone, I for one, though, can find a liking to it.

I give it four for its excellent Gothic atmosphere, but this is a film that is markedly inferior to the 1941 original. You would think Universal would be more careful with its treasure chest of monsters, but after duffing up The Mummy they've not done well by their hairiest monster. I won't go into the story much, other than to say it somewhat resembles the original but has many major changes.

Firstly, where the hell is the pathos? Benicio Del Toro is a boring leading man; he can't come close to Lon Chaney Jr's engaging and tragic Larry Talbot. With little interest in the fate of the top-billed actor, the film descends into something of a slog. What's the point of having Talbot be an actor, anyway? Well, he gets to wear a poncey actors hat at the beginning...

The gypsies, unlike the original, seem to have no dramatic purpose in the film at all. They do possess a rather alarmingly bad CGI bear, that looks like it was animated around 1986 or so. But more crucially, the transformations from man into wolf are also achieved with CGI. These are much better, but still ineffective. If you've seen the werewolf transformations in Harry Potter, etc, you've got the idea. American Werewolf In London did it so much better.

There's much evidence of studio cutting, probably in an attempt to speed up the pace. In the second half of the movie the thing jumps around to distraction. How on earth does Talbot get to Gwen's antique shop? How does he even know where it is? Why is Inspector Abbeline, he of the Jack The Ripper murders, dragged in? He gets a nice scene in the local pub, but largely contributes nothing. Similary, one moment Emily Blunt's character is taken away by the police, for no good reason at all I might add, next she's boning up on Lycanthropy, digesting lots of tomes on the subject. Maybe she got 'em from the local Werewolf Of London Library. SPOILERS HERE>>>>>

Anthony Hopkins gives a restrained, excellent performance. But his character is a total cypher, his motivations unbelievable and rather obscure. If he enjoys being a werewolf so much why does he have his servant lock him away every full moon for 25 years? Why does he kill the poor guy at the end? Art Malik plays the ethnic stereotype in question. Another pointless role as all he has to do his polish his pistols. His cleaning skills are not really up to scratch!

We have lots of jump cuts and sudden noises. Have fun spotting when they are going to happen. 9 times out of 10 you'll be right. The one with the dog near the end is rather clever, though. The same can not be said for the twist. If this is the first movie you've ever seen, you might not spot it coming from about 5 minutes in.

So, sorry Universal, you need to take a good long look at what made your classic monsters so popular and so memorable. And maybe try again sometime.

From the first awkwardly expositional spoken dialogue in the film the director and screenwriter manage to clearly convey disinterest in character depth. This is taken to such a degree that you (the audience) are rushed through the most pathetically superficial formalities in the first 5-10 minutes, while the rest of the 'content' is delivered to you via weak, predictable foreshadowing.

Foreshadowing, foreshadowing, foreshadowing.

Foreshadowing and dramatic posturing fill the massive gaps where substance and story should normally take place. The problem manifests itself as a painful migraine in the head of any audience member who wouldn't be equally as entertained by simply jingling your keyring in front of them.

The dialogue in the film had to have been plagiarized from the "F" graded homework of an 10th grade writing class. It's so full of rhetoric, cliché and stupid 'witty one-liners' that I openly criticize the intelligence of -everyone- who, without duress, agreed to work on this sodding mess.

Who didn't see within 10 minutes that the movie would inevitably 'apex' with a werewolf vs. werewolf scene? This prescient knowledge sat in the bottom of my stomach the whole film like a poisonous omen, knowing the moment of my doom.

The only real surprise in the film was its apparent Lord of the Rings tie in. Here it goes...

Anthony Hopkins, the esteemed harmonica player, was bitten by Gollum, who lives in a cave in India. Inexplicably, this turns Anthony into a Wookiee. Someone should call Frodo. Anthony kills wife, son, later infects other son with Wookiee-ism. Son is arrested by Elrond, Lord of Rivendell. Son escapes via poetic justice. Son kills father, infects Elrond. True love kills son, son forgives.

Next movie: Elrond terrorizes The Shire, eats hobbits. Gandalf is afflicted with Were-Balrogism. Werewolf vs. Were-Balrog ensues. Michael Bay directs.

It amazes me that it costs $150 million USD to produce something that will (maybe) impress an 8 year old child for 5-10 minutes of a 102 minute session in a chair.

Not gonna go on too much just wanted to ensure people do not....I repeat DO NOT watch this dire movie and put money in pockets of those who don't deserve it.

From the start it was horribly clichéd, no bad thing in itself, but it was rubbish from beginning to end. No decent character development, I didn't care for any of the people. The effects were terrible and unconvincing and the one scene where they could of excelled, in the asylum, they failed on a grand scale. Our benchmark is of course An American Werewolf in London, and I'm happy to say this remains the best transformation sequence, heck even the werewolf scene in Harry Potter was way better than this. I could go as far to say that I just wanted to give the teddy bear a big hug.

The scenes were slapdash with poor continuity and the soundtrack was diabolically bad, it over rode the movie almost without exception trying for suspense where there was none and drowning out the actors to make for a 'why am I still sitting here' experience. With the effects and quality acting that is possible today I cannot believe that this movie could EVER be a hit.

Please AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE...

I remember seeing a preview for this at the theater with a friend of mine, I remember leaning over to her and stating "that looks cheesy as hell." When it arrived in theaters...I smartly avoided it, saving my viewing of it for it's recent "Cinemax" premier. I'm glad.

The star power is there...so how did this manage to go horribly wrong? Well, some of the opening shots of the landscape, etc., and the Gothic gray tone are alright. But it quickly delves into a convoluted, snooze inducing, borefest.

Supposedly Del Toro was on board and gung ho about the project since 2006. Really? You couldn't tell. Del Toro looks and sounds bored, and delivers a more wooden performance than Pinnochio.

Hopkins likewise seems to phone in his performance, not much can be said about him as he exudes about as much excitement as a stagnant puddle. Normally I enjoy him a great deal, when this movie ended there was little that I could remember about him other than he played the Harmonica and hated his sons.

I felt sorry for Hugo Weaving as it seems he at least tried to be interested in his role...(the only one who seemed to be) but sadly he is underutilized as a generic Scotland yard inspector. It almost seemed about halfway through he realized what a horrible error he had made accepting this role.

There was no chemistry between any of the leads, the "love" story (if you could even call it that) felt forced, and Del Toro and Blunt had zero chemistry. Blunt herself, was terrible. She never seems sorry, or mournful, or shocked at the horrible death of her fiancé. Half hearted pleas of "stay with me." Seemed to solidify her non chalantness of the situation at hand.

I wondered how it was possible to make a movie about werewolves boring. Brother is killed by werewolf, other brother returns, other brother and dad don't like each other, other brother is bit, becomes werewolf, father is werewolf also, they fight, house burns down, other brother wins, other brother is killed, numerous flashbacks to mother's death, and other scenes you care nothing about.

There's also some crap thrown in about Hopkins's werewolf origin as he stumbles across Gollum in a cave some years earlier and is bitten. Seriously? All the CGI computer guys you had at work on this, and this is the best looking thing they could come up with? A LOTR rip off?

There's no redemption for any character, nor did I care about what happened to any of them, every single situation is predictable, the outcome...just as predictable, CGI is overused, cheap looking, and horribly fake, (werewolves look like furbies) and the ratio of werewolf screen time vs. human story screen time is vastly off balance.

Gore is over the top and pointless. How many times do you need to see people beheaded, organs ripped from bodies, limbs ripped, throats gouged, and claws impaling through things before you figure out that the werewolves are "really bad guys" with zero characteristics, attitudes, or personalities outside of ripping apart people, nor do they seem of any intelligence as they never seem to be able to weed out "bad" people from innocent bystanders. This combined with cardboard cutout human characters give the audience nothing to latch onto or cheer for. (Did you feel the least bit bad or upset when Del Toro's werewolf was killed? No? Neither did I.)

Del Toro's werewolf also displays nothing different from the werewolf persona of his father or any other werewolf in this hot mess. What a dragging, depressing, joyless, lame, poorly scripted movie, and a waste of actors who have genuine talent. Avoid at all costs.