The Wolfman (2010) Poster

(2010)

User Reviews

Add a Review
443 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
10/10
Highly underrated masterpiece
Stephane Benoit17 January 2014
I really don't understand all the bad reviews of this movie. The only explanation that I can figure out is that those people watched it with a lot of expectations and they did not found what they were looking for, or they just went to see that movie being in the wrong mood… I must admit that I had to watch it twice in order to give it a 10 out of 10. The first time I gave a 7. The second time I really watched it with a clear mind and I really was able to appreciate each frame of it… The actors are perfect, the camera framing is a delight to watch, the costumes are fabulous and each line of the script is well written. It is rare that I give a higher rating at a second viewing, but this movie is that kind of masterpiece…
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
No more and no less than expected
JimSun44417 February 2010
Every once in a while, a movie comes along with what many people would call perfect casting. I remember when Jack Nicholson was first cast as the Joker for Tim Burton's Batman. Nicholson's portrayal was just what was expected from such a great actor in a signature role. But it was NO MORE than we expected from him. In a way, one could say it fell a little flat. Well, I feel that way about The Wolfman. First, Anthony Hopkins, one of the consistently best actors out there, gave the exact performance I would expect from him, commanding respect both as an actor and as the character he played. But it was nothing we haven't seen already. Reminiscent of Meet Joe Black or Fracture or Instinct. I'm also a fan of Benicio Del Toro, but his brooding and emotional performance was exactly what I went to the theater to see. I didn't see anything more. The same could be said for the script, a very straightforward storyline that was a bit predictable and sort of tired. On one hand, I commend the film makers for not overdoing the story with convoluted twists in an effort to be "original." But again, I wasn't surprised by anything in the storyline at all.

I was anxious to see this film, and overall I was very pleased with the cinematography, the performances of the cast and of course the special effects. But I did not leave the theater saying "WOW, that was even better than I expected!" like I had hoped I would.
128 out of 193 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
A Worthy Remake, Very Dark.
The_Fifth_Echo8 February 2010
I saw "The Wolfman" in special screenings Sunday and to be truly honest, I didn't know what to expect. I saw the original 1941 version and I really liked it and it is a classic. I was afraid that the new remake would of been very tacky and that was my biggest concern. But I have to say after I watched this movie. I was very impressed. Benicio Del Toro (An Oscar Winner) portrays the role very well and believable. The cast is very well known with people such as Emily Blunt and the great Anthony Hopkins. They don't technically give "Oscar Worthy performances", but their acting certainly is very believable. The movie oozes mysteriousness and the very Dark mood of it makes it very enjoyable. But the movie has some flaws like the story is not original and has been portrayed at least a million times. Also there are "some" tacky parts in the movie, but they aren't very important at all. So my overall consensus about the "Wolfman" is that it is a worthy remake the 1941 classic and it will gain many new fans.

I highly recommend people to watch this movie, it is very entertaining and Dark.

8.2/10
234 out of 370 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
I really liked it
dbjdpb21 February 2010
Being in the late 50's in age, I grew up on Universal horror and truly love the originals. But I have to say this remake exceeded my expectations. There are many suspenseful moments and the movie makers seem to have a clear grasp of what the objective was. Also there is a clear difference between a Hollywood werewolf (looks like a big wolf on two legs) and a "Wolfman." The wolf-man looks like an indistinguishable combination of both. A monster. I like the werewolf movies but this tops the bill. Forget the professional critics. They get paid to say negative things and most often don't seem to know what they are talking or writing about. If you like this type of stuff, it is top shelf. I may see it again.
103 out of 158 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Doesn't beat the classic, but comes out a better remake than most recent ones
Nicholas Filak15 February 2010
Let me start by clarifying two things: 1) I'm a huge fan of horror Universal monster movies and the original Wolfman is a must see to me 2) I'm 18 so this review is not biased by age

The horror genre in particular suffers an overflow of remakes, reboots, etc today. Once in a while is okay, but there's far too many at once. This is nowhere near as bad as some (looking at you especially House on a Haunted Hill and Wicker Man) but this still didn't quite hit the mark. I wanted to see originality as long as it made sense and there were some interesting ideas here. There's also some pretty good scenes as well. The problem is that it's crippled by certain problems.

Let's start with the good things: Rick Baker was already loved for his effects in werewolf movies like An American Werewolf in London, and Wolf, as well as other movies where even if the movie's bad like Planet of the Apes, his work is excellent and kudos for getting him back. Baker clearly has respect for make-up legend Jack Pierce and the make-up is fantastic. I'm not a fan of CGI and I'm glad the movie cut itself down a bit although it did include it in some scenes. But Baker's work clearly shows.

Hugo Weaving was great and while Anthony Hopkins had a rougher start, he still did rather well. His character is harder than Rain's portrayal but in some ways it works. Certainly more than it did for his portrayal of Van Helsing in my eyes. The settings were fantastic. There's a lot of 19th century buildings that look gorgeous and act as a perfect contrast to the dark and creepy woods.

Now for the bad: The build-up in many scenes was rather limited. The asylum scene was okay, but many scenes could have built the tension better.

The acting from del Toro and Blunt was rather unemotional. I found Gwen Conliffe to be more supportive in this version, but Blunt's emotions were limited. She's a beautiful woman however no doubt. del Toro looks a bit like Lon Chaney Jr. and does well in the make-up, but the Larry side is bland. He's just not able to play it as tragically as Chaney. What's more while some complained that Chaney being Claude Rains son was absurd I can sooner believe in werewolves than the idea del Toro and Hopkins are kin.

Another flaw is the limited screen time of Maleva the old gypsy a key character in the original. She's okay in this, but given little to do which really ticks me off.

A big factor is the werewolf itself. In movies like the original Wolfman and Mummy there was a silent dread. The monsters showed their great power by intimidation alone and the idea they can kill you and go wild but prefer to stalk and plan. Both remakes made them more open to their power. The original's felt scarier without it, but the remakes make it work in their own way a bit.

I found this did better with the horror side than the emotional side. If Talbot was played as dramatically as in the original I think this might have done better. As a whole it's alright. Not too bad, but I can't say as memorable as the original.
143 out of 224 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Awful in every respect
pesic-16 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Bad script, bad effects, dull protagonist, impotent antagonists, total absence of tone, lack of suspense and horror... Doesn't even work as a drama.

It reminded me a bit of Coppola's 'Dracula'. That one too was quite unimpressive, albeit still miles ahead of this pile of garbage. They forgot a cardinal rule: don't show the monster. And with effects like these (they remind me of Scooby Doo), you really want to keep that beast hidden as much as possible. Did I see Gollum in some of the shots? Another cardinal rule they forgot is that you need compelling characters and that the antagonists need to be credible. In this film there is no antagonist at all.

Rule number three: don't confuse the audience with inconsistent tone. You can't start with a grim, sinister tone, maintain it for twenty minutes, and then switch to what seems like a parody of werewolf movies in the gypsy camp. I expected Mel Brooks to pop out of one of those tents. And then came the drama... The revelations of dark secrets, the philosophical musings of his cursed father, and so on. That doesn't work, not only because it is poorly written, but because the film has already failed as a horror story (which it promised implicitly), and confused us with the tone. After all these disappointments you expect the audience to listen to some drivel about a troubled past? I choose to stop ranting at this point because this film simply doesn't deserve even a good rant. It deserves to be forgotten in record time - which already has happened.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
How do you summary a remake you've loved so much as a whole?A masterful executed movie
drakula200513 February 2010
The beautiful compositions of Danny Elfman, the sets, or the atmosphere Joe Johnston has created, or of course the stunning performances of Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving.How do i begin...

I'll keep it short.I've just came back from the movies and i must say-"The Wolfman" is the best remake I've ever seen.We live in a world, filled with bad to worse remakes, only a few of them above average.But this was really good, especially when you're waiting for it such a long time.

The leads were good.I was a little disappointed of sir Anthony Hopkins's acting, but in the end, there is a reason that may explain this a little.Benicio Del Toro was good as well, but i felt so close to Emily Blunt, and even to Hugo Weaving (who soon should have a knight title of his own).They were very convincing, i loved them.

Joe Johnston has done his job very well-the movie was emotional at moments, and gory and scary, when needed.The kills were very impressive and there were some "jump" scenes of good quality and were very well added too.The good jump scenes are something one could see very rare in such a good quality.But here there were even a few of them.The set decoration was great-London well-adjusted to 1891, the weapons, costumes and language of the people, the atmosphere, as well.

The Wolfman is a great remake with great actors and performances.Stunning! My rate: *****/*****
51 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A Gothic literary classic comes to life.
budmassey15 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I read all the comments that complained about this movie not being wildly innovative and original. So I did some checking. And you know what? It turns out they were right. It seems there actually have been werewolf movies made before.

But it seems to me that those brilliant and learned film aficionados would have gone into the multiplex expecting to see something at least vaguely familiar. Why then were so many smartypants film buffs disappointed that this movie had so much in common with previous efforts based on the same story? Maybe they were expecting some tragically comic overacting like Gary Oldman in FFC's Dracula. Maybe they wanted to see another campy throwaway rehash of a Lon Chaney Jr. b-movie. What a pity. There was so much more to see.

First of all, what a treat it was to see actual actors in the movie. Little needs to be said about Sir Anthony Hopkins. His icy, reptilian portrayals of villains are legendary, and he does not disappoint here. I'm not a huge Emily Blunt fan, but her range and beauty are pleasing grace notes in everything she does. And Hugo Weaving? How many more times does he have to hit it out of the park before he finally gets the recognition he deserves?

But I, for one, went to see this movie for one reason. Benicio Del Toro. And I was not disappointed, although I was mildly surprised. Del Toro has just the right blend of handsome charm and animal presence to be convincing. His portrayal, while subtly understated, is also powerfully nuanced. The surprise was how well the diverse talents in the movie melded into an ensemble. Oh, so tasty.

The coup de grâce, however, is also the one thing that probably spoils this movie for most viewers. It finally takes a literary approach to what was once, and now is once again, a towering and epic literary tragedy, rather than a campy life support system for meaningless computer-generated special effects. Using Rick Baker was a stroke of genius. His masterful use of prosthetics and physical transformations gifted this movie with an elegance and immediacy so lacking in generations of poseur imitators.

Freed from the usual addiction to hokey visual effects, the movie is able to develop, with subtlety and sophistication, the tragic richness of the story. True literary tragedy depends on one simple premise. The tragic character must fall from grace, by no fault of his own, due to his inherent character flaw. The tragic character must ultimately be a victim, and his fall must be inevitable.

Our protagonist's path was determined long before he arrived on the moors. As he struggles heroically to overcome his own destiny, we witness the inevitability of his demise. This is the sine qua non of literary tragedy. Even American Werewolf in London got this right, deliciously and hilariously right, in fact, and this film is fraught with allusions to AWIL and other classics.

The cinematography is beautiful. The score is brooding, and not nearly as derivative as it might have been. I am so glad that Danny Elfman's score was reinstated. Elfman can do no wrong. Joe Jonhson's direction is at once effortless and masterful.

In short, if you are looking for a special effects cesspool like Twilight, stay home. If you want to see how a Gothic literary classic comes to life in the twenty-first century, this is your film.
75 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Excellent film for werewolf/monster lovers!
CogburnSwale10 February 2010
In contrast to the belief and the whine of many critics, there is an audience out there for dark, gritty and atmospheric werewolf movies such as 'The Wolfman'. I will, however, not go into detail and debunk critic reviews. Instead, I'll try to be brief and express my own feelings towards this film.

This movie is an instant horror classic. It has everything a werewolf fan would want: Gore, blood, atmosphere, great soundtrack, great looking werewolf and good actors. This movie is not like 'The Wolfman' from 1941. Instead, the makers went ALL-IN with this interpretation and really exemplified what's in our deepest fantasies: Intense werewolf-action. This movie doesn't try to be original in any way. What it does, however, is to take a basic story, a basic concept and develop it in an interesting way. This movie doesn't have any werewolves that are cute and look like wolves (See: Twilight). In that way, it manages to break the monotony of modern horror movies (ghost movies or torture movies). This is a RATED R, Universal monster film that should be taken for what it is: A tense adrenaline rush through the werewolf lore with great effects. This, my friends, is a movie FROM HORROR LOVERS to HORROR LOVERS.

5/5.
183 out of 310 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Predictable, boring, meandering, unoriginal and laughable
H_Spengler10 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
I Want My Money Back!
philipgeoghegan14 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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!
65 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
By-the-numbers
chaos-rampant29 October 2012
By now, you probably know this was ruined in production and a near-complete misfire. It isn't that bad, at least has some decent gore.

The problem is Universal went from Mark Romanek in the director's chair to a one-time protégé of George Lucas, an efficient man completely without personal vision. Everything else is simply collateral to having at the helm someone who only wants to get a job done backed by a studio that doesn't care beyond receipts.

The idea I suppose was to recapture some of Coppola's Dracula dark filigree on a big scale, but it seems no one can whip up the passion to do so. Del Toro looks game, but everything around him -most notably Hopkins and CGI London- looks tired and obvious.

The original was old-fashioned fantasy on the monster level when it came out, but there was still room for psychological wiggle so far as characterization. The American public was still being acclimatized to Freud's ideas - already outdated by that time.

And it is interesting to note that those curses - here, Dracula, Cat People - were supposedly infiltrating the civilized world from places that really lived in those times in a sort of magical reality, usually the broader Balkan region where I write this from. Londoners of the time could content themselves that there were truly dark spots in the map of human knowledge.

You have none of that now so it seems even more stale. Clue of short-sightedness on the part of the makers is that a lot of the emotional power is mined from contrived Freudian ideas, those same ideas which are openly made fun of in the asylum demonstration scene.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Weak character development, plot and script
PhantomAgony7 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I went into The Wolfman with no pre-conceived notions or ideas. I have not seen The Wolf Man (1941) which this film was based off of & didn't know anything about the story, about lycanthropy (werewolves) & the movie does little to educate the viewer about the basics. Throughout the entire film, there was a lot of focus on silver bullets and yet never an explanation as to why. It took me reading IMDb's FAQ to understand that werewolves can only be killed by silver bullets - it would have been nice for someone, anyone in the movie to actually explain that to the viewers but then again, the script was an utter mess.

The main problem with this film is that it's empty of true emotion. The scenery is fabulous and the Victorian-Era backdrop in 1891 England lends itself to a Gothic-horror feel that really suits the picture. The look is fabulous but the actual content leaves a lot to be desired. The character development is criminally neglected - especially Emily Blunt's character of Gwen. We are often told of connections and feelings but never really shown them, making it almost impossible to care about the characters, the supposed bonds and of course connect with anyone on screen.

Gwen's fiancé, Ben Talbot goes missing & she seeks out his older brother Lawrence Talbot, played by Benicio Del Toro, a well known theater actor who moved away years earlier, for help. At first he rejects her request, having committed himself to a contract for 30 upcoming shows of a Shakespearean play, but after a letter from her, he is apparently convinced and returns to his hometown/ childhood estate to reunite w/ his Father (Anthony Hopkins) and find his brother. Ben's body is found with wounds that only a monster could have inflicted and the story goes from there..

This movie is filled with fantastic actors but Del Toro & Hopkins seemed like they were bored/phoning it in and Blunt did the best with what she was given but her character was very underdeveloped. When her fiancé, Ben, was found savagely murdered, aside from a 30 second subtly tearful scene when she is brought his belongings, there is really nothing to convey her devastation or mourning. I certainly didn't feel her pain or really care about Ben or her loss. Even worse and less developed though is the supposed relationship between Lawrence, Ben's older brother, and Gwen. Benicio Del Toro & Emily Blunt have no chemistry whatsoever - there is about a 16 year age difference between them and it shows. Don't worry though - there is no suffering through chemistry lacking intimate scenes since their 'connection' is barely shown on screen & given how important it is to the end of the film, it's unforgivable and a product of sloppy writing/directing. I didn't get a 'love' vibe from Gwen/Lawrence at all and any growing feelings between them were not properly portrayed. It was an utter failure.

A big gripe I had with the storyline/plot was the way the hunt for the initial werewolf that killed Ben and numerous other villagers as well as infected Lawrence (he was bitten by a werewolf which transformed him into one) was dropped the second Lawrence began turning into the beast and the villagers/main detective (played by Hugo Weaving) focused on him. Why did no one seem to care at all about finding the initial werewolf? Why was this dropped? Why did no one ever focus on or care about Lawrence's father especially after Lawrence had called him a 'monster' & his claims about himself being a true monster had been proved correct once the full moon came and many witnessed the transformation?

Be prepared for a big twist about who the initial werewolf who tormented the villagers, killed Ben and infected Lawrence really is as well as one about Lawrence's deceased mother... only you will see both coming a mile away like most of the plot which makes it a failure like most of the film.

Also, look out for a cheesy to the death fight scene between 2 werewolves that is nothing but a CGI overload. I was amazed to read that actual wolf costumes/makeup were used since some of the scenes look incredibly computer generated and fake. The fight scene at the end looks like something you would find in a video game or some computer made re-enactment - it was ridiculous. Even the backdrop in the fight scene that they did have a real set for looked like a CGI green screen. It was awful. I will say that the transformations looked good but some of the action sequences did not.

Lastly, it took me Googling how often a full moon occurs to find out that on average, there is one every month which was shocking because it seemed like in the movie, every other night there was another full moon. I had no idea such amounts of time were passing by - perhaps they should have spent a non full moon night actually developing the characters but alas, that is not what this movie wanted to be - which is why everyone was so wooden and the movie was so empty of real emotion.

4/10 for great scenery and a nice Gothic-horror feel but the actual movie is horrible. The characters, especially the Gwen/Lawrence relationship, which comes into play later on in the film, is underdeveloped and practically non existent making the ending fail on every level. Don't tell me that he loves her to the point where only she can speak to his heart & get through to the man underneath the beast- SHOW me. Where was the build up? Poorly done.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Benicio and production design a winner
C-Younkin9 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"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
71 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Anthony Hopkins stole my $10
Ex0dus16 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
74 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Surprisingly Awful
kisspgap26 December 2010
A confused and trite waste of time. Is it a Gothic drama? Is it a gore-laden jumper? Is it a comedy? How the heck do great actors end up in garbage like this? A by-the-numbers Hollywood "horror"--as in horrible script, horrible pacing, horrible rip off of the music from Bram Stoker's Dracula. It's like the entire movie is all window dressing with nothing inside. Just because the actors furrow their brows doesn't mean there is any emotional connection between the audience and the characters. Like several IMDb reviewers have written: Stick with American Werewolf in London. Okay, I do admit two things, 1) The movie looks great, and 2) It's now part of my regular rotation of fun stupid movies to put on in the background.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Weak story - waste of a good cast and grand production
phd_travel30 March 2011
Don't bother with this one. The story is very bad and unpleasant. Without giving away too much it lacks romance or a real hero or a real villain. It has an unsatisfying plot. Needed lots of rewriting.

The good points: The production has a really good 19th Century feel - a throwback to good old Dracula movies. Great art direction. The makeup is good - no wonder it won an Oscar. The cast is top notch. Benicio is always intense and convincing. Emily is right for the role not too glam or pretty. Hopkins is okay for the silly role he has.

What a waste of a big budget. How could they make such an expensive movie with such a bad story.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
To Quote Statler and Hilton in The Muppet Movie: "Soap leaves a better film than this"
Chuck194917 February 2011
I would love to overpraise this film like so many have done on this site, unfortunately I can't. The Wolfman relies too much on "cool" special effects (unfortunately inclusive of CGI in the transformation scenes)and not enough time on the script, which is woefully inept. The original script was extremely well written but due to the short running time, had to skimp on a lot of details. With the budget and talent allotted to the remake, an attempt should have been made to expand on the original script as it was written and then layer on the cool effects. Instead the story is "reinvented" by individuals lacking the knowhow to make it work, it's a bomb all the way. Shame on all involved for this abomination.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Boring, Boring & More Boring
Rodrigo Amaro12 February 2011
It has to be the most boring, tiresome, sleepy, predictable horror film of the past ten years. "The Wolfman" comes with no story, no thrills, no scary moments, and with some questionable technical aspects, but only the special effects and the wonderful makeup job by Rick Baker almost saved this film of being the worst in recent days. It doesn't have one interesting thing in it to make you thrilled, excited, moved, provoked by it. Nothing!

Time and time again I found myself blinking my eyes trying to stay awake while watching this worthless waste of space, money and time. I couldn't buy the idea of Benicio Del Toro dragged into that world, and not even Anthony Hopkins trying to imitate himself with a presence that reminded me of his wonderful role in "Bram Stoker's Dracula", and the fact is I'm tired of seeing reducing his career to be a starring role in special effects based movies when we all know he's better in things full of life like "Nixon", "The Remains Of the Day", "The Silence of the Lambs" and the list can go forever. But lately all he's been doing is things like this.

Joe Johnston made better things with "October's Sky", "Jurassic Park 3" (yes I like this!), and "Honey I Shrunk the Kids", but "The Wolfman" has nothing good to see, nothing original to show and it only wasted good actors and lots of money. Just in case you think this is a useless film it's not, it's a great suggestion for those with insomnia problems. After 15 minutes of watching you'll be sleeping, quietly, dreaming of great horror films you might have watched during your entire life that doesn't resemble this rotten thing. 2/10
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dreary, cynical and humorless horror film with the usual weak story, uninteresting characters and bland dialogue
J. Spurlin28 May 2010
This latter-day Universal Horror about a Victorian-age werewolf (or two), directed by Joe Johnston and starring Benicio del Toro and Anthony Hopkins, is pretty much what you'd expect from a modern blockbuster horror. The story, characterizations and especially the dialogue (God, modern dialogue is so bland) are weak. All the real ingenuity goes into the art direction and cinematography (which maintain a relentless dreariness throughout), the special effects, gore and varied methods of killing off characters. The final battle between two werewolves would seem a lot less idiotic if the movie had had a sense of humor (like the similar Universal monster mashes from the 1940s); but the film is so cynical and self-serious that it's merely a risible eye-roller.

The screenplay was adapted from the vastly superior Curt Siodmak script for the 1940 film. With the success of movies like "Paranormal Activity," isn't it time we took these supernatural thrillers out of super-duper-hyper-overdrive? The Siodmak film has no gore, a small body count and human-scale action scenes; and it also has an engrossing story, sympathetic characters and literary dialogue. I'd rather have that.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Give this a wide berth
G M20 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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...
37 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Delivers what it promises in a classical way
One-Way16 February 2010
I can not see how this movie got horrible reviews from critics... it is a good movie, but more of a classical monster movie than an action blockbuster.

So if you are a fan of the classical wolf man story and presentation, then this is right up your ally. There is enough gore, blood, and howling at the moon to go around.

The storyline is predictable for the most part; though there is a understory that is reveled as the movie progresses. Still, even though you know where the movie is going, it is not a bad experience.

Enjoy
76 out of 136 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Definitely Has The Thrills...But It Needs A Better Story.
Legend0727 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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
114 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Disappointed, but the movie had a few merits
Dave (freaky_dave)12 February 2010
The Wolfman started out well. I enjoyed the atmosphere of the movie, and it seemed to be building towards something for the first thirty minutes or so, but then all of the sudden it lost its way with a lack of imagination and a predictable ending. That is why I can only give it a 5 out of 10 or in other terms about ** out of ****.

THe plot is easy enough and follows a simple monster plot. Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returns home after learning that his brother has disappeared. Once there he meets up with his strange father Sir John (Anthony Hopkins) and his brother's fiancé Gwen (Emily Blunt) who was the one that wrote to him telling him about what happened. Once home he learns that his brother was killed, and hears stories about a beast that might've caused it and that the Gypsies are to blame. Trying to learn of his brothers death, he visits the Gypsies and soon comes face to face with the beast which attacks him and passes the curse onto him. The rest of the story is pretty obvious from there, so I will say no more.

I found myself getting into the movie, but then there is a secret that is exposed not even half way through the movie that becomes way to predictable and shatters any mystery that the movie might've had. I was expecting a little bit of imagination here, but it was not to be. Sadly this leads to a climax that is just plain ridiculous. The finale finds its way back a little bit, but it is not enough to save the movie.

The acting at first seemed a little off, but it does improve somewhat though not enough. Anthony Hopkins has a few good lines which makes you think there is more to the story then what there really is. If you've seen the trailers, which give way too much away in my opinion, you will not be shocked where this movie eventually ends up going. Hugo Weaving, who plays an inspector hot on the tail of the beast, also has a few funny lines, but the one character that seemed to take this material more seriously and acted the best would be Emily Blunt's character. I reacted to her character more than any of the others.

THe story itself was sort of choppy, and it bothered me somewhat. The first half hour of the movie and build up is still the best, but what follows goes where a monster movie of this caliber should never go, and it becomes silly and almost laughable. However, as I said before, the final few minutes redeem the story a little.

I loved the atmosphere, and I was glad they went to a more Gothic setting. Some scenes, like the pub, and the sets reminded me of An American Werewolf in London and the original Wolf Man. There were even some themes in the movie taken from the 1962 Hammer Version of Curse of The Werewolf. I liked that the director used these scenes in this movie, but it's too bad he couldn't use more imagination to make the movie as a whole work much better.

Disappointing, but not a complete failure.
54 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
A faint copy of a copy
engelenschild8 March 2010
Alright. When a pic is called 'The Wolfman', expectations aren't too high to begin with. But at least you expect an otherwordly atmosphere, a few thrilling scenes and, when Del Toro and Hopkins are involved, some decent acting. Nothing of the above was to be found in this faint copy of a copy. The dialogues were poorly written and Hopkins must have thought so as well, because he just rattles his lines as if only screentesting. Del Toro, as much as I adore him in others pics, is extremely miscast in this pic, having the same pained expression on his face in every scene. It's pretty safe to say the make-up artists won't win an Oscar either: Hopkins looks just like the character he played in Legends of the Fall, after the stroke, and Del Toro is wearing a wig which attracted my attention more then anything else. The only credit must be given to Hugo Weaving who, disregarding everything else, tried to make the best of his scenes. The storyline is not only predictable (which is not always a bad thing), its construction is painstakingly artificial which makes the characters look uncomfortable and implausible. As a result I could't care less about what happened to the characters and the scare-effects were lost to me. If anything, I had a few laughs.
98 out of 189 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews