The Wolfman

The Wolfman

Vampires and werewolves are undergoing something of a renaissance at the moment, largely thanks to Twilight's long shadow - but you can't help feeling that Team Edward is winning out over Team Jacob.

Perhaps it's due to the innate sexiness of everyone's favorite fanged  bloodsuckers, but somehow werewolves don't seem to be capturing the  public imagination in quite the same way as Edward Cullen's long-toothed  pals. Maybe it's just that doggy smell.

The Wolfman is a remake of the 1941 black-and-white classic of  the same name, although it drifts wildly off-script during the second  half, rendering parts of it almost unrecognizable. If this were the  movie's only flaw then it could easily be forgiven, but The Wolfman is such a sorry mess of gothic cliches and grandiose melodrama that  anyone involved with the original movie will probably be glad of the  disparity. Its dog days are truly over.

In fact, The Wolfman even falls short in the one area where it  should excel - the visual effects. No one can claim the effects in 1941  were better than those today, but the remake is so poorly imagined and  shoddily executed that you can't help hankering for the simplicity of  the original. Instead we have to suffer an ugly mash-up of An American Werewolf In London and Teen Wolf,  neither of which benefit from the comparison. Whoever thought that a  man-sized dog in a suit would be scary deserves a gypsy curse of their  own.

The one saving grace of The Wolfman, bizarrely, is its own failed  melodrama. While it struggles to remain credible at times, and often  takes its gothic remit to ridiculous extremes, the end result has a  naive Hammer-like charm that almost rescues it from the pit.

Put simply, The Wolfman is sometimes so bad that it almost becomes a guilty pleasure. It's like a pantomime, just with more severed limbs.

As for the plot, it quickly veers from the predictable to the plain daft, as Benicio del Toro goes searching for his missing brother at the request of his grieving wife (Emily Blunt); tackles a beast on the moor and contracts lycanthropy himself; then quickly discovers that his own father (Anthony Hopkins)  is the source of all their misery. Given that it takes a scratch to  contract the werewolf curse, it seems remarkable that it should stick so  closely to one family - but I guess they do move in rather limited  social circles.

Del Toro is disappointingly subdued as actor-turned-werewolf Lawrence  Talbot, while Hopkins sports such an incredibly varied accent that you  have to wonder whether his voice coach was insane. Blunt does good work  as the panicked but feisty widow, but she's not on our screens as much  as we'd like (and there's disappointingly little bodice-ripping). Even Max Von Sydow is relegated to a walk-on role that was cut completely from the theatrical version.

Instead it's left to Matrix and Lord Of The Rings veteran  Hugo Weaving to truly camp things up as Inspector Francis Aberline, the  detective sent to investigate the curious goings-on, and he does so with  joyous abandon. While everyone else struggles to be taken seriously,  Weaving embraces the script's obvious hamminess. As a consequence he  becomes the most enjoyable thing that this rather bleak and dreary take  on the classic story has to offer.

Maybe it was always going to be hard to sell del Toro's dog-faced boy in  this age of sexy vamps and gore-spouting zombies, but if this is truly  all that the werewolf myth has come to then it's probably best left in  the kennel. With a lighter touch The Wolfman might have become a cult favorite - as it is, this doggy treat is far too heavy to swallow.

2/5

The Wolfman

The Wolfman - Directed by Joe Johnston, starring Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, and Hugo Weaving - Rated R

Looks great, but it's hollow inside.




I am not a fan of the new trend of whiny vampires and wolf boys. I prefer my vampires to be menacing, and I think that a wolfman should be a mindless, bloodthirsty beast, not a teen heartthrob whose only acting “trait” is his ability to not wear a shirt. If you’re in the same boat as me, then The Wolfman will at least satisfy you in the monster department. If you’re expecting much more than a savage monster movie, though, you may leave the theater disappointed.

My expectations for this film were very high. The preview for the film is great and leads you to believe you might be in for something different, or possibly something great. I knew all about the delays of the film and the reports of editing up until days before the release, but the preview made me forget all of that. So, because of that preview, I thought this version of The Wolfman would be very similar to Francis Ford Coppola’s version of Dracula (one of my favorite films). Sadly, aside from the atmosphere created here, The Wolfman pales in comparison.

That’s not to say this film doesn’t have something to offer. It looks great. Late 19th century England has a gloomy and realistic look. The sets were particularly well done. The creature effects are fine, for the most part. The transformation sequences were by far the best, but some of the action scenes had a few flaws and looked a bit fake. I know I comment on special effects and cg quite a bit, but for a film like this, the effects are absolutely vital. If the wolfman effects looked even slightly goofy, the film would be ruined. Thankfully, I never had to fight back laughter when I saw the creature.

The film has a look to it, but it’s missing a mood. I never got a sense of foreboding or evil while I was watching this film. It was all just happening and I didn’t really care all that much about any of it. That might be the fault of the storyline, but I think it has more to do with pacing. The film starts off at a crawl, with stage actor Lawrence Talbot arriving at his father’s old, creepy mansion. His brother Ben has been killed and he intends to find out what happened. His off-balance father (Anthony Hopkins) and widowed sister-in-law (the beautiful Emily Blunt) are still there to help out. But there is no mystery. We know what killed Ben: a crazy wolf creature. We don’t need multiple scenes with villagers talking about what might be happening.

It’s not just the first mystery that is weak, either; it’s the entire film. At no point did I wonder what was really happening. It is painfully obvious what is going on from the get go. This isn’t all that terrible, but when the filmmaking is so-so, it makes the story issues much more blatant. These problems are nearly overshadowed by the visuals, but good set design and cg can’t fix everything.

The film does pick up in the middle, though. The asylum sequence was great and it made me wish that the majority of the film took place there. This is the problem. There’s this great, interesting sequence in the middle of the film, bookended by a bland, obvious plot. I probably shouldn’t use the word “bookend,” though, because that implies that this movie has an ending. It doesn’t, not really. It just stops. I don’t know what they were going for, maybe some kind of sequel set up, but there is a key issue that really should’ve been resolved at the end and it was just left open, pointlessly open.


The actors do their best to overcome these plot issues. Del Toro does a fine job. He has a presence that seems to fit with the time period. Blunt makes things a bit interesting here and there. It was nice to see Hugo Weaving as the Scotland Yard detective. He is a master of the intense stare, which is all he really gets to do with the role. It’s Anthony Hopkins who steals the show. You can tell he really enjoyed making this film and it makes for a very fun performance. I enjoyed every minute that he was onscreen.

The Wolfman looks great, features some good performances, has bloody, brutal action, but lacks the story and substance of a great film. There are a few great moments in the film, but they are too few and far between. This film garners a rental at best.

(Read Less...)

Eric Harris - www.canneltoncritic.com

Wolfman Lacks Teeth

The Wolfman
 
With the vampire craze in the midst of its full power Joe Johnston tries to bring back The Wolfman.  Not saying that the two are related, but considering that this project got pushed by three years the timing is interesting if not coincidence.
 
Lawrence Talbot, Benicio Del Toro, is summoned home by his brother’s fiancé Gwen, played by Emily Blunt.  He comes back to an estranged father (Anthony Hopkins, who’s really just plain strange) and a town he left many years ago.  In her letter Gwen tells Lawrence that his brother was seriously injured and finds out that he was in fact brutally murdered.  The killing is the talk of the town and the village drunk hatches a conspiracy theory involving a creature of the night that appears during a full moon.  Yet more proof that you should always trust a man who’s had one too many.
 
Lawrence decides he won’t leave until the murder is solved.  He of course completely ignores the wishes of his father to stay in because of the full moon (Napoleon Dynamite comments- “Idiot!”).  Talbot seeks the advice of a gypsy and the camp gets attached by a vicious monster, wonder who it could be…
 
After getting bit by the werewolf he becomes afflicted with the curse.  Lawrence must now fight the throngs of torch bearers led by Hugo Weaving (The Matrix) while discovering a dark family secret he never wanted to know.
 
The secret really isn’t very hard to figure out and director Joe Johnston pretty much lets the, dare I say wolf, out of the bag about halfway through.  I wanted desperately to get deep into this world, but there are several things that make it a good movie instead of being a great one.
 
The performances of the main cast are pretty solid.  Even though her role was made to be crucial Emily Blunt’s performance seemed thrown in and pretty irrelevant to me.  Del Toro and Hopkins on the other hand were fun to watch.  I enjoyed every time Hopkins was on screen.  He spoke with great subtlety that became realized at the end of the film.  Weaving basically played the good version of Agent Smith who’s witticisms are always welcome.
 
I liked the overall look and feel of the film.  The dream like sequences would certainly haunt my sleep, especially the Gollum looking character. The design of the Wolfman on the only hand was pretty awful.  Universal’s one and only choice for makeup artist was the 1941 Wolf Man’s makeup artist Rick Baker.  I have no doubt that Baker is skilled, but Benicio Del Toro looked like a dirty dog.  He was not intimidating in the least bordering on laughable. 
 
The Wolfman isn’t what it could have been, however there’s a decent film here that anyone who finds werewolves interesting should like.

Recommendations: Shutter Island, District 9 (Neill Blomkamp, 2009), Morning Glory

Booze Revooze: A Drinker’s Skewed View of THE WOLFMAN

That’s right, babes, The Wolfman came to Yeman two whole days before the States. Another Bar  None exclusive…

Final Proof: 3 Shots

You know how you drink with Wolfmen? You think they’re gonna be all interesting and have tons of stories to tell and they kinda do but the problem is, you just wanna get drunk and hear all the cool parts but they always insist on telling you the whole long boring story about what happened before they got attacked and what happened after and what happens before they kill and what happens after. The cool parts are cool, sure, but they always skim over them too quickly and then go back to the boring parts. They look great and watching them change is a blast but they’re a lot slicker than you’d think and plus they always spill their drinks and run out on the tab. The Wolfman is kinda like that.

You know what? The things that bugged me are bugging me, so i’m gonna start off with them. Like i didn’t like how the movie was set in 1691.  Nothing cool ever happened in 1691. And Anthony Hopkins is Benicio Del Toro’s dad? Right, and for my next trick Samuel L Jackson will play Taylor Swift’s father in a remake of Paper Moon.  Benicio does a good job as the wolfman himself, but looks kinda silly wearing English dandy clothes and walking around in England in 1691.  Just sayin’.

But not everything about the movie was horror-bull. The violence was pretty hairy, even if there wasn’t enough of it, and the actors have  some bite. i just wish there had been less setting up the action and more action. The film looks sleek, though, and is easy enough to watch.

One thing that’s nice about wolfmen is that they’re kinda like drinkers. They’re nice and well-mannered on the surface, they can go through the whole day like a normal person, but every once in a while they let go and when they let go, man, they’re animals.

Buzz Kills (Watch Out for Spoilers)

Sex: 1/2 Shot

Apparently nudity hadn’t been invented in 1691. The closest we come is a quick side boob of Emily Blunt, who plays Lawrence Talbot’s / The Wolfman’s (Benicio Del Toro) love interest, Gwen Conliffe. Unfortunately, Blunt is pretty much the only woman in the whole movie (apparently girls hadn’t been invented in 1691 either). Fortunately for us, Blunt is sweet.

Here’s Smokin’ Blunt (26):
  Here come the Silken Butterflies, those shooting stars that fly across the screen oh so briefly.

Jessica Manley plays a Gypsy Mother:
The gorgeous Olga Fedori (25), she of the killer eyes, plays Maleva’s Daughter. The photo link’ll take you to her MySpace page, where you can see her reel. Clicking here will take you to The Booze Talkin’ Exclusive Interview she did with me, Al K Hall.
Finally, there’s the tragically uncredited Elizabeth Croft, who has a flitting appearance as Ophelia:
For those who prefer Wolfmen to Wolfwomen, i give you Benicio Del Toro:
Drink: 1/2 Shot

Here are my notes about the booze:

• Gets drunk [in a tavern] on magically refilling [glass of] white wine after brother’s death
• Drinks from a carafe of whiskey during Scotland Yard interview
• Smith [Hugo Weaving as Inspector Abberline] orders a pint of bitter in the tavern

Rock & Roll: 0 Shots

Besides the fact that there was no rock and roll in 1691, the violence, though pretty rockin’, was also pretty scarce.

Boring Technical Crap

Written by: Andrew Kevin Walker & David Self (based on Curt Siodmak’s 1941 script)

Directed by: Joe Johnston

Starring

Emily Blunt – Gwen Conliffe

Benicio Del Toro – Lawrence Talbot

Hugo Weaving – Abberline

Jessica Manley – Gypsy Mother

Olga Fedori – Maleva’s Daughter

Elizabeth Croft – Ophelia

Bottom Line

A lot that’s good but nothing great. You wouldn’t be missing much if  you waited for the DVD.

(Read Less...)

Al K Hall<br />
Functional Alcoholic Slurperson<br />
(No, REALLY. Google &amp;quot;Slurperson&amp;quot; if you don't believe me.)

Last updated: 2010-04-01 09:29:06 by user08

WolfMan

WolfMan

Starring: Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt

Grade: B++

Synopsis: Universal Studios resurrects the classic lycanthrope with this tale of a man who experiences an unsettling transformation after he returns to his ancestral home in Victorian-era Great Britain and gets attacked by a rampaging werewolf. When Ben Talbot (Simon Merrells) vanishes into thin air, his brother Lawrence (Benicio Del Toro) returns to his family estate to investigate. Upon reuniting with his estranged father, Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins), however, he discovers a destiny far darker than his blackest nightmares. Ben is dead; the victim of a savage attack by a beast that keeps the superstitious locals cowering in fear every time the moon shines bright in the sky. Shortly after discovering his brother’s true fate, Lawrence swears to Ben’s wife, Gwen (Emily Blunt), that he will bring her late husband’s killer to justice.

My Thoughts: Universal Studio’s resurrects the classic Lycanthrope with this tale of the Wolfman. It screams of old Hollywood; and you guys know how I love a classic film. Brilliantly directed by Joe Johnston and Mark Romanek this film is an exceptionally well written throw back to the black and white horror film era. I loved the artistry and it was actually quite frightening to watch please don’t take the mini me’s this is clearly an adult film. It gave me nightmares. Of course what scary movie doesn’t. I applaud the directors for their efforts. This is a must see. My grade stands alone!

Rafael Solece

Last updated: 2010-03-31 21:40:53 by user07

Wolfman

Wolfman certainly pays homage to the classic horror genre, and bags a brimful of gore to boot!
Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro), a haunted nobleman, is lured back to his family estate after his brother vanishes. Reunited with his estranged father (Anthony Hopkins), Talbot sets out to find out what happened to his brother... and discovers a horrifying destiny for himself. Talbot's childhood ended the night his mother died. After he left the sleepy Victorian hamlet of Blackmoor, he spent decades recovering and trying to forget. But when his brother's fiancée, Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt), tracks him down to help find her missing love, Talbot returns home to join the search. He learns that something with brute strength and insatiable bloodlust has been killing the villagers, and that a suspicious Scotland Yard inspector named Aberline has come to investigate.

Whilst staying true to Waggner's 1941 version entitled Wolf Man, this film brings a lot of new things to the table. Early on, it develops the tension and atmosphere well, particularly with the scenes in the woods and on the moors - the eerie and brooding landscape the tone perfectly.  Benicio Tel Toro plays the part of the tortured Wolfman well and respectively Emily Blunt is shaping up to be a fine actress as his brothers former lover. Hugo Weaving plays the part well of the enigmatic Abberline and last but not least Anthony Hopkins plays the part of the sinister Sir John Talbot in his own stylish way that only AH can do. The difference between CGI elements and what's done by makeup artists are undistinguishable. The effects certainly credit it making it look the part, the Warewolf transformation is realistic looking, unlike a certain ongoing Warewolf vs Vampire saga.
Not ground-breaking but nevertheless, it’s a rip-roaringly entertaining Saturday night popcorn flick, that pays homage to the classic horror genre and throws in there plenty of special effects, blood, guts and plenty of offal to boot. What more could you want?.... It's a Howl!

(Read Less...)

http://robinollysays.blogspot.com

Last updated: 2010-03-27 18:41:17 by Robinolly

The Wolfman

The Wolfman
Starring: Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving
Director: Joe Johnston.
Genre: Horror, Thriller
Rated: R

When his older brother is murdered by what is presumed to either be an insane man or some form of wild animal younger brother Lawrence (Benicio Del Toro) returns from America to his family home in England to find out what really was the cause of his brother’s death.

The Wolfman is another in the recent string of Universal Studios reboots. Universal the Studio that is rightfully proud of their Horror film history as anyone who has been on the studios back lot tour can attest, tries to get some fresh mileage out of one of there all time classic horror icons “The Wolfman”. Loosely based on the 1941 original starring Lon Chaney Jr. This time it is Benicio Del Toro filling the lycanthropes shoes.

Del Toro comes home to his estranged Father Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) and Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt) the bereaved wife of his slain brother and Sir John’s man servant Singh (Art Malik). Hopkins, who from the home furnishings is a worldly traveler and former big game hunter, has no emotional connection to anyone in the film. Del Toro while searching the moors to find information on what happened to his brother is attacked by the Wolfman and becomes one himself.  Soon he is being tracked by Abberline (Hugo Weaving) a Scotland Yard investigator who plans on ending the mystery of whom or what is killing the local people.

Universal needs to stop trying to cash in and besmirch the legendary horror history of an icon such as the Wolfman. This is one of the worst reboots ever made. Both Anthony Hopkins and Del Toro appear to have been forced into this movie; it’s as if they know what they are doing is a hack job but are contractually obligated and cannot quit. From the get go it is clear that the entire cast is uninspired and knows that this film is doomed. Del Toro is woefully miscast and delivers a performance that requires at least a modicum of emotion; instead he delivers a blank stare that would make Keanu Reeves proud. Hopkins is beyond awful zigzagging between “I don’t want to be in this film” to “let me see how much I can overact”, at this point in his career he should know better.

Rather than create any feel of terror or dread Director Joe Johnston instead decides that some prop entrails and some poor CGI are all that is needed. One of the most crucial aspects of any Wolfman film is the transformation and this one is a disappointment, I would hope that in the 29 years since Rick Bakers genius transformation of David Naughton in “An American Werewolf in London” that he would have some improvement instead we are treated to some CGI transformation straight out of the Scyfy network (being a fan of Rick Bakers this is the biggest disappointment of all). The real sin is that once the transformation is complete we have a Wolfman that looks just like the 1941 original.

The whole point of remaking a film is to use the latest technology and techniques to create a version of the film that is superior to its predecessor. Universal happy to rape there own history, instead created a version that could have only been done to revamp the Van Helsing maze in there theme park. Grade-50

the wolfman

okay, this flick is pretty cool.  has a real old school horror movie vibe.  and the score by danny elfman really drives the suspense.

not really much to talk about with this one other than it certainly has it’s jump out of your seat moments.  there is quite a bit of gore, i mean, we see the wolfman mess some people up pretty badly.  and the transformation scenes alone probably would have made audiences in the forties throw up.  but to me, it really is an homage to those old school horror flicks.  in particular the wolfman with lon chaney, jr.  the beast looks very similar to lon chaney’s wolf man.  but he’s way more violent and bloody.

this film makes no pretensions about what it is.  a bloody, gory horror film.  benicio tel toro has the coolest name in hollywood.  and he does a good job of the wolfman.  not that it’s a particularly challenging role for a top flight actor such as benicio, but still, he pulls it off without a hitch.  as does sir anthony hopkins.  i love that dude.  and emily blunt is some mighty fine eye candy.  my favorite was hugo weaving as abberline.  the detective that comes to investigate the mysterious murders.  he’s just awesome.  they way he delivers his lines separates him from any other actor in hollywood.  he is truly original.

bottom line is this is a fun movie to watch.  if you can handle a little blood and gore.  well, actually quite a bit of blood and gore.  especially if you are a movie buff and into classic films as well.  a lot of the camera tricks and angles and things like that are a throw back to some of the stuff you’d see in horror films from the 40’s and 50’s.  so that was a lot of fun for me.

three severed body parts out of five.  and i’d most def pick this up for 5 bucks in the discount bin just to have on hand for halloween parties.

(Read Less...)

Cal Reed

Super Marcey's The Wolfman Review

Rating: 3/5

The Wolfman is another horror remake, however this is a remake of a film made quite some time ago, 1941 to be exact. So how exactly does this hold up? Could the story be done again for a new audience? Did the production problems that plagued the film actually hurt the film? Well I think the answer is yes and no, and it is really up to each person's individual tastes, I haven't seen a film with such mixed reviews for quite some time. I have seen people who hated this, people who loved it, people who thought it was average, below average, above average, it is all over the place. Well where does it sit with me? Slightly above average with the rating I have given it and I have my reasons obviously. 

The story is not new, being that it is a remake however we haven't seen a werewolf like this for quite some time (at least from what I can remember), he is a wolfman so he isn't on all fours (well some scenes yes but you get what I mean). The story is simple, a man named Lawrence Talbert (Benicio Del Toro) returns to where he grew up after the disappearance of his brother. It turns out something really vicious killed his brother and this beast is on the loose, of course Lawrence takes it upon himself to find out the truth. There are the complications of a strained relationship with his father John (Anthony Hopkins) and the attraction he feels for the woman his brother left behind Gwen (Emily Blunt). Also on the trail is one Abberline (Hugo Weaving) determined to find out what is going on. 

All the elements are there, mystery, family relationship, budding romance, mythology, and does it all come together? Yes and no, I felt that with this film they wanted it to be old school horror like the original but adding in elements of todays horror with gruesome gore and some violent scenes. It kind of worked in a way and it also didn't, the look of the Wolfman was alright but it seemed a little dated. He looked good but he looked like be belonged in a 40's film, on the plus side it gave some nice gore effects and it was a bit messy. Benicio was really hit and miss, his accent was mostly on but he seemed to be sleep walking his way through despite having the perfect look for the role. Anthony Hopkins was good, but there were some scenes that were unintentionally funny and that spoiled the mood a bit. He tried with the material he was given and I give him props for that. Emily Blunt is in a throw away role and she does what she can but it is a weak and poorly written role. She looks nice however, and she has zero chemistry with Benicio and the relationship between them just never got off the ground and I found it hard to believe she would care so much for him when she barely knows the man. Hugo Weaving is always awesome and I loved him in this role, I thought he was great even with the scene chewing he does. 

The music that was used in the film I actually quite liked and I thought it was rather affective, there was a lot of issues with the music and this film but for me it came together in the end. I really and truly hated the howling the Wolfman did, it was just too funny and silly and it really did not work what so ever, for me it was a mood killer. Unfortunately this film just has a mixture of elements that both work and don't work and those things which I think could have been fixed would have provided a much better film. The trailers for this film were actually quite awesome and extremely well edited, it really gave me high hopes. It suffers from pacing problems, I think certain things could have easily been removed for a tighter film. However some scenes actually worked rather well and were paced out nicely. I wish the rest would have been like that, but alas this is the film we were given. I'd be interested to see a director's cut and see how that might differ from the theatrical cut. 

(Written on Feb 25 2010, first published at SuperMarcey.com) 

Recommendations: Moon (Duncan Jones, 2009), Milk, Hurt Locker, The (Kathryn Bigelow, 2009)

Last updated: 2010-02-25 02:46:56 by SuperMarcey

The Wolfman

Arrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

That was a howl of boredom.

"The Wolfman" is of course an update of a monster movie first shown in 1941.

Historians around the world concur that 1941 was a hell of a long time ago. FDR had just been sworn in for his third term. Gas was twelve cents a gallon. "Chatanooga Choo Choo" was all over the radio. Dick Cheney was born in 1941!

Strange, then, that the 2010 version of the classic werewolf tale differs from the 1941 original in one -- and only one -- way.

In the original, the title was rendered in three words: "The Wolf Man." At the time, who could possibly predict that, seventy years later, Hollywood would be so far advanced as to make the same movie under the more modern title, "The Wolfman."

Let's all take a bow on behalf of western civilization. That's right, folks. Take a bow!

By so willfully ignoring every dramatic advance of the last seventy years, this movie created a battle in my heart between anger and boredom. Since I was mostly angry about how bored I was, boredom must be considered the winner.

Here's why I was bored:

Benicio del Toro plays a nineteenth-century British stage actor who returns to his family estate to investigate the savage death of his brother.

You and I know who killed his brother. It was the Wolfman! But Benicio doesn't know this yet.

Therefore he puts the moves on his brother's grieving widow, Emily Blunt.


If Emily Blunt happens to be reading this (odds are low), please stop doing period pieces. Hollywood only makes three a year and they always suck. Period pieces need you a lot more than you need them. Thank you.

Back to the Wolfman.

Del Toro seeks out a nearby gypsy camp for answers as to who killed his brother. Before he can get those answers, the camp is attacked by -- you guessed it -- the Wolfman! He puts a nasty bite on del Toro's shoulder. Uh oh, you're thinking. That means del Toro's going to become a Wolfman himself. Right you are, reader!

Not anytime soon, though. First there's lots of walking around hearing terrible legends about the dastardly Wolfman. There's lots of flashbacks about del Toro's past. And there's lots of talk with suspicious Scotland Yard inspector Hugo Weaving.

It's not till the second half of the movie that Del Toro makes the dramatic transformation we have been watching on tv shows like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" for at least the last couple decades. But boy is the movie impressed with this moment. Del Toro's hands (brace yourself) turn hairy RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES.

Del Toro runs around and eats a few people, then gets handed over to Hugo Weaving the next day by his callous father, Anthony Hopkins, who -- are you with me here? -- turns out to be the original Wolfman himself.

The movie culminates with a battle between father and son inside stately Wolf Manor. As far as werewolf special effects go, I haven't seen anything remotely so spectacular since "Twilight 2" opened four months ago.

And that's what baffles. As a culture we are familiar enough with the concept of beastly transformation in fiction that you absolutely must take the concept some new direction if you want to hold our attention.

Ultimately, "The Wolfman" is another ridiculous attempt by Hollywood to get out of having to write an original script. Even the paltry effort to re-imagine an old-time franchise has become too onerous, it seems, so Universal has opted do the exact same thing they did in 1941 but with modern effects and actors.

Thus warranting themselves a visit from the hideous... unspeakable...


...Wolfman.

SCORE

How Accomplished: 09/100

How Much I Enjoyed: 09/100

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-02-22 20:54:40 by user02

The Wolfman

venue: Cineworld Renfield Street, Glasgow                        Date: Wednesday, 10 February 2010
After watching the trailers for this movie I got really excited to see it and then came the delays and even more delays though my anticipation for the movie didn’t dwindle it actually increased. So roll on the 10th of February and all I can say is my anticipation fell that fast like like the fall of Troy.
The Wolfman 2010 is the moderised 21 st century version of the Lorne Chaney 1941 masterpiece, the classic story of an lycantrope love (horror) story. So the setting is the late 1880/1890’s England actor Lawerence Talbot (Benico Del Toro) is returning home to help in the search for brother who has drastically disappeared. He returns at the request of his brother widowed fianance Gwen  (Emily Blunt) back to his father’s(Anthony Hopkins) crumbling estate. The prodigal son finally goes home and we first see all is not well on the homefront. Over time Lawerence and Gwen do fall for each other but before this love affair could blossom, Lawerence falls prey to a Lycan’s kiss (bite) after he confronted the beast himself, from here everything just goes bumped in the night.
When I mention my anticipation drastically changed  it was probably down to my typical high anticapted attitude I had for this flick rather going into the movie open minded and not to expect alot. If you wanted action you get it from the first minute as the wolf does his best impression of leaving the mark of zorro on its intended victim with its razor sharp claws. Along with the actions there’s enough blood and guts for us all as director Joe Johnston doesnt shy on the slashed entrails, severed body parts, ghastly wounds and torn flesh that even gore masters like Romero or Argento would be proud of.
This version is really more homage to the 1941 classic than a horror story. We get plenty of the campness of Del Toro’s howlin wolf whistles, his running around the London rooftops along with his best impression of Bruce Banner after transforming back to human form in his hulk style fashion statement tattered clothes.
As for the acting, well what acting? Benico Del Toro acted more like Droopy the Dog than fangface, at times he was so montone  and looked stressed but you would get more action from a plank of wood . As for Anthony Hopkins you know what to expect from him and you either like it or you dont, as for Hugo Weavings I have to say he was the best of the bunch with his passionate and more believable performance. Sadly Emily Blunts character was so harshly underused with this been a love story which was more like a father/son relationship.
Positive points about this movie where majority of the CGI simply becuase it would have have too expensive to try recreate  19th century gothic London so you have to use next best thing CGI. When you have an oscar winner artist on board the team(Rick Baker)  you expect high qaulity and when that man was responsible for the most famous man morphing into werewolf in John Landis American Werewolf in London. So when Del Toro changes into Wolfie it felt like he had a bad case of constipation. My compliments for the CGI dissappeared when the Van Helsing style WWE appeared at the end  all it was missing was the cheesy costumes & intro music and the half naked females. More and more your eyes were opened to the inhouse fighting, reshoots and changes of personnel that really caused this move been a potential great movie.
When someone is to be entertain its to provke a human sense be it to laugh, smile, anger or cry you have been entertained in some form. This movie did make me laugh after several bad weeks for myself and was only reason for my end score (along with Weaving’s performance). The movie overall is loyal to the original with some loving blood and guts also thrown in for good measure. If they remembered  to write a good script, add the horror, the passion along with stop the fighting this would have been a good one, Iwas entertained but nothing less or nothing more.
Movie Rating: 3/5
(if there was no Hugo Weaving or I was able to laugh it would have been lucky to get 2/5)

http://thepeoplesmovies.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/the-wolfman-review/

Review: The Wolfman

Benicio Del Toro was a perfect casted actor to play the wolfman, unfortunately the movie isn't as fun as it should had been.  I don't think it completely terrible, I can sort of kinda see what the production team was trying to go for here, but there were four things that just derailed the whole thing:
 
/</igdl style="width: 322px;"/>/ig yes, we get it: the moon.</dl> 
1-The freaking moon.  I knew that we would get some moon shots, but damn if it was like one every three minutes or so. We get it! People have been getting it since the whole wolfman business began. I started rolling my eyes at the constant shots about 20 minutes in, 'cause it was just too much moon.
2-Anthony Hopkins phoned in performance. I really don't know what he was going for here; a sort of wink at the camera that he knows more than he lets and some air of mystery I presume, but it just didn't work, he's too hammy, and not interested about being there except to get his paycheck.  It is as though he was going for camp--it is a wolfman movie that comes from the Van Helsing school--but the director clearly wanted this to be more serious, so Sir Hopkins performance goes against it.
3-Not enough story.  For a movie that sort of clearly wanted to be something more than what it is, they didn't really had a solid story with any deeper meaning, and the romance could have been done better; I mean: why are these two people suddenly in love? why the wolf explanation so rushed? no time was given for anything to be smooth out better.
4-The makeup.  When we first get glimpses of the beast, it runs very fast and it isn't wearing any ripped/torn clothing ala Incredible Hulk pants, and for the briefest of moments during the first full chase/attack, the movie feels exciting.  But then we get the Benicio wolf outfit and it is just....bad.  The fact that he retains his clothes while in beast makes it even worse.  It isn't scary, not that I think this movie was going for scary.  So much potential wasted, because like I said: Benicio was meant for the part....on the hands of a good director with a truly good story perhaps.  Grade: D+

(Read Less...)

The Wolfman

Rating 4/10

BOTTOM LINE: Misguided, uneven and poorly executed, this re-telling of “The Wolfman” is by and large a waste of time, despite some excellent production design and visuals.

THE GOOD: Starting from good source material, “The Wolfman” seeks to tell the classic tale of the man cursed to turn in to a werewolf whenever the moon is full. Benicio Del Toro plays Lawrence Talbot, the prodigal son who returns to the family estate of his father Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) upon hearing the news of the death of his brother Ben at the hands of a wild animal. Wanting to find answers, Lawrence eventually becomes cursed himself when he is attacked by the werewolf. Condemned to damnation and life as a werewolf when the moon turns full, Lawrence eventually discovers the truth about his father, and his mother’s death, which leads to a violent confrontation and resolution between them. Much of “The Wolfman” succeeds in its production design, visuals and creature design. The werewolves in particular look particularly frightening and real, as do the gothic images that create the viewing experience. Del Toro does an effective job of portraying the tragedy of his character, and Emily Blunt is decent as the woman who is trying to save him. “The Wolfman” looks good, and in some sense is a noble effort in trying to make this a serious monster movie that stands apart from other films like “The Mummy” which induced comedy along with the scares.

THE BAD: Mis-directed and poorly executed, “The Wolfman” sabotages itself at every turn thanks to muddled plotting, inconsistent character actions and a poor meld of traditional make up and computer generated effects. The first half of the film does not make clear the character relations or the set up of what type of film it is trying to be. As a result, the other wise good cast look confused some of the time, with Anthony Hopkins in particular putting in an uneven performance, thanks largely to a poorly written script. The relationships between Lawrence and Gwen (Emily Blunt) is badly handled; in some ways trying to create a romantic link but in others showing that it is inappropriate given that Gwen is Lawrence’s dead brother’s fiancee. The use of traditional make up techniques works well in the film, but when computer generated effects take over, the otherwise gritty gothic film makes way for a more cartoon element in the computer effects which makes the whole thing silly and unbelievable. “The Wolfman” was reported to be plagued by production problems and this is certainly evident by what you see on screen; a film that is directionless, uninspired and something of a mess.

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

The Wolfman

The Wolfman, directed by Joe Johnston with screenplay by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self, is one scary, gory, entertaining hoot or should I say “howl.”

The Wolfman, a revisiting of the classic 1941 Curt Siodmak movie screenplay, The Wolf Man, stars Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Benicio Del Toro as his son Lawrence (his lack of English accent is explained away as the result of being sent to America as a young boy), Emily Blunt as Gwen Conliffe, the fiancé of Lawrence’s late brother Ben who’s been killed under mysterious circumstances and Hugo Weaving as Abberline, the Inspector hunting down the unknown killer.

Anthony Hopkins immediately classes up any movie in which he participates and he makes the most of every bit of screen time he has, but not in a cheesy, over the top way. If you’re expecting a Hannibal Lecter Hopkins, you will be disappointed, but his restrained performance helps the movie a great deal. Academy Award winner Benicio Del Toro also treats his part seriously. He’s very convincing as a man confronting demons from his past, trying to take charge of his present and future. Emily Blunt makes the most of the little screen time she has, but her scenes with Benicio Del Toro are charged with chemistry.

Aside from the two male leads, the real stars of this movie are the English moors and the amazing special effect makeup created by Rick Baker and his team. Together they set the eery tone for The Wolfman.

For sheer imagination, nothing beats the original Wolf Man. The black and white imagery and the performance of Maria Ouspenskaya as the gypsy who explains the curse of the werewolf just can’t be beat.  But The Wolfman, judged on its own merits, makes for a highly entertaining afternoon at the movies.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-02-24 19:02:35 by jfuchsman

The Wolfman (2010)

I caught this one just yesterday with my cousins. The cast looked strong with  Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins and Emily Blunt in the lead roles but  unfortunately the movie just plodded on as it headed towards its inevitable  tragic ending.

I thought the film was helmed by Stephen Sommers (The Mummy, The Mummy  Returns, Van Helsing  and G.I. Joe) based on news I read years ago that Sommers  had acquired the rights to make movies based on the industry’s old monster  characters like Frankenstein. Boy, was I wrong.

Production values were high but the story was just too draggy and every step made in the film just seemed to take forever. Joe Johnston should’ve sped things  up a little. Incidentally Johnston has been tapped to direct the upcoming  Captain America flick which is currently in pre-production.

On the whole I really liked Benicio Del Toro and Hopkins in this one but the  script and pacing of the movie was just too much to bear. I give this one a  dismal 2 out of 5.

Rating: 2 Stars (out of 5)

http://wengyuen.wordpress.com

The Wolfman - *1/2

nullp style="margin: 0px;"nullStarring:  Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving

I have nobody to blame but myself for this movie.  I should have seen this one coming.  A movie with some promise, but was just begging to be cheesy.  The original Wolfman is a classic but the storyline leaves a lot of room for a more intriguing story.  After seeing this version I can safely say...there is still room.

The movie has an interesting premise and the potential is there, it just doesn't come through.  The movie centers around a man named Lawrence (Benicio Del Toro) who returns home to look for his brother who has gone missing.  Upon his return he is staying in his extraordinarily large house with his estranged father (Anthony Hopkins) and his brother's fiancee (Emily Blunt). 

When he arrives in town he finds out his brother is dead and was found with his body ripped to pieces.  Through talking to some of the local residents, the idea of a curse is brought to his attention.  A curse that turns a normal man into a great beast that can rip another man limb from limb.  Naturally, Lawrence decides to go off into the night on the next full moon to see if he can track down this beast to "find out what happened to his brother."  He encounters the beast, gets attacked and bitten, and, of course, becomes a werewolf himself.  This leads to his first transformation at the next full moon, in which he transforms and runs off into the night to slaughter as many random people as he can.
<a name="more"></a>
This is one of the things that bothers me about the movie, whenever a character turns into a werewolf, he just goes on a killing rampage and disgustingly murders anyone that gets in his way.  Why does he just feel the need to kill everyone?  What is the point?  In similar storylines where people turn into monsters they only kill when necessary or when they are defending themselves or someone else (think vampires or the Hulk).  However, this beast just kills everything it sees.  Perhaps this is the "scary" part of the story, but it is just stupid if you ask me.

I had a few more problems with this movie.  The acting was stale, the direction was less than good and the story was very weak.  This did not seem so much like an actual movie as it did a collection of scenes the director thought would be "cool," even though they were not.  This lack of storyline made me especially mad when I saw that the script was written by Andrew Kevin Walker.  I expected more from the writer of Se7en.  It is this disappointment that leads me to believe that the original script was much better and there was much more to the story but it was so chopped up that we ended up with this movie.  This would explain the disjointed feel of the movie.  However, it is not an excuse, and this movie could have been more.

The acting and directing were stale for the whole movie as well.  Benicio Del Toro just looks out of place and like he doesn't care the character or storyline.  Anthony Hopkins is having fun in his role but he doesn't have much meat to it and it mostly comes off as stupid and cheesy.  Emily Blunt is very attractive and may have some talent but doesn't show it here.  She also does not look like she cares and seems disinterested.  The majority of the characters in the movie feel this way, and that can be blamed on suspect writing and directing.

The movie did have one redeeming quality.  The production design was great.  I love period movies and this one did not disappoint in the period department.  Also, the special effects were great.  The transformation sequences didn't look all that real, but once transformed, the wolfman makeup looked great.  The entire wolfman get up was done extremely well, which I would expect nothing less coming from Rick Baker, the makeup effects master.

All in all, a very, very disappointing movie that is not really worth your time.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-02-14 23:36:00 by ReeltimeReport

THE WOLFMAN

The Wolfman does not feel like a movie made in the year 2010.  I’m not saying that because it takes place in the 1800’s; I’m saying that because it has the feel of a movie you’ve seen many times before.  You would think by now the filmmakers would say to themselves “This is no different from any other werewolf movie” after watching what they’ve made.  Maybe they haven’t seen many others.   I think the one thing they thought they had going for themselves is better technology for special effects.  They’re right about that part at least.  Since it is 2010, they’re lucky to have the capability of making good visual effects.
It’s the story that is lacking any originality.  Casting Benicio Del Toro was smart because not only is he a good actor but he also kind of looks like a wolfman already.  Anthony Hopkins is in the film too, but 2 good actors aren’t enough to keep a bad movie interesting.  An American Werewolf in London raised the bar for special effects back in the 80’s with its amazing werewolf transformation scene.  This film has a good transformation scene too, once they finally get around to it.  The film does drag for a while.
There are just too many scenes that feel like scenes we’ve already seen before.  The main character is thought to be insane at one point for thinking he is a werewolf.  A doctor has him strapped to a chair on display for others to see while he lectures them on insanity.  Of course, a full moon occurs and the man starts to transform into a wolf while still in the chair.  Everyone watching becomes horrified and they try telling the doctor to turn around, but he’s too busy going on his rant to notice the werewolf behind him.  That’s been in so many horror movies that involve pretty much any type of creature behind someone that doesn’t realize it. I’d much rather watch Teen Wolf, at least that was a werewolf movie with an original concept.

Recommendations: The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Se7en , 25th Hour

http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-philadelphia/danny-porcaro

Last updated: 2010-02-15 13:12:57 by thatmoviedude

The Wolfman

     I had a weary feeling going into "The Wolfman."  The same sort of feeling I had going into the recent "Sherlock Holmes."  Both films tread on the hallowed ground of classic material.  You must tread lightly there and show proper respect.  "The Wolfman" fails to do either.
 
     "The Wolfman" is based on the original 1941 film "The Wolf Man."  In the modern adaptation, Lawrence Talbot, played lifelessly by Benicio Del Toro, is mauled by an enormous, man like wolf creature (...a werewolf) and, at the next full moon, the curse of the werewolf causes him to also become a werewolf, and the only one who can free him from this curse (kill him) is one who loves him.  
 
     There isn't a lot to the plot that you haven't see before, but if the story is done well and the characters are people we can empathize with, that shouldn't matter.  In "The Wolfman," it matters.  Let's start with the action sequences.  They are far too graphic, fast, and unbelievable.  It seems like the plot and story are just a contrivance to get us to the action sequences where body parts fly, shredded corpses litter the ground, and werewolves move like actors in a kung-fu movie, defying the laws of physics to put on a show which happens far too quickly and that is far beyond any suspension of disbelief.  The basics of a great story are there.  Lawrence Talbot and Gwen Conliffe, played here by Emily Blunt, fall in love and Gwen must kill Lawrence to set him free and end the curse.  We even get an a new twist on the story with Sir Anthony Hopkins, who plays Lawrence Talbot's father, also being a werewolf.  Now the son must kill his beloved father to free him from the curse.  None of this potential is realized, however, because all three actors give us wooden, emotionless, and absolutely dead performances.  Lawrence Talbot has no love for his father, and the love story between Lawrence Gwen is never developed.  Rather, it's quickly and awkwardly established in ten second of exposition.  You are never allowed to develop any empathy or feeling for any of these characters.  They just stare at the camera and deliver lines flatly so we an all get on to the next, unbelievably gruesome scene of werewolf carnage.  While we can blame writers Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self for the lack of story, ultimately, blame rests with director Joe Johnston.  Anyone who can't get a decent performance out of Sir Anthony Hopkins doesn't need to be directing. 
 
     "The Wolfman" doesn't have enough action for fans of action films, the gore happens to quickly for fans of splatter flicks, and is awful even for a monster movie.  I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on it, or its inevitable sequel.  (Yes, sadly, the ending set up a sequel.)

(Read Less...)

Brian
Ciné Critique Américain

The Wolfman

This movie was exactly what I expected it to be. Re-edited and re-shot to be a miracle of inoffensiveness, its a bland, shell of a movie merely hinting at what could have been. Just in case you don't know the spiel that goes with the making of this movie, a talented and innovative director named Mark Romanek was hired to give a brand new take on the age old Universal horror property, The Wolfman. The movie world gets excited. Universal however get some cold feet, and try to reign in Romanek's supposedly darker, more intense vision to the point where he up and quits, leaving them no choice but to hire professional yes man Joe Johnstone. The rest is soon to be forgettable history.

Benico Del Toro stars as the titular lycan, bitten by a fellow wolf when he comes home to tend to his recently consumed brother's affairs. relatively tame carnage ensues. The frustrating thing is there's a better movie here. The twisted, monstrous family dynamic is far the large part sidelined in favor of action and cool trailer shots. The movie tells no story, we just go aimlessly from scene to scene. And this would even be OK for an action movie, if that's the way you have to tell it, if the sodding action was any good. But ladies and gentleman it is lame. Very tame, an over-reliance on ironic deaths, which is trying of the best of times, but when someone says ' and if I'm wrong I'll fly out that window' and is promptly thrown out the window, a line has been crossed guys. Its forced, funny in a bad way and just generally shitty really. The movie also pulled that age old PG-13 horror movie trick of all the victims being middle-aged men, because focus groups find their deaths the least horrifying see. Then there's the amateurish opening, which felt like something of Supernatural, of a guy wondering around in the woods shouting 'Who's there' and 'show yourself'. Then there's an onslaught of shitty dream sequences, one of which makes an allusion t American Werewolf In London. Well done guys, you just reminded me how shit your movie really is. But all these criticisms, I think, amount to directorial hackery, of which Johnstone is certainly guilty. The performances, while not great, were at least not groan inducing to watch.

I did feel a little sorry for Del Toro, not acting in the movie he signed up to act in, and he comes across a little distant, with moments hinting at something more. Anthony Hopkins however, knows how to act in this kind of movie. Unlike most actors, I actually enjoy Hopkins more when he clearly doesn't give a shit, because he has almost made an art out of disinterested hamming. Just as he was the best thing in Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula by being entirely batshit whilst everyone else took it seriously, he is similarly good value here. Despite some awful dialogue. Emily Blunt is an actress I like a lot, but it is a horribly thin role, ditto Hugo Weaving, although he made the best of it.

To conclude, a very disappointing movie. Painfully compromised and timid. Avoid.

Rating: 5/10

Definitely Has The Thrills...But It Needs A Better Story.

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.

(Read Less...)

Vincent Snavely

The Wolfman

Genre: Horror, Drama
Director: Joe Johnston
Starring: Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving
Running Time: 105 minutes (plus trailers)

"Terrible things Lawrence. You've done terrible things."

Based on the film of the same name from 1941, Joe Johnston’s remake of The Wolfman tells the tale of a young man who returns home to his father’s estate in rural England in 1891 following the brutal death of his brother at the hands of an unidentified beast. After a run in of his own with the monster that leaves him sporting a nasty bite wound, the young man begins to go through a series of ghastly transformations whenever there is a full moon, unable to control his own bloodlust. A staple of classic horror in the 40s, seventy years later the story of The Wolfman is a hackneyed and predictable as they come. The drawn out plot and uninspired production in this film sparked no fear or even interest in me as I counted the minutes, lay down in my seat and even went so far to do the unthinkable: check my text message, as I waited for the movie to end.

I’m just going to come right out and say it: since I began this blog a little over a year ago, The Wolfman is one of the worst movies I have ever had to review. I look back at films I’ve given extremely low ratings to, films like I’ve Loved You So Long or Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen – two movies (although they could not possibly be more different) that I felt a deep personal loathing for; the former a smug and pretentious foreign wank, the latter an offensive and bloated piece of trash. I hated those films, but despite the fact that I think The Wolfman might be worse than either of them, I didn’t hate it. No, The Wolfman is instead a film I pity. Say whatever you want about Transformers (and believe me I have), at least one could argue that it succeeded its own pathetic terms. The Wolfman doesn’t succeed on any terms.

Starting from the top: the movies looks terrible. It’s got that really obvious sheen of a hack film, a slight blur to it, the camera constantly just out of focus. It’s as if someone has smeared Vaseline over the lense in an attempt to make it appear more like a period film, succeeding only in making even the actual physical sets look like poor rendered CGI; of course they don’t look nearly as bad as the actual CGI. It breaks my heart to see directors generating their animals (and I don’t mean the actual Wolfman, I mean a bear or a deer) on a computer because it’s cheaper or easier than dealing with the real thing. As for the werewolves themselves, I think if we have learnt anything from not one but two Hulk movies, it is that depicting a man morphing into a beast of some kind, muscles shifting and bones creaking, looks not so much scary as it does utterly ridiculous.

The movie is also very bloody, which would never normally register as a complaint for me. But the problem here is that while the violence is quite graphic, it’s not treated with any weight. We see heads getting torn off, throats getting ripped out, intestines being slung across furniture like gory Christmas decorations, and all of it played, or so it seemed to me, for laughs. Which isn’t a bad thing in theory (I can see the humour in decapitation like anyone else), but this simply isn’t a funny film. I’d have loved it if this had turned in a B-movie; who wouldn’t want to see a cheesy, campy werewolf movie with bucket loads of blood and gore? But with the movie aiming at the realm of serious cinema, the over the top violence comes across as unsuitably glib, out of place and pretty unpleasant.

The acting is universally poor, although perhaps the material they were working with is more to blame than the performers themselves. All jokes about appropriate casting aside, the very hairy Benecio del Toro elicits absolutely no sympathy as the films lead, whilst Emily Blunt as his deceased brother’s fiancé and (you guessed it) love interest is similarly vacant. Worst of all though, and I hate to say it, is Anthony Hopkins, who delivers every single woeful line of dialogue with exact same intonation and exact same bored expression on his face. The semi-saving grace in terms of the acting was Hugo Weaving as the detective determined to hunt the Wolfman down. Not that his performance is particularly strong, but I guess after seeing him as Elrond and Agent Smith, there’s something pleasantly familiar about watching him in the role of a pompous jerk.

What else is there? Oh yes, the script! And how could I forget it, seeing as I recognized it from probably fifty other films. Honestly, The Wolfman is nothing but a series of woeful exchanges strung together to resemble a tired and clichéd plot that had me yawning five minutes into the film. In my recent review of Jason Reitman’s Up in the Air I questioned what is more important in a script: the overall story structure, or the dialogue in each individual scenes. Well as it turns out, both are pretty fucking important. This films story is utterly derivative of every werewolf story you’ve ever heard and can be called from start to finish. On top of that, even the most casual film goer will be able to predict lines before they leave a characters mouth; if a son is returning after a long absence he would be the what son?

I should mention that were a couple of brief moments of perhaps unintentional but never the less entertaining campiness in between the agonizingly slow dramatic scenes; a conceptually creative (although horribly realized) dream sequence and a laughably over the top fear mongering sermon amongst them. Safe to say though, the only part of this movie that I actually enjoyed was the final fight between del Toro and Hopkins’s characters, both of them in full blown furry mode. As they begin to transform, papa wolf rips off what remains of his shirt with both hands, and let’s face it, when someone does that, you know it’s on. What followed was truly it one of the most poorly conceived, staged, choreographed, directed and edited fight scenes I have ever seen; so poor in fact that as one wolf clung to the wall and then flipped his opponent over a grand piano, I couldn’t help but giggle.

But for the most part, The Wolfman can’t even succeed as an unintentional comedy because it’s just too boring. This movie literally fails in every possible way a movie can fail; poor direction, terrible acting, atrocious dialogue, laughable special effects. It is not scary, it is not tense, it is not exciting and it is not fun. It is one of the dullest, most clichéd films I have seen, possibly ever, and while I don’t feel enough contempt for it to give it a zero out of ten (I’d probably rather watch this over Transformers or Dragonball Evolution just on principle), I still cannot stress enough how awful it truly is.

Rating: 1/10

Recommendations: Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

The Wolfman: A Film Suffering From Split Personalities

With several postponed release dates, a director swap, a host of re-shoots and re-writes, The Wolfman finally made it to theatres this Friday. In an effort to give werewolf fans a much needed boost (vampires have so far dominated cinema, and this year’s New Moon did nothing to appease true fans of lycanthropy), The Wolfmansets out to reintroduce this classic monster to a new audience. Here’s the breakdown:
Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returns to his family’s English estate after the brutal murder of his brother. There, he must deal with his eccentric father (Anthony Hopkins) and his brother’s fiancee, Gwen (Emily Blunt). After being bitten by the same beast that killed his brother, Lawrence finds himself a slave to the full moon, unleashing a horrible curse. Inspector Abberline (Hugo Weaving) is tasked with uncovering the mysterious happenings.
The Monkey: The art direction and set design on this film are gorgeous. From the misty forest to the cob-webbed mansion, the sets of The Wolfman establish the tone of the story wonderfully. Danny Elfman’s score is also very appropriate, combing the sounds of the period with haunting gypsy melodies.
For the most part, the acting was top-notch. As always, Anthony Hopkins was superb as the eccentric, possibly crazed, father. Emily Blunt played the mourning girlfriend well enough, and Hugo Weaving makes for a convincing, hard-nosed inspector.
Viewers are treated to one of the best man-to-werewolf transformations ever, even rivaling the Underworld franchise - the scenes were brutal and believable.
The Weasel: The evidence of re-shoots and re-writes are painfully apparent. There are three distinct films that have been chopped up and spliced together. All three films, if made to completion, would have been much better than the strange amalgamation that audiences are left with. For starters, the film establishes a creepy gypsy curse; however, this plot-line is abandoned half-way through the film. Then, there’s the obvious effort to pay homage to classic werewolf movies (most notably in the creature makeup). But this tribute clashes with the film’s third persona; trying to heighten the scare-factor, increase the body count and spill tons of guts.
The gypsy plot-line would have added something new and original, giving the werewolf curse an origin (there was an obvious place to include Lawrence’s mother as part of the gypsy plot thread, but once again, the opportunity was either ignored and rewritten). The violence did nothing for the story, either. Too gory for those with weak stomaches and not gory enough for those who enjoy it, the violence felt out of place. Not only was it unoriginal, it tried, and failed, to elevate the film above a classic remake to modern horror level.
The “epic” fight scene that ends the film was a disappointment. It was a tease; viewers walk away knowing the fight could have been bigger, better and more intense.
Add to all this the lackluster performance by Benicio Del Toro, and you have a film that confuses the audience, offering very little in the way of action or effects to counterbalance the film’s flaws.
I would have liked to see any of the three films (especially the gypsy-themed one), but instead, I’m left with what the filmmakers provided – a messy mix of plot that seems just as confused and cursed as the title character. It looks like, for now, vampires still rule the box office.
2.5 Death Stars out of 5
http://hearculturepop.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/the-wolfman-a-film-suffering-from-split-personalities/ 

(Read Less...)

The Wolfman

/</gispan style="font-size: 3px;"/>/gi   If you think that YOU have a problem once-a-month that makes you  irritable, upset, and bloated then you might wanna re-evaluate just how  bad you really think it is...The Wolfman, starring Benicio Del Toro,  Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving creates an enchanting  world of gypsy folklore, legendary creatures and a misunderstanding  English village. After returning to investigate his brothers mysterious  death, Lawrence Talbot (Del Toro) is attacked by a beast as he was at a  Gypsy camp looking for clues. Upon his survival, he realizes that now  that he has been bitten and recovered from his attack, he must take on a  whole new set of problems. One being his ability to turn into a  blood-thirsty maniacal "wolf-man" who uncontrollably goes after anyone  and everyone during a full moon. Secondly, his new-found  ability/struggle strengthens what the family had already believed about  their family's curse as Anthony Hopkins, as his father, fills in the  gory details </span>   Taylor Lautner has a lot to learn from Benicio Del  Toro about what a B.A. Werewolf is SUPPOSED to be. No over-sized,  "almost cute" wolves running around shirtless trying to win the love of  cute teens over here. This Wolfman is a straight-up killer who cant do  anything but destroy people. I know not a single woman will fall for  THIS wolf and begin wearing "Team Del Toro" T-shirts anytime soon. This  film holds firm to the original monster movie and does the story  justice. Kudos to you Wolfman.  
My Elementary  Grading Scale: Exceeding Expectations 1-10: 8.5

The Wolfman

Universal Studios' first attempt at a monster franchise rejuvenation comes in an update of their classic movie, "The Wolfman". With names like Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins at the top of the bill, it looks as though the studio is hoping to lend dramatic credibility to this monster genre story.

In several regards, this movie succeeds in bringing class to an often classless genre. Yes there is blood and messy violence. But there is also an engaging subtlety to characterization that only the likes of Hopkins can bring. And Del Toro's eyes have a brooding quality to them that lends darkness to his scenes while still remaining sympathetic.

The look and feel of the movie is well done. The sets and location are wonderful and transported me easily to the world they were creating.

Genre fans will appreciate the attack sequences, which usually end with multiple body parts strewn about the room. But they may also be let down by the uninspiring transformation sequences, which utilize only CGI, rather than a blend of make-up and digital effects. Even if you prefer CGI to practical "in-camera" effects, we've seen all of these transformation beats before in movies like "An American Werewolf In London" and the "Underworld" movies. They still look pretty neat in this movie, but for a franchise relaunch attempt, I wish they had taken their time and come up with a new approach to the concept.

Fans of the classic universal movies will also notice that the werewolf look in this movie is clearly inspired by the original. For my tastes, this was a bad way to go. I've seen that "classic werewolf" look lampooned too many times to avoid seeing a shaggy man that looks a little silly and with a hairdo that seems to belong in the 80's for some unidentifiable reason. The face of the werewolf in this flick just reminded me too much of "Teen Wolf" for me to feel very intimidated by it. The more wolf-like bone structure seen in other werewolf movies works better for me than the "super hairy man" look used here. Some other updates to the physicality of the werewolf worked well in this movie, but the look of the face and head fell flat.

As with any story of this nature (The Hulk, Mr. Hyde, etc.) they have opportunity to deal with man's fallen state and the beast we all have within us. This movie contains a few lines in the script dealing with this theme, but the attempt seems half-hearted. It's doubtful the film will motivate any meaningful conversation. The plot is interesting and took a few turns I didn't expect, but some of the main plot points and story beats were very predictable.

Despite my issues with the flick, this is a very solid monster movie that genre fans should see. If not in theaters, than definitely on DVD. And with the performances involved, there may even be some appeal for non-genre fans. But there's nothing terribly new here. An enjoyable yet forgettable experience.

Rated R for bloody horror violence and gore.

Quality: 8.5/10

Relevance: 6.0/10

www.spiritblade.net/podcast
www.spiritblade.net/paeter

(Read Less...)

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spiritblade.net/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;http://www.spiritblade.net/images/SB_button_banner.gif &quot; width=&quot;302&quot; height=&quot;77