Loading
The Wolfman (2010)
 Tags: Anthony Hopkins, Benicio Del Toro, blood, Emily Blunt, gore, Hugo Weaving, Joe Johnston, lycan, lycanthrope, period piece, the wolfman, Universal Pictures, wolfman |
(24 votes)
Rating #:
7/10
Director:
Joe Johnston
Runtime:
102 minutes
Cast:
Benicio Del Toro,
Anthony Hopkins,
Emily Blunt,
Hugo Weaving
Reportedly a "passion project" for actor Benicio Del Toro, this remake has been in development for several years now, but finally began moving forward once director Joe Johnston (Jumanji, Jurassic Park III) was attached to the project, quickly replacing Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo), who left due to "creative differences". Despite the many obvious flaws in the remake, I still found myself enjoying every minute of it.
I've never seen the original 1941 film, so I can't compare the two, but the premise for this one follows Benicio Del Toro's character "Lawrence", who returns home after he's contacted about the disappearance of his brother. It's soon revealed that his bro was killed by some sort of beast and Lawrence discovers that he had some dealings with local gypsies before his death. Seeking answers, Lawrence decides to question an old woman at a nearby
gypsy camp, which also happens to be during the night of the full moon. Naturally the "beast" that attacked his deceased brother terrorizes the camp and takes a nice chunk out of Lawrence's shoulder before running into the woods.After we pass the first somewhat slow-paced 25-or-so minutes the movie pretty much becomes an action/horror flick, delivering a lot of action-oriented sequences that (along with the CG and period sets and clothing) show off the film's $150-million dollar budget(!?). The look of Benicio in werewolf form was kept fairly classic and similar to the old design, but of course his look shouldn't really come as a surprise since shots of him in full makeup were revealed early into the production.
It's really hard to capture a good werewolf transformation, especially when dealing with CG, but I thought they did a good job in this movie. The transformation looks obviously CG, but it was done fairly well, especially when we were shown a close-up of Benicio's face during one particular scene, but there are other scenes that didn't look as sharp as it could've. The movie is surprisingly gory, but that makes sense considering we're dealing with an old school werewolf here and not some love struck teenager that happens to turn into a giant wolf when provoked enough (*rolls eyes*).
Luckily, a majority of the gore presented in the movie is done practically by the effects maestro and genre vet
himself, Rick Baker. Expect loads of severed limbs and lots of clawing and biting to occur among various innocents as the wolfman terrorizes the townspeople (awesome!). I also loved the look of the movie, from the period sets, moody fog, and the many dark and eerie scenes it had to offer. This, added with composer Danny Elfman's haunting music, really fit together perfectly.The flick is still not without its fault and sadly there are quite a few here -- being such great actors you'd expect Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, and Hugo Weaving to show off some excellent performances on-screen, but they're not given anything to work with! The script is void of any proper character development or dialogue and Hopkins isn't used as well as he
could've been and seemed to only exist to further some scenes. Hugo on the other hand was probably my favorite from the bunch, even outshining Benicio (when he's not in wolf form anyway).There's also supposed to be some sort of romance between Benicio and Emily Blunt's character, but it's hard to find it believable when the woman just lost her fiancée weeks prior and we're not given enough scenes with the two leads together to even care enough for anything to happen anyway. The movie also missed any potentially tense or suspenseful moments that would have worked well with the great look and mood of certain given scenes.
Wolfman is an entertaining flick that delivers the goods in certain areas, while falling short in others. Whether you like the movie in the end will likely be determined by how you approach it from the beginning -- if you're expecting a smart thriller or something to think about, then you won't find that here, but if you're like me and just want a vicious and bloody no-brainer werewolf flick, then you'll probably end up enjoying it.
| Posted on February 15, 2010 - 12:26am | FrighT MasteR |
Dates are tentative and subject to change.
- Tue, February 14, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, February 14, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, February 14, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, February 17, 2012
- Tue, February 21, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, February 28, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, February 28, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, March 2, 2012 (VOD)
- Tue, March 6, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, March 9, 2012
- Sat, March 17, 2012 (SyFy)
- Tue, March 20, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, March 30, 2012
- Tue, April 3, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, April 6, 2012 (Limited)
- Tue, April 10, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, April 13, 2012 (Chiller)
- Fri, April 13, 2012
- Tue, April 17, 2012
- Tue, April 17, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, April 17, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, April 20, 2012 (Limited)
- Fri, April 20, 2012
- Tue, April 24, 2012 (DVD)
- Tue, April 24, 2012
- Fri, April 27, 2012
- Fri, April 27, 2012
- Fri, May 4, 2012 (VOD)
- Fri, May 11, 2012
- Fri, June 8, 2012
- Tue, June 12, 2012 (DVD)
- Fri, June 22, 2012
- Fri, August 17, 2012
- Fri, August 24, 2012
- Fri, August 24, 2012
- Fri, August 31, 2012
- Fri, August 31, 2012
- Fri, September 14, 2012
- Fri, September 21, 2012
- Fri, October 5, 2012
- Fri, October 19, 2012
- Fri, October 26, 2012
- Fri, December 21, 2012
- Fri, January 11, 2013
- Fri, February 1, 2013
- Fri, February 15, 2013
- Fri, February 22, 2013
- Fri, April 12, 2013
- Fri, May 10, 2013
- Fri, June 28, 2013
Yeah, yeah. Dick Smith did the Exorcist. Something tells me I'm not the first fan to get those two mixed up. I stand by the rest of my statement. The Thing remake was better. The Scarface remake was better. But this remake is not better than the origional 1941 wolfman. I can't compare them since they are 70 years apart? Sure I can! I just did! Don't even attempt to oppress me with your feeble little fascist rules, you disgusting inbred Rick Baker sucker.
"Disgusting inbred Rick Baker sucker" wow, I must say.. that's a first, thank you for that.
Hey frightmaster, you haven't seen the origional 1941 wolf man? Then you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The most important character in that movie was Maria Ouspenskaya. Her performance all those years ago remains incredible, and one of the reasons that the remake is awful. Geraldine Chapman is on so briefly if you blink you miss her. One thing the two films Do have in common is sons who bear no resemblance to their fathers. The huge sets are a waste of money, Del Toro is terrible, Hopkins races around pretty fast for a 73 year old werewolf (he looks more like 90), and Blunt sticks around because, hey, if she leaves who the hell will be there to cry when Del Toro gets shot? The effects don't hold a candle to the Underworld films, but won an Academy award anyway because well, it's Dick Smith, and he's the best right? Not all the time, morons! The ending is so stupid with the house burning down. The father has to kill his son rather than say, chain him up, because, uh, He knows they're both werewolves? But the butler knows already right? So he kills Him because uh, He doesn't need a butler anymore? Watch the original instead.
Rick Baker did the make up, not Dick Smith, so before you start calling other people morons make sure what you're saying is actually correct first... lest you sound like a moron yourself. I grew up with the original, I was raised on the universal classics. So lets be honest.. comparing the two when there is a 70 year difference in terms of standards is pretty ridiculous. I'm not denying that the acting in this film was less than stellar, but it wasn't any better in the original. You didn't like this movie, that's fine, no one's trying to change your mind, just try not to be an asshole about it.
Whoops. I clicked the wrong icon. Will the site people please stick my response here instead of above? No? Okay, screw you too.
I would've moved it if you had asked nicely
Seeing this film was enough for me, thanks
this is the WORST REMAKE EVER MADE,the special and make up fx, the acting, the script; thought that I was watching scary movie 5. I couldn´t stop laughing
and crying 
( ´cause I wanted my money back. the original is a great classic, cannot believe Universal made this, they just killed their own icon.
if you think it's "the worst remake ever made" then you haven't seen many, or any remakes at all. you should demand that the 3 or 4 bucks you paid be refunded. how dare some 16 year old accept your valuable money and let you make a choice on your own volition.
Absolutely fabulous film.
Loved the old gothic feel to the movie.
Loads of splatter gore fast pace in places evrything in the movie seemed to gel together.
Anthony Hopkins a legend.
Cant wait to buy this on tuesday
Well, a good remake? That's some damn fine news. Reading the comments, I can't wait to finally see this.
Just saw it this weekend and this movie was really good. I really liked the soundtrack.
One of the best werewolf films I've ever watched. I really enjoyed watching this online but I regret not watching it in theaters. The howls in this movie were amazing and so were the transformations because this werewolf was the shit!
Great movie and you beat me to the review Fright!! I'd also hit it with a 7, but I felt that the acting was pretty bad. Del Toro kinda ho-hummed his was through this aswell as many of the toher cast. What makes the flick solid is the unrelenting werewolf badassery, that rips up the screen. If you're a fan of werewolf flicks this is a must see, sheet if you're a fan multiple gory killings then check it.
In a word..................Awesome.
My dad and I watched this movie together.It is the first movie we`ve seen together in 20 years.Great memory to keep.
i agree with what most have said...my only real complaint is that i thought it could have been shorter; the last 30 minutes or so felt dragged out and predictable. regardless, i view this movie as a must-see for any horror fan. the gothic setting and atmosphere make this movie pretty special. it's not gonna enlighten anyone or elevate horror to some higher level, but why would anyone expect that? it's a werewolf movie; and a very cool werewolf movie that really utilizes an incredible setting. expect a werewolf movie and you will get a werewolf movie and you will definitely enjoy it.
I saw the original and I was a fan from the start, and though this wolfman reminded me more of a rabid chewbacca then an actual werewolf I'd say it was a pretty good movie. Slightly slow to start, but most movies are. I think they did well for once with this remake.
I really think that the best thing that could be said about this movie was that it wasn't bad, which is a rather lackluster compliment considering the talent on the cast. The movie had nice cinematography, but lacked any real heart or suspense. The attempts to surprise the audience fell on the "cheap" side of the scale, meaning they were not scary and were rather predictable. Admittedly, I have a possibly undue set of expectations of anything Anthony Hopkins does, and have since Silence of the Lambs, but this fell considerable short. Still, there were no glaring WTF moments or parts that made me roll my eyes. The film was, at the end, somewhat forgettable.
I pretty much agree with this review and I grew up on watching the original film. It's one of my mother's favorite horror films because of the gypsy scenes and she plays it every Halloween. That being said, this film does stay pretty true to the original. The amount of carnage in this film actually took me by surprise and I'm not entirely sure if it really was Benecio in the werewolf make-up but if he was, then he was excellent as the wolf. And I do feel that Hugo Weaving's performance through the entire film was great, whereas the other 3 had good/bad moments.
Now, there wasn't just one scene I didn't like; sadly, there was an entire section I didn't like and that section is
I'd say the film gets a 7 out of 10 for it's setting, cast, special effects (both CG & practical), and entertainment factor as the pros and it's slightly under-developed script and lack of character development as the cons.