IMDb user reviews for
The Wolfman (2010) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 16:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

159 reviews in total

---

88 out of 143 people found the following review useful:
Definitely Has The Thrills...But It Needs A Better Story., 27 January 2010

Author: Legend07 from United States

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

---

66 out of 106 people found the following review useful:
A Worthy Remake, Very Dark., 8 February 2010

Author: toughsoulja from United States

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

---

20 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Didn't expect much but still expected more, 15 February 2010

Author: ejfilak from United States

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 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.

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.

---

41 out of 66 people found the following review useful:
bloody good fun, 11 February 2010

Author: donmurray29 from United Kingdom

I am not a horror fan, and when it comes to remakes (of good old Hammer films), I am not a happy man. But good news as this a is very good, and bloody horror / drama film. I say drama as the performances particularly Benicio Del Toro, are simply what carry the movie.

The acting is is simply excellent and even Emily Blunt is not wasted as the love interest, usually the female roles most of the time in horror is simply scream and rip clothes of, not here. She is quite exquisite in this.

Not only is the werewolf change great, Joe Johnston's directing is pleasing to the eye, even the fighting and gore, which there is a lot off. I saw this in local cinema here in England, 35 mm print, why was it not digital, again. But still looked good. It gets a 15 rating here, I expect an R in America.

A pint of bitter, please.....

---

56 out of 101 people found the following review useful:
Excellent film for werewolf/monster lovers!, 10 February 2010

Author: Vedran_maras from Sweden

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.

---

15 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
A Gothic literary classic comes to life., 15 February 2010

Author: budmassey (cyberbarrister@gmail.com) from Indianapolis, IN

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 addition 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.

---

23 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
It is beautiful, isn't it!, 9 February 2010

Author: bryan lomax from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Excellent stuff. The Gothic atmosphere is spot on and there is enough here to keep it faithful to the 1941 original whilst injecting plenty of new elements to proceedings.

The romance between Del Toro's Talbot and Emily Blunt's Gwen does feel rather cold at times, which is disappointing, but the main focus of the plot has been shifted towards Talbot and his father John, who wants nothing more than to let the beast roam free. And when the beast does surface, boy is it impressive! It's nice to see that the studio has not held back on the gore. The sequences where the wolfman goes on the rampage are full of adrenaline and leave you quite breathless.

This feels, overall, like a good old-fashioned horror movie, the way they used to be made before Eli Roth and his ilk got their grubby little hands all over them. More like this would definitely be appreciated.

Not bad for a film with such a troubled production.

---

32 out of 55 people found the following review useful:
Benicio and production design a winner, 9 February 2010

Author: C-Younkin from United States

"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

---

17 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
Arf..., 10 February 2010

Author: Chalice_Of_Evil from Australia

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Gory, gory hallelujah! This remake of a classic, that's been forever in the making, has finally arrived! Admittedly, I became aware of this film rather late in the game (ie. last year) and was unaware of all the troubles surrounding it. I think that if I'd been anxiously awaiting the release of this film as long as others have, I'd be quite a bit disappointed with the final result. As it stands, this film isn't at all 'bad', it's just that it's not quite up to the standard I'm sure a lot of people were hoping for.

The performances are all good, though not "outstanding". Benicio Del Toro, as Lawrence Talbot, is thankfully not as mumble-y as he usually is (although his accent is questionable). He does portray his character quite well, especially when he lets loose the monster within. Whilst not having a lot of time for character development devoted to him, he still manages to create a person who you can feel sympathy for. The character of Gwen Conliffe, who could have simply been a damsel in distress (and a rather lifeless one at that), is actually very well-portrayed by Emily Blunt, who gives the character some real depth/emotion. She does a good job as the heroine of the story. The scenes between her and Lawerence go a ways towards making you actually *care* what happens with them, which is important. These two actors are quite good together. While some may have found their scenes "slow", I thought they were important, as they helped us get a better understanding of their characters. Given what little character development is in this movie, I thought those scenes between the two were needed.

Anthony Hopkins, meanwhile, seems a tad bored in his role as Sir John Talbot. He does give good underlying menace, but doesn't seem to have much 'life' to him. Also, the "secret" of his character and the mystery surrounding his wife/Lawrence's mother isn't exactly hard to figure out (even if you hadn't already seen the trailers). It's pretty clear early on how this film is going to play out. I can't say there were too many surprises, story-wise (although there's quite a few surprises in the 'jump-scare' sense). Inspector Aberline (played by Hugo Weaving and his muttonchops), sounding very Agent Smith-like in his line deliveries, is one of the only characters - if not the ONLY character - to provide anything approaching 'humour' in the film. Suffice to say, this movie is virtually ALL seriousness.

Which brings me to one of the film's flaws: the use of CGI. Although the thing on everybody's minds is no doubt how the transformations from man to wolf look (they're not half bad), the misuse of CGI mainly comes in the form of ordinary animals. There's a dodgy-looking CGI bear and deer, and given what lengths this movie went to towards conveying a sense of 'realism' - despite the unreality of the story itself - it's a shame to see somewhat laughable CGI animals used in place of real life ones. And, yes, unfortunately even 'Wolf Boy' from the trailers makes a few appearances.

The Wolfman transformations themselves are well-done, and Rick Baker's excellent Wolfman makeup does a good job of turning Del Toro into a monster (Anthony Hopkins, on the other hand, kind of just looks like an extremely hairy old man). As for the violence...gorehounds should be quite satisfied, as all manner of torn limbs and guts are on show here. The scenes involving the Wolfman attacking people are really quite exhilarating. And once they're over, they leave you with a sense of uneasiness, as you don't quite know when something's going to suddenly lash out and rip a person to shreds. What lifts this film from mediocre (mostly) is the direction. The mood is well and truly set from the opening, and the directing goes a long way towards setting the right sort of atmosphere needed. The film looks great, nice use of shadows (although it could have done with a little less candle-blowing/lighting). The end credits were visually interesting and the music used throughout added to the overall feel of the film.

Those expecting non-stop carnage might be somewhat disappointed, as there's more to this film than just simply blood/gore. Thankfully, the movie doesn't over-stay its welcome/drag on longer than it needed to. The ending will have people divided, I'm sure (although I was happy enough with it). This is by no means a bad movie, nor is it a remarkable one. Having said that, despite its flaws, it is still one of the better werewolf movies in recent years.

---

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
I Want My Money Back!, 14 February 2010

Author: philipgeoghegan from Ireland

*** This review may contain 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!

---

---

Page 1 of 16:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history