Sound Off: Joe Johnston's The Wolfman - Your Thoughts?
by Alex Billington
February 12, 2010
Now that you've seen it, what did you think? It was 1941 when Lon Chaney starred in the original Wolf Man, becoming one of the first iconic Universal monsters to hit the big screen. Now, some 69 years later, Universal is back with a new reimagining of the classic monster movie. The Wolfman stars Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Hugo Weaving, and Emily Blunt. Is it any good? Does it live up to the original 1941 movie or any of the countless other werewolf movies released since? How is Del Toro as the Wolf Man? If you've seen it, sound off, leave us a comment below, and let us know what you thought of The Wolfman!
To fuel the fire, The Wolfman isn't that good, it's one big mess. I didn't hate it (like some critics did) but I didn't really like it either. It's just kind of okay, a mediocre mess of a film, that unquestionably feels like it was created by the studio, not the filmmaker (which is a shame). There are some good action scenes, but the story was just completely bland, some moments felt like they were included unnecessarily, and overall it was just mildly entertaining. I think the werewolf costume looked pretty good and so did the transition effects, but there were a few fights with some bad CGI. So in the end, it's just okay, I will probably forget it quickly.
What did you think of The Wolfman? Great modern monster movie or messy waste of time?
Reader Feedback - 52 Comments
Chase on Feb 12, 2010
i want that hour and 45 minutes of my life back.
bri-face-killa on Feb 12, 2010
I thought it was fine, but it was a mess. Had some great stuff and some bland stuff. Pros- The Wolfman's make up, the gothic crazy style, Hugo Weaving, Anthony Hopkins, and it was fun seeing The Wolfman going crazy. Cons- rushed pacing, a bland romance, half baked relationships/ideas, and some laughably bad CGI- that bear! The extended edition could fix some of this stuff i.e. make the romance set up stronger and the father/son dynamic work better. Add more Weaving too!
JackGi on Feb 12, 2010
Loron on Feb 12, 2010
Why are you dopes posting links to your blogs? Like anyone cares. Anyway, I'm extremely worried for Captain America after this mess of a film.
Jake on Feb 12, 2010
I just saw it and I felt that it was a really mediocre film. It was boring, and the special effects were pretty bad. I really don't reccomend wasting your time on this one.
billbybob on Feb 12, 2010
I thought it was entertaining. Though the plot did drag a little in some places and a few scenes didn't really fit into the story that well, it was an entertaining film. Hugo Weaving, Benicio del Toro and Anthony Hopkins did a splendid job in their roles, as well as all the other actors/actresses. The CGI was a little scratchy in some places, but still looked brilliant frommy point of view. So, overall it was an entertaining film, but nothing turn of the century.
Mercedes on Feb 12, 2010
This movie is everything a classic monster/werewolf movie should be like: Gory, bloody, entertaining, dark and fast paced. People will say that it is rushed, but I felt that it was perfect. It had the pace of 'The Dark Knight' and it skipped the already overused parts in werewolf lore (long dialogues and meditation on how to break the werewolf curse etc.) This movie manages to break the monotony of modern horror movies where vampires tend to glitter and where werewolves look like wolves. 'The Wolfman' is an gothic, instant horror classic and will be remembered for it's brutality and homage. I say: Go see it! Critics have panned good movies before. Examples are "An American Werewolf in London" (a movie which later turned out to be the greatest werewolf movie of all time), "Blade Runner" and "Once Upon A Time in The West". They where totally wrong. It's very noticable that this new interpretation of 'The Wolfman' is a movie from HORROR LOVERS to HORROR LOVERS. It's action filled and has with great suspense. Grade: 5/5.
Vedran on Feb 12, 2010
LOVED IT! U Gotta C IT!!!! Shades of Oliver Reed and Jack Nicholson 🙂 !!! It's like BT took all the best parts of LC, Michael Landon, OReed, & Nicholson and made this thriller for me! Better than a lap dance you'll chill to this gothic romance with Hugo Weaving and "Sir" Anthony trying to steal every scene they're N... Part two in the mix!!!???? I'M IN....Bay'Beee!!!
Pete on Feb 12, 2010
I enjoyed reading the blog reviews. Keep them coming!
EJP on Feb 12, 2010
I think fans of classic horror films from the old days will appreciate this more than later generation. I thought the story was quite bland as everyone was saying. The acting was done good by all and the transformation scenes were interesting like hulk style with the eyes changing first. This movie is more of a visual upgrade to the 40s film than anything else in my opinion so if you like classical movies then you will be in for a treat with this movie.
binarychaos on Feb 12, 2010
As a fan of the original, I thought this was a worthy remake. I thought Del Toro was a bit too serious as Lawrence Talbot though. Sure, he had a troubled childhood and life in general, but would it hurt if he smiled a little more and they developed the romance further? I thought it was a bit difficult to empathize with the guy. He was just bland until he became the wolfman. But, I loved all of the werewolf stuff as well as the atmosphere of the film. Anthony Hopkins was great, as well as Emily Blunt. I will own this one on blu-ray.
Dan Geer on Feb 12, 2010
medíocre film, to choppy . Without anthony Hopkins it would have been hard to watcht
bill on Feb 12, 2010
This movie depicted werewolves exactly how they are supposed to be, ruthless, deadly monsters. This movie had the feel of an old-shool horror film, but with modern shooting techniques. It was absolutely amazing. I loved it.
Ben on Feb 12, 2010
While it's clear they had a very good production team with good cinemaphotography and beautiful sets and costumes, I have to say that the story and the lines are really bland. In other words, the lines were very generic and I didn't particularly resonate with the characters emotions or even fear. Of all the things that didn't transcribe for me was the love between del Toro and Blunt. Not sure how that came about. Perhaps, in general, there was a lack of character development. Also, I'm not sure why they needed to include the detail about del Toro's character being a stage actor from London. How did that add to the story besides the psychosis he had when he was holding that man's freshly ripped out head on the stage? How does being an actor add to his character? Yes, I think Hopkins was a good casting decision.
et on Feb 12, 2010
Benicio Del Toro said yesterday that there will be a sequel if fans want it. So please, push for it! I have already seen the movie two times (going once more tomorrow). I want to contribute to this movie. I loved it!
Vedran on Feb 13, 2010
I felt that a great movie was lurking inside Wolfman but it just couldn't find its way out. It looked tired. On a different note, who in the fuck is this Emmerich guy and why is he trying turn my universe into a childish 3D stunt? According to my calculations Roland's brain cells just don't add up to the challenge to take me on.
Hari Seldon on Feb 13, 2010
GOOD EFFORT.................BAD RESULT !
fernando on Feb 13, 2010
I'm with #8 - what a tribute to classic horror films!
Shannon on Feb 13, 2010
is it too much to ask for a 25 min fighting scene in this captain america film, and would this guy(joe johnston) do that? captain fighting through nazis like neo through agents?....
vikta on Feb 13, 2010
See...this is an example of a STUNNING cast. Good job Ben, I agree....if you don't get the orginal, or are down with this Twi-"lite" tripe, you will not appreciate this film for what it is. AN actual classic horror film with a monster. It was great!
Clover on Feb 13, 2010
I agree with #21. It's not only a classic horror film, but a CLASSY one! It had everthing. Great sets, cinematography, terrific actors (and acting) and BLOOD! So many people are saying how boring it was. Which I don't get. I wasn't bored once. Will definitely be getting this on Blu-Ray.
Film Fan on Feb 13, 2010
This movie was AWFUL. Honestly, it was painful to sit through and I asked my friend multiple times if we could leave but we figured we would just sit and laugh at it until the end. The cinematography was well-done but there was absolutely no effort put in by the actors. And the overload on gore was completely unnecessary. Yes, its a monster movie but it did not need to go overboard and show it just for the shock factor. That's basically what this movie was about, trying to shock you, not truly scare you. It was boring and dull when there was no killing and the script was so poorly written that it was laughable. Overall, it was basically an expensive B-movie made by the studio and not the filmmaker. The film should not have been made and deserves the terrible reviews its receiving. Don't go see this. Save your time and money. You will be disappointed.
Sean on Feb 13, 2010
this many bad reviews can only mean one thing...it wasnt good...guess I will wait for it to show up on Netflix Instant Play...
slopshoe smith on Feb 13, 2010
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is a good movie. I appreciate the diversity of opinions on this site. As for me, put me in the "Wolfman-lover" camp. Given all the production delays and problems, my expectations were on the floor. I can't say I was blown away by it, but I had a wonderful time. Rick Baker did an excellent job on both Wolfmen, the production design and locations made the movie seem very creepy and forboding, and there were tons of nods to both the original and "Werewolf of London". While it was not a perfect movie by any stretch, on my scale of Universal remakes, I rank it at the top. ("Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is still at the bottom.) I must say I agree with "21" above. I'm an old school Universal guy, and I like my vampires and werewolves as demonic creatures of the night, who exist to prey upon mankind. They have to be hunted down and staked, shot, burnt, beheaded, or otherwise destroyed. They are not sexy, glittery, or buff, and they are certainly not moon-eyed teenagers. I loved the beastial brutality of Del Toro's Wolfman, but like most of the original Universal monsters, I felt sympathy for him as well. The remakes will never pack the same punch as the originals because I can't view the remakes through the eyes of a 7 year old boy again. However, the new Wolfman did remind me of those old feelings, and for that, I'm grateful. Go see the movie. If you're an old Universal maniac, you'll appreciate the homage, and if you are a young "Twilight" fan, you'll see how a real Wolfman is supposed to be!
Whale Master on Feb 13, 2010
^^^^^ Well said. I wouldn't give the movie a 10/10 rating. But I would give it a solid 7.5 or 8 out of 10. Look, I'm not that old (mid 40's) and I only know the original Universal monster movies watching them as a kid on like channel 20 (day and night) and them scaring the absolute crap out of me. This film was hands down an homage to those movies. I just don't understand where something can say this is a terrible film, and to avoid. It makes me want to ask them what movies they do like. And I'm all over the map with my taste. Hollywood blockbusters, indie, foreign, etc. I am SO glad I didn't listen to the negative reviews.
Film Fan on Feb 13, 2010
What the FUCK,this is why Fanboy's Suck-Ass ,Get a God Dam clue, the movie is Great,Deal with it......Fucker's.
81 on Feb 13, 2010
Good, not great. Needed a bit more in the first act. Thought the CGI was bad in the fight between daddy wolf and sonny wolf. Film looked good, 'tho. And I loved the carnage! Delivers what a horror film should as well as a wolf.
Joe on Feb 14, 2010
What a shame. What a waste. This looked promising early on, but the reviews have been terrible. I'll wait for the DVD/Blu-ray instead of seeing this at the cinema. Del Toro turned into a turkey instead of a wolfman.
mastercontrolprogram on Feb 14, 2010
#29, how can you say that? You haven't even seen it yet. You're going by hearsay? Not all of the critics hated this film. And not all of the movie goers have either.
Film Fan on Feb 14, 2010
for me I think that all the reshoots did not do any justice to this film, they should have Release it last November when it was origanaly going to be Released. Critics have Slated it for been a mish mash of a story that looses it way. Even Rick Bakers make up for the wolfman is said to be not ground Breaking as it was for An American Werewolf in London.
Cineprog on Feb 14, 2010
I quite enjoyed it. Too often people are going to the movies expecting to be dazzled, not entertained. Face it, not every film's designed as an epic. Also, we shouldn't be expecting films to "live up" to their predecessors when we weren't even alive to see the first one via cinema. There are TERRIBLE movies out there, but this wasn't one of them.
OhPlease on Feb 14, 2010
My two cents for what its worth: I liked this movie... alot. It's shot beautifully, the actors do what they can with the limited script but they do a great job, the wolfman carnage is awesome and yes, THIS is how you make a monster movie I.E. do not humanize the beast... thats why they are referred to creatures of the night; they are curses. What I don't like about it is the HYPER PACING of the flick but I understand why they did. American audiences (and I'm referring to fanboys in particular) have an attention span of a house fly so to keep interest I see why Johnston did what he did here. If he would have taken his time more the scares would have been much more effective instead you have alot of quickcuts and jump scares that are not all are effective. The story is pretty bland and straightforward and surprisingly limited but I think thats the studio's fault. Yes they dropped the ball on some CGI but who cares about the bear and deer; we can to see the wolfman and he looked great. This flick was a complete homage to the old Universal monter movies and am so glad it did not skip that element. I've never see Johnston's work before; I like his style and as a comic geek and now thoroughly eager to see Captain America.
Kick-Butt on Feb 14, 2010
HOW WAS THE TRANSFORMATION FROM MAN TO WOLFMAN,WAS IT THE QUALITY OF AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON OR WAS MORE LIKE AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN PARIS ?
DEADPOOL,MERC WITH A MOUTH on Feb 14, 2010
shut up, jake. you dumb bastard. Movie was good.
Jimbone on Feb 14, 2010
A mi me gusto The Wolfman. Me gusto mucho la actuación de Benicio del Toro, como hombre lobo.
kick ass on Feb 14, 2010
pretty lame movie. I also disagree, the costumes actually constantly reminded me I was watching a movie and didn't capture me.
Hysterical99 on Feb 14, 2010
The biggest problem I had with the movie was all the gimmicky scares where something pops out at you and the volume gets turned way up. There were a couple instances where there were even DOUBLE gimmick scares, where one happened a mere moments after the first one did. It was a bad way to make this a "scary" movie. Wolfman deserved far better than that kind of busch league gimmick crap. Wolfman deserved a genuinely frightening experience. The movie was a failure in my eyes in several ways, but when you can't even set a scary mood correctly then everything has failed.
Chris H. on Feb 14, 2010
@32 - Face facts, this movie has some serious flaws - technical and otherwise. An entertaining film shouldn't be fundamentally well made and have a solid story?
fullmoon on Feb 14, 2010
One of my favorite review snippets: "Hopkins stops just short of raising his eyebrows through the roof and literally licking his chops as he rolls dire admonitions and ghastly revelations around in his mouth like samples of wine."
assistant to Mr. von Sydow on Feb 14, 2010
The film looked awesome. The cinematograpghy, the beautiful sets and costumes were fantastic. But thats about it! The film was completely boring. I have never been a fan of Benicio Del Toro and I never will be. This film is proof enough that he is a truly boring actor. All those out that who are worried about Joe Johnston directing "Captain America" should continue being worried. The only film of his that I liked was "Rocketeer" and that film came out almost twenty years ago.
last son on Feb 14, 2010
It seems if you're a fan of the classic, then you will love this film. There are a lot of people on here complaining about it, talking about such fine details. I think they just need something to complain about. This movie should be fun. And #2, get original would ya, it's lame and we've all heard that one a million times. Thanks to all who were kind enough to give this movie a good honest review. To those of you who are on here just to bitch about something, well then go fuck yourselves.
Alec Baldwin on Feb 15, 2010
#23 - Sean An expensive B movie is not possible.
SlashBeast on Feb 15, 2010
I really wanted to like this film, but like what most people have already said, it felt a bit bland. I enjoyed when the Wolfman was attacking people both stealthy and in the open. Liked the atmosphere of the movie. Had some really good ideas, but the love story was weak, the father dynamic was weak, and I thought there were one too many head decapitations that made such a clean cut!! I think some of the delusions were some of the best parts of the movie, I wish they worked on the story a bit more. I wouldn't pay the amount to see it in theaters again, don't recommend you do. Maybe wait till its cheap on DVD or... something else....
Bauzer on Feb 15, 2010
The only thing scary about this movie is that this guy is directing Captain America (shudders).
SlashBeast on Feb 16, 2010
An unnecessarily gory piece of tripe. All the scares are cheap...all in all a wasted opportunity. The level of gore was really inexcusable, and did NOTHING for the story not to mention to quality of the production. No it wasn't a B movie, calling it such is the height of silliness, but it sure wanted to be a B movie. If your standards are low and like gore, (for some sick reason) by all means go see it.
James on Feb 16, 2010
You're crazy! The gore was a welcome addition to an average movie that was doomed from the start because of the studio screwing things up but it wasn't that bad. Enjoy it for what it was and move on. Complainers are everywhere and can't be pleased no matter what. Here's a tissue...
Jake the snake on Feb 16, 2010
Wow all of you who didn't like this movie are wack! I saw this movie opening night and then again because it was so awesome! This was a modern day classic horror movie, and all of you who said that the plot was bland are dumbasses. It's a fuckin remake so yeah you shoulda known that the story was gonna be the same, as the original. All of you haters are not true horror movie fans, you're all bitches.
Peace Love & Gaga on Feb 26, 2010
The movie wasn't nearly what it could have been, and the over the top gore didn't help...the end. Although interesting to see the immature, teenage idiots who seem to occupy this place. I need find the adult room I guess...see ya!
James on Feb 26, 2010
The BEST Monster flic since I was a kid... and I'm 52!
Armitage on Mar 10, 2010
I thought I wasn't going to like "Wolfman" but I enjoyed it. I want to buy the dvd because I am a fan of the 40's, 50's, and 60's B movie genre. 🙂 There was supposed to be a "Creature From the Black Lagoon" redo, whatever happened to it?
RSH on May 12, 2010
Just watched it, not bad, good atmosphere with the visuals and lighting, top performances by all main leads, nice bits of gore, not over the top, the sight of men as hairy werewolves growling I can't take seriously though but overall give it 7/10, didn't get bored one bit
the gimp on May 23, 2010
Sorry, new comments are no longer allowed.