Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Review - The Wolfman

UPDATE: I have recently viewed the extended DVD and it is better. The tone is more as I had expected and there is just the slightest improvement in pacing and character. Most of the differences are subtle but I felt a big result and noticeable improvement, (witch I am stoked about because now the fact that I love the movie feels justified). Based on the extended version I would give it an A-.

Grade: B+, extended version A-


Short version: The Wolfman is a good remake with a few flaws but a generally enjoyable movie. If you like creature features, give it a look. If not, you probably won’t like it much.

I am a huge fan of werewolves. In addition, I’m a huge an of the original Wolfman movie. I have never been big on vampires nor do I understand the vampire craze that has come about from shows like True Blood, The Vampire Diaries or Twilight, (a story in which I maintain no actual vampires or werewolves appear) but werewolves have always seemed cool to me. Since childhood, I have been waiting for a good remake of the classic Universal Studios movie. The closest we’ve come to this is probably American Werewolf in London, or as strange as it might sound, Monster Squad. Therefore, when I heard this film was happening I was out of my mind with excitement.


First, what the movie gets right.

The Visuals- By far the movies greatest strength. This is one of the most beautiful movies I have seen in years. The locations are gorgeous and the cinematography is top notch. The mood is perfectly set by the foggy English landscapes and the Victorian setting adding necessarily creepy backdrops for the whole affair. Putting the movie in Victorian England was by far the best change made to the story. On top of all this is the best damned make up I've ever seen. Rick Baker really knoked it out of the park on this one. The Wolfman looks amazing.

The Cast- Benicio Del Toro was born to play Lawrence Talbot. He even looks like Lon Chaney Jr. and makes you feel for the guy when things get ugly. Anthony Hopkins is enjoyable even though he is chewing the scenery through the whole movie and Emily blunt is beautiful and adds a lot to the otherwise grim story just by being on screen and I found it refreshing that she wasn’t a typical damsel in distress in this role. Moreover, what movie isn’t made better by the involvement of Hugo Weaving? Overall, I thought it was perfectly cast and that is one of the things that got me most exited about the movie.

The Gore- This movie is bloody. It’s not exactly Apocalypto or 30 days of night bloody, but it has enough violence to cut any cheese factor down by about 60%. There are beheadings, disembowelments, severed limbs, spurting arteries and an impaling. And the gore isn’t limited to the Wolfman clawing and biting; one guy even gets run over by a steam car.

What they got wrong.

The Tone- when I saw the preview I was expecting the most intense and badass monster movie ever but the film never really delivers that intensity. It takes a more artsy approach to the story, which is fine, but it just wasn’t what I expected it to be. It’s still good, but not the kind of good I was hoping for.

The Plot- While the plot is relatively simple, and they added an interesting back-story to most of the characters, the plot itself feels like its missing a few pieces. I’m not sure if it was over edited or what, but something was clearly missing.

*Spoiler Warning*
The Ending- Throughout the movie some great tension between two of the main characters is building and building and when the confrontation between them comes at the end of the film it goes from what I imagine seemed awesome on paper to being somewhat weak and just a bit silly on film. (but still fun though)

There are other elements that I loved, (the subdued romance between Lawrence and his dead brothers fiancĂ©, the use of a Victorian insane asylum, and a Sikh warrior) and some that I didn’t, (the Sikh doesn’t actually end up doing much, feeling wasted)
*End of Spoilery Stuff*

The trouble I have with this move isn’t weather it is good or bad, But what they chose to do with it. Rather than simply update, the already great story with the proper grit and tone. They tried to pay and homage to the original. Director Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, Hidalgo, and October Sky) is underrated in my opinion. He is well suited to the adventure movie and family movie crowds and this was his first R rated venture. However, I don’t think that was the problem it is my observation that every time Universal Studios tries to remake one of the original big five monster movies, (Dracula, The Wolfman, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Creature From The Black Lagoon) they tend to turn the movie into an imitation of the way those movies were made in their day. Instead of a proper bone chiller, we get a movie that feels like a cheap imitation, (Bram Stoker’s Dracula directed by Francis Ford Coppola) or that feels cheesy by today’s standards, (van Helsing, The Mummy with Brendan Frasier). The Wolfman is by far less of an offender in this way than any of the others but the bottom line is that it feels like a wasted opportunity to make a monster movie that is equally or less scary than its 1941 predecessor. It just doesn’t work very well.


I may just be bias in favor of Werewolf stories but I did enjoy the movie. So much so that when an annoying friend sitting next to me kept talking and nudging me, I hit him in the face, to get him to stop, (yes, he stopped after that). Physical violence for the sake of enjoying a movie is a first, even for an intense movie lover like me. Driving home from the movie I was a bit disappointed that it wasn’t the movie I expected and made my complaint known to my friends, but then I recalled the punch to the face and realized how much fun I had watching the movie regardless. So this one is tough, I’m not sure if it’s genuinely good or if I’m just a sucker for Lycanthropy but I liked it and I get the feeling that any monster lover will.

1 comment:

  1. Hey, Bastiaan here.

    The blog looks nice and the reviews make an interesting read.
    I just wanted to mention that you may want to move the review summary to the bottom of the review. When it's at the top, it's the first thing I read. After I've read it, it doesn't really make me want to read on since I already know what the conclusion is.

    Figured you might appreciate some constructive critiscism.
    Greets from the Netherlands :q

    ReplyDelete