The Wolfman

Epic period horror with a badass atmosphere, nice make-up and good actors in the main roles. That’s a pretty good calling card, but The Wolfman is unfortunately missing a few key elements. It’s unable to generate fear or tension, it isn’t entertaining, or disgusting, or shocking. It just quietly wanders about in the background in a way that you can barely register, let alone remember. It’s not bad, but it’s a shame that with the money spent on it, you could get quite a few young, unpretentious filmmakers who’d be able to make about dozen better movies. (18/02/2010)

The longer they postponed premiere, the more my concerns about the final product grew, but Joe Johnston handled it more than decently. This is not such a fundamental achievement as the first Wolfman, but, to be honest, who could expect it to be? The action is fast, brisk and (in the unrated version) good and bloody, the atmosphere is also good. Benicio Del Toro may be doing nothing more than usual, but Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving (Abberline is probably the best character and I'd love a spin-off or a part two if he was in it) steal the show at times. Elfman's music perfectly complements the plot, and the main theme seemed to me to be a jauntier version of Dracula, which is not a criticism, but a compliment, because it sounds truly superb. It is said there is no sin in killing a beast, only in killing a man. But where does one begin and the other end? (22/05/2010)

Horror was expected, an homage to the original was anticipated. But what wasn't expected was a complex drama that combines more genres than I could have ever hoped for. The script hints from the very beginning that we're going into the darkest waters, and the transformation into a monster is shown through advanced mental decay. At first glance, the "fake" scary moments may seem like clichéd flaws, but in the context of the whole film, these scenes serve as progressing traumas. Like a nightmare from which the main hero jerks awake, only to wake up to a real, creeping, and inevitable reality that is just as terrifying as the imagined horrors. Moreover, Johnston's direction amplifies all of this into a depressive second nature. And when Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins say it in the dialogue, there's nothing more to discuss. A very specific work has been created, which is certainly not for everyone, but those who can look at it differently than just a monster horror can take away more than they ever expected. (13/09/2011)

It is in fact possible to make a mediocre film with a bloated wallet, a returning screenwriting legend, and a cast of actors perfectly cast to the last extra. The sets, and in general the whole set design, the special effects, and the technical aspects are perfect, but it's all told in a kind of lazy way. The entire time I couldn't shake the impression that it was "skimming the surface," where everything goes according to a perfectly ordered plan that can't surprise and unfortunately doesn't even try to. For two hours, you're in a blissful state of mind about how nice it is to watch, then the credits roll, and now you want to try to remember something about it... and all that pops into your mind is a hairy man with a lot of bloody gunk lying around, nothing more. 3 ½. (22/05/2010)

Some passages are brilliant and it can be said that they even exceeded my expectations. Johnston moves exquisitely in a foggy setting where even Reed would get lost, and when he wants to, he can stretch the audience's nerve strings in a very intense way. Unfortunately, all that stands between a successful and properly bloody horror filler is utterly uninteresting screenwriting and dramaturgy, mired in an unconvincing family drama that doesn't even seem to exploit the huge potential of its stellar cast. Ditching the family soap opera and focusing more on Detective Hugo Weaving, by far the film's most likeable character, could have made The Wolfman a big hit. This is just very professional craftsmanship. (30/04/2011)