The Wolfman

I expected a horror flick; I anticipated an homage to the original. But what I didn't expect was a complex drama that combines more genres than I could ever have 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 film as a whole, 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, Joe Johnston's directing amplifies all of this into a depressive second nature. And when Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins share dialogue together, there's nothing left to discuss. A very unique work has been created, which is certainly not for everyone, but those who can look at it differently than just a monster movie can take away more than they ever expected. (13/09/2011)

In comparison to its predecessors, The Wolfman is rather bland and unnecessary. The jump scares and suspense don’t work, but at least the filmmakers weren’t afraid of blood. Despite the nice retro set designs, the quality cast struggles with self-serving digital tricks à la Van Helsing. And the relationship between father and son, which was supposed to be the dramatic core of the film, doesn’t work at all. Academy Award winners Anthony Hopkins and Benicio Del Toro are unfortunately only here to give this forgettable Hollywood affair an air of quality. More than those two, the audience will enjoy Hugo Weaving in the supporting role of a Scotland Yard inspector. (17/10/2010)

Despite not being faithful to the original, Johnston is more true to its spirit and atmosphere of classic horrors from Universal. Both the well-known and well-made, and also those magical naive “such-and-such versus something-or-other" B-movies. I couldn’t ask for more. And it’s also evident that the creators love these movies (there is endless proof of this, e.g. the scene with the medical symposium where they nod at the initial aim of the original, before the studio stepped in). And not just because my heart beat away in utter delight for the entire movie (quite appropriately, since it was Valentine’s Day), which prevented me from making a valid comment about the fact that in some places it was really rather obvious that they didn’t see eye to eye with the producers as to the final cut. (16/02/2010)

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)