I won’t lie: The Wolfman‘s got problems. And his problems aren’t just the standard ‘It’s a full moon and I am killing people’ problems; in fact those are the problems we’re looking forward to. No, the problems with The Wolfman lie with the editing, which has stripped him right to the bone. It screws up his pacing, making everything feel rushed and giving nothing time to breathe. And it might even have screwed around with his logic; did some of the trimmed scenes include moments that explained some screwed up logic?
But despite all of that, The Wolfman works. Really works. And the fact that it works is even more amazing when you realize that the film battled immense odds and seemingly insurmountable problems to get to your local movie theater this weekend.
Of course that’s all beside the point. Most people walking into theaters this weekend won’t know that director Joe Johnston came on to the film just two weeks before it began shooting, or that there were massive battles between original director Mark Romanek and the producers and studio during pre-production. What they’re going to see if the finished film, free of all other baggage, so that’s what has to get reviewed.
Setting The Wolfman in Victorian England was a masterstroke idea. The 1941 original was ‘modern’ for its time, but by putting the story of man battling his inner beast during a time when society was trying to vanquish its inner ruffian allows the thematic elements of the movie to resonate in an deeper, more organic way. There was a lot going on in Victorian times, an era when science was truly starting to try and lift itself out of the muck of superstition and when the conquest of our basest nature was seen as the ultimate end goal for any civilized person. To throw a seemingly magical beast that embodies the most raging, violent and lustful elements of ourselves into that mix – and to make his primary antagonist a modern-thinking Scotland Yard inspector who has stared the beast in the eye before – allows the Wolfman to be not just about what’s inside of Lawrence Talbot, but what is inside every man he meets.
There’s another plot masterstroke that follows on the heels of this, and it’s a masterstroke that could be considered a spoiler (although I think the film lets you in on the basics of this ‘secret’ about ten minutes in), so skip the rest of this paragraph if you wish to remain unsullied: to take the Wolfman, the primal side of a man at war with his own nature, and to set it against another werewolf, this one the primal side of a man who relishes the beast, is great. It allows another vision of the Wolfman, one that’s a complete polar opposite of the traditional character of Larry Talbot.
Benicio Del Toro is almost too obvious a choice to play Talbot. Dark and brooding, he looks like half a werewolf even when he’s fully shaved, and his downcast features obviously recall the hangdog looks of Lon Chaney Jr. His Lawrence had been shunted off to live in America when he was very young; returning to London as a successful actor doing Hamlet, Lawrence is called back to the decrepit Talbot Hall when his brother goes missing during a full moon. By the time Lawrence gets home his brother’s corpse has already been found, leaving his obviously crazy father (Sir Anthony Hopkins) unmoved and his fiancee (Emily Blunt) bereaved. Lawrence slips into detective mode and begins trying to find out who, or what, has murdered and viciously mauled his brother. The trail leads him to a local gypsy camp where things quickly get exciting – a furry form bursts in, destroying a number of people, before finally biting Lawrence and leaving him barely alive.
The whole movie is breathlessly racing to that scene, and you can feel it. Every moment that isn’t putting Lawrence one step closer to the gypsy camp has been ruthlessly excised, and in what remains you can see conflicted story points. The brother had been going to the gypsy camp as a moderator between the criminal wanderers and the local townspeople, but later flashbacks show the boys’ deceased mother to have a very gypsy look. Operating from a position of charity one could say that the film intends to leave this connection tenuous and mysterious, but later scenes led me to believe that Johnston and company shot two very different versions of key scenes, versions that may have changed the nature of the werewolf curse and the way it impacts the Talbot family. Some of these gypsy scenes contain the vestigial remains of that version.
While these elements bugged me I was able to forget about them because the initial werewolf attack was so great. As were the following scenes where Talbot, now a Wolfman himself, transforms and wreaks havoc. There are problems with the movie but none of them are present in the Wolfman scenes. Rick Baker’s design, reminiscent of Oliver Reed’s Curse of the Werewolf slightly more than Jack Pierce’s work in The Wolf Man, is terrific. Calling that stuff the real star of the movie only sounds like a complaint to people who don’t love monster movies; we’re all in seats to see the Wolfman, and the Wolfman we see is amazing. I like the full wolf transformation as much as the next guy, but it’s the half-wolf that speaks to me. When I was a kid the Wolf Man was go-to Halloween costume, but full wolf transformations (or big, suit-heavy transformations like those in The Howling) seemed way out of my league. Baker’s design returns the Wolfman to a look that’s relatable and recreatable; you can be this Wolfman at Halloween. And the half-human nature of the creature makes him a character in a way that no wolf dummy can be. Baker has allowed the outline of Del Toro’s face to remain, and most especially kept his eyes, so that actual acting can be done through the make-up.
This new Wolfman straddles the line between man and beast in ways that I like; when he’s running this Wolfman can drop to all fours and really book, but he also runs around on two legs. While Johnston opted to go mostly CGI with the transformations he doesn’t flaunt it; there’s no scene where the camera pulls back and gives us a good look at how Talbot is changing. Instead Johnston opts to cut in ways that recall the camera tricks used with traditional make-up FX; while that begs the question ‘Why not just use traditional make-up FX,’ this technique feels to our trained moviegoing minds like it’s filming something real. The desire to get showy is the downfall of CGI, and Johnston’s sparing work – combined with some make-up FX, inventive camerawork and lots of mid-transformation modeling by Baker – brings the transformation scenes to life. Johnston also makes each of them different, saving the real wow transformation for Talbot’s second time becoming the Wolfman.
Walking into The Wolfman I was worried that our main character would be repurposed into a hero, perhaps only killing people we know to be bad or corrupt. While that seems to be the case at first it immediately goes out the window as the Wolfman rampages through the cobblestone streets of London. Attacking a double decker bus (a wonderful homage to An American Werewolf in London), this Wolfman tears through innocents just as bloodily as he does through wrongdoers. This is a very R-rated movie; the gore, when it comes, is plentiful and wet. There are ropes of intestine torn from people, heads lopped off with one paw strike, bodies ripped asunder and destroyed. Some of the splashes are CGI, but many are also practical, sloppy blood effects.
Cinematographer Shelly Johnson needs special recognition. While the movie is undeniably modern in the way it approaches gore and FX, everything else is very old fashioned. Johnson evokes a gothic mood that I haven’t seen in a major film in years, if not decades, and it really recalls the best work done by the folks at Hammer. Johnson turns old estates into shadowy, cobwebbed nightmares and he plays up the menace and terror of the woods and the moors in ways that evoke a texture that has been out of style for years, but which feels truly updated and of the moment here.
The triumph of his work, along with that of editor Walter Murch, is during Talbot’s first hunt as the Wolfman. In this version of the story the townsfolk are way ahead of everybody else and know that Lawrence is a werewolf; they lay traps for him but end up becoming his prey. Johnston opts to only show the full Wolfman in quick, sudden busts, usually a flash of illumination from a muzzle blast as someone tries to get a shot in at him before he dismembers them. It’s not just a good scene, it’s a great scene, and this sequence alone buys the movie lots of good will to spend during its more problematic moments.
The Wolfman is filled with scenes like that; scenes that are terrific on their own but are connected by troubled tissue. Lawrence is thrown into an insane asylum after his first night on the prowl and the combination of semi-medieval ‘treatment’ he receives along with hallucinations he experiences renders the whole sequence nightmarish and surreal and amazing. Many of the scenes in The Wolfman are competent or workmanlike, but a few – like the asylum and some of the action scenes – show a real vision. As a dedicated B movie watcher I’m all too familiar with the idea of sitting through less than stellar material to get to the truly inspired stuff, and The Wolfman plays like a B movie in that way. It’s hard to deny that this is disappointing – again and again The Wolfman shows that there’s greatness hidden in here, somewhere. This movie is just a little to the left of being really excellent.
Part of what brings the film closer to that greatness are the performances. Del Toro understands Talbot and plays his dilemma with reserve and subtlety. He doesn’t jump into anguish but lets it all just come out in his face. On the opposite side of the field is Hopkins, delivering a grand, fun performance that stands in stark contrast to Del Toro. I loved the way these two bounced off of each other; in some ways they’re in different movies, but they’re different movies with a common thematic middle ground. And the film could have gone on to follow either of these men and have been just as enjoyable. Hugo Weaving doesn’t have all that much to do as Inspector Abberline (yes, the guy who investigated the Ripper murders), but he’s fun as a man who goes from not believing in werewolves to watching a guy transform into one right in front of his face. It’s a zero to sixty in two seconds kind of performance, and Weaving’s voice and mannerisms have the right gravitas to make it workl
What doesn’t quite work is the chemistry between Del Toro and Blunt. Simply put, there is none. It’s their relationship that is most devastated by the truncated opening act; when they get to the big emotional scenes at the end it’s hard to care too much. Blunt’s role is unforgiving in its lack of much of anything – she goes from losing her fiancee to falling in love with his brother over the course of a month, and it’s hard to really see her side of that story. It’s unclear why anyone thought that making Gwen Conliffe into Lawrence’s possible sister-in-law was a good idea; perhaps in some longer cut of the movie there’s a reason, but here it makes what’s already a heatless romance into something very hard to root for.
A few days after seeing
The Wolfman it isn’t the problematic parts of the movie that stick with me, it’s the great parts. The exciting, well done werewolf scenes. The vivid atmosphere. Anthony Hopkins’ bordering-on-deranged performance. Benicio Del Toro’s Wolfman perched alongside a gargoyle, howling at the moon. I’m looking forward to the promised home video director’s cut, because I suspect that many of my problems with the film will be, if not solved, mitigated by the new footage. I wish the filmmakers had some more faith in audiences and allowed the billowy gothic world they created more room to breathe, and it’s hard not to be disappointed when seeing opportunities get missed, but in the end The Wolfman more than delivers what I needed from it. Scary and fun and thrilling, The Wolfman brings the Universal Monsters back to the screen in a way that’s fitting and modern and still respectful.
8 out of 10
37 comments
Point 1:Good review, and good news to those of us rooting for Wolf Man and Johnston.
Point 2: Could this be considered a prequel to Big Top Pee Wee? Some of you guys will know what I'm talking about.
How was the score?
Here's the thing, though – it doesn't work. Devin's right, there ARE moments of greatness here, but they're few and far between. And they're strung onto an absolute stinker of a script, happy to play up po-faced puns from a batch of actors who have no clue how to play this thing. Hopkins appears to be acting in an entirely different movie, and Blunt brings a big fat nothing to the screen in terms of character or sex appeal. The effects range from top notch (make-up, mostly) to Scorpion King-levels of atrocious. It charges headfirst into its premise, but every plot point may as well be posted with huge neon signs proclaiming their intent. And yes, the editing is abysmal too. All that said, at least it doesn't skimp on the bloodlust, and for that at least Universal should be commended. Faint praise, though.
So excited to see this now. Nice review….
This was a great review! I was on the fence about this but after this I feel like it is worth giving a chance. It's good to know that there was something behind Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins signing on.
If I end up agreeing with Devin more than Catnip then hopefully they'll release a significantly different Director's Cut on DVD. Loved the review though, thanks.
There were double-decker busses in the Victorian era?
Great review, Dev! I'm really excited about this… the Wolf man has always been my favorite Universal Monster (just slightly ahead of Frankenstein's Monster). I just wanted to know one thing, in the movie do they explain the origin of the werewolf that bites Lawrence/del Toro?
"You can tell a film is utter garbage when you spend the majority of it thinking of awful puns to use after. Wolfman is such a film. From about ten minutes in, the movie drags so painfully that I became obsessed with substituting any relate-able word, coupling it with a swear or two and hoping nobody would catch on that this is how I spend the majority of my life."… yeah, this movie is not good no matter what ol' Avatard here says.
"To take the Wolfman, the primal side of a man at war with his own nature, and to set it against another werewolf, this one the primal side of a man who relishes the beast, is great. It allows another vision of the Wolfman, one that's a complete polar opposite of the traditional character of Larry Talbot."
Already done with Nicholson/Spader in Wolf?
Devin, you pretty much pegged it, although I had less of an issue with the "connective tissue" than you. I didn't interpret the mother's (possible) roll as you have, but there does seem to be more to that story. While some of the edits were jarring, they didn't pull me from the story, which kept driving forward. And I enjoyed the performances. I thought Blunt's was fine, but certainly didn't stand out. The loss of her fiance and the fact that his brother is there and requires attention made the speed with which she fell for him more believable to me. He was his brothers surrogate. Which relationship was the focus of the story might have changed a bit, wobbling back and forth thru the film, however. Loved the effects and the gothic horror atmosphere was thick enough to cut with a knife. I left the theater really jazzed and will pay to see it again.
You can tell a review is utter garbage if the reviewer spends any amount of time thinking of awful puns to use after. "I became obsessed with substituting any relate-able word, coupling it with a swear or two". Seriously? I should listen to this person's opinion?
Once again Johnston KNOCKS IT OUT OF DA PARK! Honestly, is there nothing this guy can't achieve? My friends are used to me telling them that Johnston should be recognised in the same heavenly spheres as Spielberg and Nolan, and i'm so glad this is further evidence for them. I can't wait. I really can't wait to see this! Any year with a Joe Johnston movie is a good year. 2010 promises to be one of the best yet!
Funny, other movies that the reviewer believes have all of the problems that this one allegedly does, apparently suck because other people might see them. This is a "critics" review and I suspect the movie will bomb.
Saw this a few months ago, not sure if it was a different cut or not but I would agree more with catnip than Devin. The wolfman scenes and gore are great, but just about everything else is terrible.
I love how Devin seems to be able to point out every issue with every film. you'd think with those amazing skills the studios whould be all over him offerign up millions for his unique ability to trouble shoot AFTER it's been made.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Devin if you know what makes a great movie, then step up to the plate and write it…
Once again, Devin get's access = favorable review. How much for a handjob, Devin? $50 and a one sheet poster? A reach-around fuck has got to be as high as a junket with shrimp cocktail, no?
Yeah, I've got to say this review reads like the Watchmen one, where serious problems are mentioned and then hurriedly dismissed in the rush to confirm expectations. Lines like "But despite all of that, The Wolfman works. Really works" read like studio damage control rather than impartial criticism. After all the gushing about the Bob Burns visit, exclusive interviews and Devin's dangling of juicy insider anecdotes that he can't possibly share, it's apparent to anyone with eyes that his judgment on this movie was impaired. I don't think he was bought off, just that like most internet critics he's still too easily starstruck, especially when confronted with geek properties. The tone of "Wolfman Week" (which has been nothing but Devin articles) suggests that he's been rooting for this movie to succeed just as much as he's wished failure on others, before the fact. In other words, if Devin is doing all the studio trips then Nick needs to get someone else to write the reviews. CHUD used to have a variety of well-informed voices, now it has Devin's bipolar blinkered passion/sneering hatred and nothing in between. And, with all due respect, guys like David Oliver aren't interesting enough writers to make a difference to the CHUD flavor.
Rabi (#17), You have uncovered Devin's nefarious scheme to take over the world one exclusive at a time. Bravo, you brilliant internet detective you.
Come on Devin, I wanted to LOVE this but went in with realistic expectations and was still profoundly underwhelmed. It was flat, a little boring, poorly scripted and disjointed to the point of being a mess. Even the transformations and rampage scenes were disappointing. The atmosphere is the only thing going for it. 8/10? Really? I'm not gonna mention the "A" word but seriously man, your obvious bias about movies makes you a suspect reviewer. On the other hand I enjoy a lot of your editorial so it's not all bad.
A film can have a heap of problems and still be watchable/enjoyable, so try to keep up (most of you assholes liked Avatar, so you shouldn't be making a "taste" argument anyway).
And #9: NME.com? Really? Well, fuck off back there then. Christ, you think Devin's douchey and yet namedrop that rag?
Was incredibly disappointed. The problems with pacing noted by Devin are dead-on, and its break-neck speed completely ruined the film. I appreciated the gory nature of the kill scenes, but I'm not 14 anymore, so such things fail to impress me when the script is a mess, the direction uninspired and the acting merely competent. The only people that really deserve praise, are Baker, who did a great job as ever, the production designer and Weaving, who got some good mileage out of the scenes he was given. Oh, well, maybe Guillermo's Frankenstein will be better!
@ #21 …and back to on your knees again, right ? right !
How was Avatar a 6.5 and this 8? Madness?
Comment #18 hits about every nail on the head. I’ve seen Devin dump on a film with negative garbage months before it’s release, only to see the film and kinda like it, but then have to spend endless paragraphs pointing out the flaws to justify his previous arguments. It’s a two way street though – after “Wolfman Week”, and all the interviews and Wolfwank that went with it, there is no way this film was going to receive an accurate score. Half of his review points out flaws, then he gives it an 8/10. As #18 pointed out, if Devin spends a large amount of time on set visits and interviews, then somebody else should do the review. 8/10? The film is currently sitting at a 35% on rotten tomatoes, a good 30% lower than the very generous cut off point to give the film a “fresh” rating. Fuck off.
Rottentomatoes : 32 %
Metacritic : 44
"I won't lie: The Wolfman's got problems"
Having just seen The Wolfman, I have to say this is one of the more insightful reviews I've read, and that I'm sorry I believed all of the jaded, snotty pans the film received and went in preparing to hate the thing, or find it fitfully amusing. I'm now wondering if the haters are juvenile gore-hounds or pretentious wankers who can't immerse themselves in any film that isn't as snarky and above-it-all as they are. The film is a throwback for the most part– if you're into torture porn or camp, this isn't for you. The CG is a weak point, and the climactic werewolf throwdown a disappointing fizzle that most resembles two sasquatches trying out WWE moves. The love story is underwritten as-is, but I think added scenes (and perhaps more depth and insouciance in Emily Blunt's too-pure love interest) could have helped. I can't fault anyone's acting, and think those who have issues with Hopkins or del Toro– or the fact they're playing different types of characters differently– are a bit obtuse. I agree Hugo Weaving stole the film in many respects, and wish his character didn't seem so obviously tagged on in a late draft– he needed more scenes playing off the main trio of characters rather than spending the bulk of his time frantically chasing them. I'm very cynical about most big-budget horror films, and was prepared to hate this, but now I'm more inclined to hate the jaded critics who apparently had it in for this film from day one and went to screenings with lists of bad insult comedy pre-written. This isn't a cynical film at all, but an open-hearted swoon to classic horror films. Occasionally I find it pleasing to have my own penchant for cynicism overcome.
Shocking. This movie gets a favorable review. I'm sure all the set visits and exclusive interviews had nothing to do with it at all. Gotta love the chud.com bias. Also, real classy deleting all the comments that address this fact too.
it seems highly suspect…. that this review correlates with an 8. All the elements described denote a 6. I know you WANT this movie to be great, but willpower alone cannot make it so.
if any of you would take your heads out of your asses and actually read devin's reviews, you might realize that he's probably the most honest web critic out there right now. In his Avatar review, he claimed that the design of the world did nothing for him, and so left with a lacking story, did not enjoy the film; he also said those liked the design would enjoy the movie. he liked the overall feel of the wolfman enough that it made up for the film's flaws. also, unlike most of you boobs responding, i've actually seen the movie. final analysis: if you like monster movies, or the old universal classics, then you're gonna dig this one. if not, then what the fuck are you doing reading a site like chud anyway?
After seeing it I just have to think that many of the reviews that have made up the 30% or whatever rotten tomatoes rating are unconsiously giving it a negative review due to it's problems behind the camera, or simply are clueless as they are so far removed from the target audience for this movie. Does it have problems with pacing and some surprisingly subdued or even wooden performances from solid actors? Absolutely. But I also feel the same way every time I watch Bram Stoker's Dracula. This movie is about atmosphere, some fun scares, and providing some of those classic gothic images from the classic Universal era. It delivers. And I could be way off, but since "An American Werewolf in London" and "The Howling", there have rarely been ANY decent takes on Werewolf material. "Silver Bullet" was decent when I was 10? I will gladly put this move in my annual Halloween viewing rotation right alongside "Bram Stoker's Dracula" & "Sleepy Hollow".
#28 — Gee, a website with a special love for genre and niche film likes a B-horror movie that's actually got mainstream appeal and a wide release to boot… SHOCKING!
I find it highly humorous that even the comments that are defending the movie can't refrain from pointing out it's many flaws 'The movies great, except for the writing, directing, CGI, editing, action scenes, etc'.
Nope. Wrong. This movie was fucking wolfshit and you know it. Easily a 3.24.
I don't want to do spoilers but the final scene with the wolfman, right before the end, ruined the movie for me. Complete bullshit, even if the rest of the movie coasted pretty well on gore and Del Toro's performance.
My expectations were modest going in, having seen that the Tomatometer hadn't been kind to the film. Yet the film was still a disappointment for all the reasons other commenters have indicated.
Walking home a few hours after leaving the theater, I'd almost forgotten that I'd gone to the movies that day, so at least it wasn't offensively bad. Now the lingering impression I have is that The Wolfman was basically Ang Lee's Hulk, with less coherent plotting and more unsympathetic performances.
8 out of 10? Are you fucking serious? Once the medical lecture scene in the asylum started, I swear to god Donald Kaufman started doing rewrites.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.