Review of The Wolfman (2010) by Tedw — 18 Feb 2010

Bryan K. gave it a3: "In 1941, Universal's monster films was starting to show a wane in popularity. To add a new monster to the cycle they released "The Wolf Man" starring Lon Chaney Jr, it was an instant box-office hit and launched Chaney into the Universal monster series by playing the mummy through its 1940 mummy films and the wolf-man in several semi-follow-ups.

Nearly seventy years later Universal has released a remake making this the last of the classic monster films to be remade. This is not the first time that Universal has attempted to bring the classic monster cycle into the modern era.

Their was the Mummy series (1999-2008) which worked well, but over the films moved away from what made the mummy the mummy. In 2004, their was the film "Van Helsing" which attempted to create a tribute to the 1940's monster mashes, but was slow and not as grand as some have said.

With all that said we come to the 2010 remake of the Wolf Man and compared to Van Helsing makes the previous film look like a masterpiece of cinema. Without revealing the plot, it seems this film attempted to make a revisionist classic horror film, but failed on so many levels, it's not even funny.

The first thing would have to be the acting. Benicio Del Toro, despite being a capable actor suffers from the same problem as Rachel McAdams in "Sherlock Holmes" as in his American voice does not fit in with the English countryside surroundings and characters.

Despite this he does alright with the role, but seems too monotone in the delivery of his lines. Anthony Hopkins has one of the more troublesome performances in the film. For the first half, he is dull and does not look like he wants to be in the film.

For the second half, he changes into the more capable actor that he is, but by this point it was so far into the film that it was too late to make any change. The rest of the cast tries their hardest, but comes off as monotone throughout.

This fairly represents the film in general it's just monotone. The plot is straight-forward, the acting is barely passable, the colour palette is dull and uses gray so much in the landscape that it turns the film into an artistic failure.

Director Joe Johnston may qualify with this film as the WORST director of the year for his direction is flat and unmoving. The film's main selling point was its ton of bloody gore. Every attack on a person in this film involves mass amounts of blood and guts.

It's not too bad and "gorehounds" may get a kick out of it, but for a film like this it is not needed and makes the film way too campy. While last year I was a little too easy on "Land of the Lost" and "Year One" praising them as 10 out of 10 films when they deserved a 7 or 8, "The Wolf man" does not get any of that kindness, it is just horrible and qualifies one of the worst remakes in cinematic history.

The only saving grace sparing this film from the dreaded Zero is Benicio Del Toro's passable performance as the wolfman." this is a very false statement about the movie. The Acting was decent, the gore added to the feel of the movie, which was intended to be a bloodfest with a plot (the plot was O.

K., but its a never-ending cycle that will cause the haunting of England Forever). I apologize for quoting a subpar review that begins off-topic, but it needed to be done, for he is a liar. this movie had great kills and an excellent but very short-lived.

All in all, I think this movie does not deserve to be treated harshly, but it is not an excellent movie, but rather a good one.