The Wolfman

I saw the original film so long ago that I remember almost nothing of it now, and I think that's a good thing. I avoided comparisons and I enjoyed the 2010 version of The Wolfman. I can even safely say that of all the horror and "horror" movies that have been made in the world in recent years (and that I have seen), The Wolfman is quite possibly the best. No, it's not the most original or unexpectedly scary, but it's so well-done, atmospheric and dramatically gripping in every minute that it simply deserves the highest rating from me. Benicio Del Toro is perfect, Anthony Hopkins too, of course, but I'm even happier for him because after quite a long time he got a big role again... I also liked the mini-performances of Max von Sydow (not mentioned in the credits) and "master of the trick" Rick Baker, who "played" one of the unlucky torn apart men. Joe Johnston cooked up a thick period tension-filled film, and Danny Elfman spiced it up... And I ate it with great gusto. (10/11/2012)

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. (10/17/2010)

It's a yawn. Considering the movie is 102 minutes long and I watched it from 6pm to 12:30am, I think it's clear how much it held my attention, how much I was interested to see how it would turn out. A werewolf straight out of Planet of the Apes. Death right after, thanks, and such a – ugh, bleh, ah; finito. The very end of the film couldn't have been more stupid. But I'd forgive it if – as I say – it wasn't such a yawn. I don't understand why I wanted to see this movie; good thing it's over. (04/03/2010)

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. (02/18/2010)

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. (02/16/2010)