Read User Reviews and Submit your own for The Wolfman

7

grandpajoe6191Sep 25, 2011

"The Wolfman" is a great movie with a dark atmosphere spreading across the screen. It's almost a nostalgic movie with superb cinematography. At least I enjoyed it.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

10

A.HurrellFeb 22, 2010

I actually really enjoyed this film, typically I don't like the wolf movies, there always so lame with their fake looking wolfmen. This movie held my interest throughout,the computer graphics helped a lot. It was very gory, and dark, I I actually really enjoyed this film, typically I don't like the wolf movies, there always so lame with their fake looking wolfmen. This movie held my interest throughout,the computer graphics helped a lot. It was very gory, and dark, I love the period in which they chose. It had a pretty cool ending too.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

7

TedWFeb 18, 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 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.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

4

KeatonJFeb 18, 2010

Too much CGI, not enough scares, and not enough romantic development between Benicio and Blunt. I was disappointed.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

6

MovieLonely94Jun 11, 2011

Upon his return to his father's estate a few years after his mother's death, Lawrence Talbot discovers that his brother's body has been found. Then, he learns that a wolf has killed him and searches for it. One night, the wolf attacks him andUpon his return to his father's estate a few years after his mother's death, Lawrence Talbot discovers that his brother's body has been found. Then, he learns that a wolf has killed him and searches for it. One night, the wolf attacks him and bites him, which gives him a curse to transform into a wolf man every full moon and goes on a killing rampage. A young woman and a Scotland Yard inspector must find a way to get get rid of the curse once and for all.

Saw this in theaters the same month it came out last year and now to make my opinion.

The Wolfman suffers from its thin plot and undeveloped characters, but has good CGI, gave me a few chills, and even Anthony Hopkins was a lot of fun and it's in no doubt a decent remake of a 1940 movie that I've never even watched.

6/10… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

2

dev92Aug 24, 2012

Genuinely extremely bored throughout this film, at one point I thought of walking out but, being me, I stayed as I had spent the remainder of my weekend's money on this film. Towards the end, the film picked up and was actually fine but theGenuinely extremely bored throughout this film, at one point I thought of walking out but, being me, I stayed as I had spent the remainder of my weekend's money on this film. Towards the end, the film picked up and was actually fine but the beginning and middle was too slow and tedious. I actually appreciated this film from an artist's standpoint. The camera-work was really rather good and the visual effects were up to par as well. All in all, I didn't expect a masterpiece and behold, the film was definitely not one.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

amheretojudgeJun 12, 2018

neither howls nor bites..

The Wolfman The action sequences seems forcibly installed in here along with the structure that is familiar with rudimentary process that unfortunately seeks for commercial part of the cinema, leaving behind noneither howls nor bites..

The Wolfman

The action sequences seems forcibly installed in here along with the structure that is familiar with rudimentary process that unfortunately seeks for commercial part of the cinema, leaving behind no trace of art or craft to explore in here. The technical aspects like costume design, make-up design and art design is appreciative and finely detailed but lacks better sound department, camera work and choreography for the physical sequences which is essential in such features. The wafer thin script has nothing to offer and instead wastes its time on making it bolder, scarier and horrifying as much as possible which too it adapts a lot from previous installments or remakes of it; there isn't originality or creativity in here. Joe Johnston; the director, needs a lot of work to do especially on executing its vision from paper to screen which is pretty standard. The performance aspect of it is usually saved upon while casting such a huge and promising cast but in here that too is in short for the actors (Benicio Del Toro, Emily Blunt and Anthony Hopkins) aren't given enough range and room to factor in appropriately. The Wolfman neither howls nor bites as it seems like a misguided feature that isn't aware of the vision it wants to project.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

2

walrusgodAug 25, 2010

Yikes. The Wolfman fails in almost every respect, unless you consider being unintentionally hilarious a positive trait. First off, it's not scary. Sure, I jumped a couple of times, but I don't consider movies that rely on quiet/loud noiseYikes. The Wolfman fails in almost every respect, unless you consider being unintentionally hilarious a positive trait. First off, it's not scary. Sure, I jumped a couple of times, but I don't consider movies that rely on quiet/loud noise dynamics and things jumping out of the darkness to be truly scary, just annoying. Second, the story is muddled and doesn't seem to be able to make up its mind on whether it wants to stay true to the original story or do something different. Third, the special effects are horrendous for a movie that supposedly cost around $150 million to make. Fourth, and perhaps worst of all, the acting is, across the board, disappointing. Anthony Hopkins looks like he's waiting for his paycheck to clear, Benicio Del Toro appears to be reading off of cue cards, and although Hugo Weaving appears to be trying, he just not able to overcome a tiresome script. With the acting credentials of the cast and a blockbuster-sized budget, The Wolfman should have been better than your average horror movie. Instead, it manages to wallow in the same territory that most dime-a-dozen horror movies occupy, just with a little bit shinier production.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

1

WarrenAug 27, 2010

Avoid this movie. The droll acting by the majority of the cast lets down a decent performance by Hopkins. The story was predictable, the action scenes were few and far between and not memorable in the slightest. For a 90 minute movie, itAvoid this movie. The droll acting by the majority of the cast lets down a decent performance by Hopkins. The story was predictable, the action scenes were few and far between and not memorable in the slightest. For a 90 minute movie, it seemed to drag on for much longer.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

1

MetalMan95Oct 31, 2010

BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING. I turned it off after an hour. it lacked the wolfman action I was hoping for. Benicio Del Toro looked like he was exhausted all the time. There was a few action sequences and they sucked as well, andBORING BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING. I turned it off after an hour. it lacked the wolfman action I was hoping for. Benicio Del Toro looked like he was exhausted all the time. There was a few action sequences and they sucked as well, and that's saying something.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

3

IznatiCriticAug 31, 2010

This movie fell flat. With all the talent on display I was soerly disppointed. The story was poor. It felt very gimmicky though the acting had its moments of quality. I doubt Del Toro and Sir Hopkins will be putting this on theThis movie fell flat. With all the talent on display I was soerly disppointed. The story was poor. It felt very gimmicky though the acting had its moments of quality. I doubt Del Toro and Sir Hopkins will be putting this on the mantlepiece. Its main value may be to fill your time at 2am on a Friday in late October but not much beyond that.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

0

NazguleroApr 9, 2011

I fell asleep five times during the first 30 minutes, then woke up when the werewolf attacked, dozed off after that, and turned the entire thing off when the werewolf ended up in a lunatic asylum (!). What an odd twist. The biggest problemI fell asleep five times during the first 30 minutes, then woke up when the werewolf attacked, dozed off after that, and turned the entire thing off when the werewolf ended up in a lunatic asylum (!). What an odd twist. The biggest problem with this movie is that the main character is not the least bit likeable. Hence noone cares what happens to him. There are also serious plot holes - like, why would his own father let him murder 6 or 8 people before turning him in ? Doesn't make sense.
I wonder if there is no procedure in place anymore where they screen these movies to an average audience. Do that, and you will quickly find out what's wrong with this flick.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

5

thelordoffilmAug 13, 2010

I found mostly all the Universal Studios monsters pretty damn ridiculous. Although there are considered classics I never really found them interesting to watch. When I heard they were making a remake of it I was actually kind of excited.I found mostly all the Universal Studios monsters pretty damn ridiculous. Although there are considered classics I never really found them interesting to watch. When I heard they were making a remake of it I was actually kind of excited. There are not really a lot of good werewolf movies out there. In my opinion the best one is An American Werewolf in London. I was very sadly disappointed. I'm really negative towards remakes I rarely agree with them. I say leave the original alone. My ideal of remakes is that there is not really an artistic tone with them. You'll only remake it for money, just trying to milk the cow. When you are filming a remake you need to understand the things that made the original so good. Then you build your film using the foundation that the original used. Now the foundation of the original Wolf Man movies was the fact that Lon Chaney Jr. use just makeup to scare people now that's freaking feat considering the movie was made in 1941 that's some talent. With some simple makeup he was able to scare a lot of moviegoers. I think that's what the problem is in The Wolf Man of this year. The film begins with Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Torro) a stage actor who gets the news that his brother was killed by a wild animal. He decides to go to help his brother's wife Gwen (Emily Blunt) and his father Sir Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) who is a very strange man and always carries a gun. We learn that Talbot has a dark past with his mother who is dead, that torments him and resents his father. One day trying to investigate what happen at gypsies camp the wild animal attacks and bites Talbot and I'm pretty sure you get the rest of what's going to happen. The movie has a very strong plot and the movie is very well acted. I do want to mention Hugo Weaving who plays a Scotland Yard inspector trying to figure out what's going on with the murders. He does a very good job as well. The set direction is amazing, the locations are awesome and the cinematography is very good we feel the dread in every corner. The problem with The Wolf Man is the werewolf itself. While the CGI is great it's very excessive and we feel a how you call it a very computer taste in your mouth. The movie feels lifeless and there are so many better horror movies out there with better looking and realistic special effects. If they really want to give homage to the original they should have toned the CGI. As well as the pace is very bad it was really boring and the script lacked scares and actual suspense. There goes another remake down the drain.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

2

BillyM.Feb 12, 2010

Absolute crap, from beginning to end a completely predictable piece of drivel, I needed the toilet half way through this film and that was the most enjoyable experience of that wasted 90 minutes

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

BryanK.Feb 13, 2010

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 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.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

meyesFeb 14, 2010

Not good at all.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

PatrickM.Feb 14, 2010

Honest to God, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It makes The Happening look like Hamlet. I love the original, but this flick doesn't hold a candle to it. The script, editing, acting, even special effects are just awful. Honest to God, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It makes The Happening look like Hamlet. I love the original, but this flick doesn't hold a candle to it. The script, editing, acting, even special effects are just awful. The film is only about an hour and half long (give or take), but it's so painful that it feels like you're sitting there for a good 4 hours just wondering when it all will stop. Don't even get me started on that awful cliche' of a script. The whole movie was so awful that myself and a couple of friends (both male) actually contemplated leaving halfway through to go and watch "Valentine's Day". Bottom line, Universal needs to quit remaking monster movies and "The Wolfman" needs to be put down.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

JoeJ.Feb 16, 2010

Wolfman was a good movie. Yeah, if good means really bad and 10 hours long. No but seriously, it made 30 Days of Night look like the Shining. It made Daywalkers look like There will be Blood. It made The Mist look like Lawrence of Arabia. Wolfman was a good movie. Yeah, if good means really bad and 10 hours long. No but seriously, it made 30 Days of Night look like the Shining. It made Daywalkers look like There will be Blood. It made The Mist look like Lawrence of Arabia. Wolfman was so bad, it managed to make Flatliners look like Gosford Park. I removed myself from the movie and decided to watch Valentine's Day instead. A chippy little flick about love, I was forced to leave that movie as well. Sadly, it just wasn't meant to be.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

JamesHFeb 17, 2010

The point of a scary movie is to scare you. This one fails - I was never scared even once throughout the film. The film also seemed "choppy" to me and didn't flow well. The actors did the best they could with the script given them and The point of a scary movie is to scare you. This one fails - I was never scared even once throughout the film. The film also seemed "choppy" to me and didn't flow well. The actors did the best they could with the script given them and the special effects were good (not great though), but overall not very entertaining. You just don't care about anyone or anything in the film. Character development is lacking.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

1

[Anonymous]Feb 12, 2010

Suffers from terrible pacing, poor writing, poor action and bad acting. Wasn't tense enough to be thrilling or scary, wasn't campy enough to be funny. Just avoid it, don't even bother with it on TV, a 2 hour nap with dreams of Suffers from terrible pacing, poor writing, poor action and bad acting. Wasn't tense enough to be thrilling or scary, wasn't campy enough to be funny. Just avoid it, don't even bother with it on TV, a 2 hour nap with dreams of nothing would be more exciting and thrilling… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

EvanQ.Feb 13, 2010

I'm pretty open to 'bad' or 'campy' movies, but The Wolfman is just a mess. I thought it might be a cool thriller or at least something I could laugh at and have a good time with. It was neither. I found it to be I'm pretty open to 'bad' or 'campy' movies, but The Wolfman is just a mess. I thought it might be a cool thriller or at least something I could laugh at and have a good time with. It was neither. I found it to be very slow and very boring even during the 'exciting' attack portions. If you like horror movies, this will be a disappointment. If you like to make fun of 'campy' movies, also a disappointment. I'm not sure who would like this movie.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

RichardB.Feb 16, 2010

Let the Wolfman rest in piece.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

7

kingshahidJul 26, 2011

I am much more of a fan of vampire movies and based on that I decided to get this movie. The setting and make up and costumes were amazing. The story was not able to hold my attention and became lagging but near the end the minor action madeI am much more of a fan of vampire movies and based on that I decided to get this movie. The setting and make up and costumes were amazing. The story was not able to hold my attention and became lagging but near the end the minor action made up for the flaw. It wasn't anything too special but it gets a thumbs up for not being a cheesy monster movie.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

gm101Jun 24, 2011

Flawed, but very entertaining horror movie (Never saw the original by the way). I thought the Oscar this movie won for Best Makeup was well deserved.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

Film_Fanatic_15Nov 22, 2010

I haven't personally seen the original, but I was only slightly impressed by what I saw. The movie was slow, but this doesn't mean it was flat out boring. The lighting adds effect, but the director depends too much on the lighting to enhanceI haven't personally seen the original, but I was only slightly impressed by what I saw. The movie was slow, but this doesn't mean it was flat out boring. The lighting adds effect, but the director depends too much on the lighting to enhance the action. Might I remind you that this was rated R for violence and gore, in which that was fair. In addition to unecessary lighting, all the actors gave a great performance, but everything else was blan. From what was going to happen next, to a dissapointing blan ending, the movie needed another look at before being released. If only one aspect of this film was better, you would most likely see a "GO" above this review. Go see it, but don't expect an audience to applaud at the end.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

TaoZenGuyDec 10, 2010

This movie is somewhat of a turd. I liked it ok, but it was full of unnecessary gratuitous violence. Some of us don't need that to enjoy a movie, and this movie would've been fine without it. It did have beautiful set-pieces and was fullThis movie is somewhat of a turd. I liked it ok, but it was full of unnecessary gratuitous violence. Some of us don't need that to enjoy a movie, and this movie would've been fine without it. It did have beautiful set-pieces and was full of good effects, but it was a little dry.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

TyranianFeb 7, 2020

Has some great cinematography and music and solid acting but also some hilariously stupid scenes that seiously detract.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

Trev29Jan 5, 2014

Wasn't sure how I felt about the movie in the beginning but it was greatly spooky and wonderful. The art direction was fantastic. Never enjoy these type of movies but this is quite the exception.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

SeijiGamingFeb 18, 2014

I must say I really enjoyed this movie. Although, it's a typical gothic movie so for someone not very into or interested in the gothic subculture it's probably not the best movie to watch. It has the typical gothic elements. For someone beingI must say I really enjoyed this movie. Although, it's a typical gothic movie so for someone not very into or interested in the gothic subculture it's probably not the best movie to watch. It has the typical gothic elements. For someone being very interested in the gothic subculture, this movie was brilliant. I loved it.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

GoinBananazJul 26, 2014

I just watched this movie again after several years and still loved it! The acting is rich from an outstanding cast. It is always a privilege to see Anthony Hopkins in anything but especially in this movie. I thought the story did very wellI just watched this movie again after several years and still loved it! The acting is rich from an outstanding cast. It is always a privilege to see Anthony Hopkins in anything but especially in this movie. I thought the story did very well in keeping with the original. Also a treat was the cameo by Max Von Sydow.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

JosephAMar 3, 2010

We really enjoyed; great, classic type monster movie.