The Wolfman
Universal Pictures | Release Date: February 12, 2010
5.5
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 191 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
72
Mixed:
78
Negative:
41
Watch Now
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
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
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
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
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
0
imthenoobFeb 5, 2019
This film is simply boring. There's barely any Wolfman, Most of the time is developing this plot that isn't interesting in the slightest. And sadly, They used too much CGI that looked pretty weak rather than practical effects. It's a shameThis film is simply boring. There's barely any Wolfman, Most of the time is developing this plot that isn't interesting in the slightest. And sadly, They used too much CGI that looked pretty weak rather than practical effects. It's a shame too they had a great cast led by Del Toro and Hopkins that deserved much better.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
BroyaxJun 17, 2023
Du beau monde ici avec Del Toro (qui ne joue pourtant pas un taureau ?), Hopkins (qui ressemble à un vieil ours…), Blunt (Emily jolie), Weaving (sans lunettes noires) et même Géraldine Chaplin… qui joue le rôle de la momie au camp desDu beau monde ici avec Del Toro (qui ne joue pourtant pas un taureau ?), Hopkins (qui ressemble à un vieil ours…), Blunt (Emily jolie), Weaving (sans lunettes noires) et même Géraldine Chaplin… qui joue le rôle de la momie au camp des manouches ! (elle fait beaucoup plus peur que le loup-garou)…

Des effets spéciaux réussis et une violence globale assez… brutale. Mais à part ça, hélas, ça se traîne comme un grabataire astmatique sur deux plombes très laborieuses et prévisibles. Peut-être que si l’on avait arraché une demi-heure d’un geste brutal et sans équivoque, alors peut-être, éventuellement… le film eût été beaucoup plus regardable (et moins… rasoir !) mais en l’état, ça traîne trop la patte ! Dommage donc pour cette belle distribution mais bon, voilà quoi.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

43 Critic Reviews

5.5 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 72 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL