The Wolfman (2010)
Director: Joe Johnston
Starring: Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt
Running Time: 1 hr, 59 min (Director’s Cut)
Rated: R (Unrated)

 


Review by Brother Reed

Hollywood cries “wolf.” I cry “remake.” Audiences just cry.

Even long before Twilight was a thing, I never cared much for vampires or werewolves. It’s not that I don’t like horror or monster movies. Far from it. Sure, I prefer the monsters be dinosaurs or something (says the guy who named his movie blog after a dinosaur) but I like a good creature flick more than the average person. There’s something intriguing about the idea of an otherworldly menace wreaking havoc, and Universal – the studio that now brings you this updated campfire story – has a great history with them. Some of the most iconic horror symbols of all time come out of their catalog: Bela Lugosi as Dracula, Boris Karloff as Frankenstein’s monster… and then there’s the Wolfman. Not the most fascinating one on the bill, to be sure, but with the right treatment The Wolfman had the potential to excel. There are a lot of themes that the werewolf myth could bring out; and, according to the featurettes on the Unrated DVD, the creators of the movie not only know this, but actually think their movie embodies these themes. Let’s consider.

At its heart The Wolfman is not about the terror that something deadly lurks in the woods, although we are treated to plenteous shots of foggy glades and sunken tree boughs illuminated only by the light of the ever-present moon. No, the horror of the werewolf is that which lies within. It’s a not-so-subtle symbol of the baser instincts in all of us, what we’re capable of. What would it take to release the animalistic parts of our psyche? Is our problem that we can’t escape these urges, or that we repress them? What is the true nature of man, anyway? The Wolfman, once he returns to his human form, doesn’t remember the atrocities he’s committed in his feral midnight rage, and is helpless to control his behavior when the full moon emerges. There’s a lot material there that could make for a good psychological drama. Again I stress that the writers and director seem to believe their movie is about these things. It isn’t, however. Not unless a closing line of narration and a lot of brooding equates to serious exploration of a subject. Whatever depth might have been intended, very little made it onto the screen.


What I looked like after seeing The Wolfman.

Of course, I’d dare say most fans would have been happy enough with an engaging, surface-level thriller with a few bloody slayings and a strong transformation sequence, the one thing every good werewolf movie needs. That could have been all the studio was playing at; but if that’s the case, then why is the product of their labor such a plodding, perfunctory picture? The Wolfman is a surprisingly drab monster show that is neither very scary nor very clever. It slogs through the motions to its foregone conclusion, and by about the 85 minute mark I was just wishing it would hurry up and get there.

Wolfman is a dark movie in a literal sense. Almost every scene is lit by the moon or candles, so if you’re watching the DVD at home I hope your TV handles blacks well. Aside from shadows the only thing that really shows up are the splashes of blood when the creature goes on its monthly period – I mean, lunar frenzy. For those who love gore, this movie isn’t shy about showing it, at least on the Unrated Director’s Cut (I have not seen the theatrical version). The movie takes itself completely seriously, but the scenes of the Wolfman rampaging – you know, why you wanted to see the film in the first place – come off as kind of silly by comparison. When the wolf attacks it shoves its claws into stomachs and through the backs of heads, causing decapitations, disembowlments, and all manner of grotesque deaths and injuries. These scenes are entertaining enough, but not only are they too far between, but the violence at times is so over-the-top that it looks like a sick cartoon. It sticks out from the humble Victorian backdrops the characters inhabit. The violence feels like it should be in a movie that understands the camp value of the material. It’s playing it straight and not quite working.

On the other hand, at least a few of the actors recognize what kind of movie they’re in and play it up accordingly. Of all the characters, Hugo Weaving as the officer from Scotland Yard was the most fun to watch. The way he chews his words makes them interesting even if the script is no more colorful than the cinematography. Anthony Hopkins, too, finds the devilish glee in his cold and mysterious father figure. Emily Blunt does well conveying her various emotions throughout the movie and gives a mostly naturalistic performance. Benicio Del Toro makes next to no impression as the main character Lawrence, an actor estranged from his family who returns to look for his brother’s killer. Honestly it’s a bit surprising that actors of this quality agreed to star in a film like this. No one is bad: I think the movie just doesn’t give them a lot to work with.


That’s no moon, it’s a… wait… wait… okay, yes, that’s the moon.

On the subject of missed opportunities, what happened to all the plot threads that got started in this movie? I can’t say too much because of ye spoilers, but there’s some seemingly important foreshadowing by a gypsy early on that never comes to fruition. They even bring her back later to presumably set up the big resolution by conferring with a major character, but there’s no evidence in the climax that it was affected in any way by the gypsy’s advice. There’s a forbidden love story plot that sort of simmers underneath the surface and is as unfulfilling as it is undeveloped. Lawrence’s father has some strange junk going on the basement, but this is largely talked about rather than shown. Then there’s another major character who it’s hinted might become a werewolf, but that thread is abandoned as well. Of what significance was the old man on the train? What’s going on?

Supposedly the Director’s Cut DVD which I watched is longer and makes better sense of character motivations. I’d hate to see the cut where the characters are less developed. Even in this version, where Lawrence’s sister-in-law comes to visit him rather than sending a letter, references to her letter remain which in the new cut are confusing. That’s not a big deal, but it’s indicative of an overall sloppiness that does help to bring the movie down.

One thing I didn’t yet mention was the transformation scenes. There are two, and they aren’t bad. It’s to this movie’s credit that it uses lots of practical effects, makeup, wire work, etc. rather than relying too much on CG. The transformation sequences, though, are pretty much all CG and only look sort of real (though sufficiently painful). The look of the movie is often good but it doesn’t hold interest. Too dull to be really suspenseful or scary and too trite to be more than pulp, The Wolfman fails as a great monster flick. It will no doubt be grouped with the recent parade of horror remakes and quickly forgotten as an entry into the werewolf mythology that doesn’t do anything new.

Advertisement