The Wolfman (2010) (well, technically 2007, 2008, 2009…)


First off: I’m not really a critic / reviewer, and certainly not a scholar – normally I simply write about stuff I feel strongly about or that pops into my head, but a few people seem interested to know if I enjoyed The Wolfman, so here are some quick thoughts.

Overall, I’d have to say…..Yes. Don’t get me wrong, it’s patchy and feels like a few too many influences have created the final product, but there was enough good in it for me to walk away fairly happy. Some people who had higher hopes and expectations will no doubt be more disappointed, but anyway, I’m getting a bit wishy-washy so will try to make a bit more sense from here on in 🙂

THE GOOD: They have made a horror film. By this, I mean it doesn’t feel overly dumbed down for a modern audience, and the much feared CGI doesn’t overpower the film at all. It’s shrouded in mist and fog, and looks suitably gothic and old time for my liking.

The Del Toro Wolfman. I’m glad they went for a “wolfman” rather than going full werewolf, and Rick Baker’s work is strong. He looks like he’s still a man, but distinctly wolfy! There are clear visual references to the “classic” wolfman, and the transformation sequences don’t feel like the focal points of the movie, which is a wise move.

The Wolfman attacks. Swift, bloody and well orchestrated. Some of the gore feels like it was added late in the day to appease a certain type of horror fan, but overall these scenes are well done.

Hugo Weaving. His Abberline is by far the best character in the film, sinister and knowing, he feels like a man who has been through it and it prepared to do so again. Just a shame he doesn’t have more screentime really.

THE BAD AND THE UGLY: The Hopkins wolfman (I did mention there may be spoilers, right…?) He just looks a little silly.

The wolfman vs wolfman face snout off towards the end. Really no need. Feels tacked on, and was the biggest mistake they made. There’s a very good reason everyone thought Van Helsing was crap.

Any moments containing CGI blood. Just because.

Emily Blunt. Not ugly, as she actually looks a little like an ex-girlfriend of mine, but I have seen said ex-girlfriend give better acting performances in amateur dramatic plays. She just seems stilted, and yes I know her character is grieving so not going to be a barrel of laughs, but I found her annoying. Better as the film went on, but still annoying.

THE BIT AT THE END: That’s all for now. Many more well written and constructed reviews have been and will be written, these are really just off the cuff ramblings, but hell, I think you know to expect that by now 😉

If you’re going to see this at the weekend, I hope you enjoy it, or at least don’t hate it. It’s not a classic, but it’s not a pile of shit either. I wasn’t expecting my life to be changed, and it wasn’t. …but I’m glad I ventured out of the house to see it 🙂


2 Responses to “The Wolfman (2010) (well, technically 2007, 2008, 2009…)”

  1. Ben Bussey Says:

    I’ve been checking out a lot of reviews for this since seeing the film, and it’s interesting how the positive and negative reviews pretty much agree on everything. You seem to acknowledge pretty much all the same strengths and all the same weaknesses that I acknowledge in my write-up at Brutal As Hell, yet while I feel the bad outweighs the good you feel the opposite. And I’m not about to say you’re wrong for feeling that way. I can but hope that, when revisiting The Wolfman in years to come as I’ve no doubt I will, I’ll be able to appreciate the things that work and disregard those that don’t. For right now, I can’t help feeling just a bit disappointed. It’s a good movie, but not the great movie it could’ve been.

    • davidmcguigan Says:

      Thanks Ben, yes that’s a fair response. I think it’s a “mid-range” movie so I could have come down on either side of the fence really. It definitely could have been better, but I think it definitely could have been a lot worse, and that for me edged me into being more positive about it. I read your review (after I wrote mine), and remember reading the early one on Brutal As Hell last year, but since then had stayed clear of any comment until I saw it. I’ve since read a few more from the “established” sources (Empire, Total Film etc.) and it seems most people would rate it between 4 and 8 out of 10, but I don’t think we’ll see a lot of 2s or 9s. I left the cinema thinking it’s one I’ll watch again in the future, and will be interested to see how it holds up for me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: