June 29, 2010

A quick word on The Wolfman (2010)...

There's not much to say about this one, other than... It's The Wolfman.

I was never personally a huge fan of the original Wolfman story, as it always seemed a little tame and stale to me, and even a bit lame. I know tons of Classic Movie Monster lovers would flay me at hearing that, but it's just not my taste is all. You can keep The Mummy and Frankenstein too. Just sayin'.

The new 2010 version of The Wolfman, despite my personal predilections, is a stunning film to look at and a fun one to watch. The sets, locations, scenery, costumes, and even the dreaded CGI is all spot on.

It's well written, and directed more than competently too, which just makes it all the more technically and creatively sound.

This is why I avoid crypts.
Surprisingly, there was a good amount of action throughout, from chases and multiple fight scenes, to a dream sequence that was pretty damned amazing. It's a bloody flick too, which surprised me for a bigger-budget Hollywood project. Claws tear, entrails drop, and blood flows in copious amounts, which is always a good thing. I'm guessing the Unrated DVD version is going to be bloodier than the Theatrical (I know, I'm Captain Obvious), so be sure to grab that one if you love the gore.

Calista Flockhart's Cameo.
The best part of the whole thing for me were the great performances, most notably from Sir Anthony Hopkins. The guy is just always stellar, and here, he's all kinds of intense and awesome. It's worth seeing the movie just to watch him emote and act creepy. Add to that the always great Hugo Weaving, the vastly underused Benicio DelToro, and the way hot Emily Blunt (who can act her ass off too), and we have an absolutely solid cast knocking it out of the park... but in the end, it's still just The Wolfman. Meh.

Oh shit, it's agent Smith!
The OG.
It drags a bit in the start (though I like the quiet character stuff), and there's really only so much you can do with this story, but it's a fun watch, filled with blood and action. You probably already know if you'd like this one or not, and you're probably right.

B+

In parting, here's some Emily Blunt for you to enjoy. You can never have too much Emily Blunt.

4 comments :

  1. When you start off your review of The Wolfman by saying that the original Wolf Man was "a little tame and stale" tells me that you are either a modern-horror-only film fan, or a horror fan that doesn't care about feeling empathy for the characters in a horror film, but is only interested in the visceral thrill of seeing people on screen terrorized and preferably butchered to get a buzz. I've had this argument with many horror film fans over the years, but I will never relinquish the opinion that the best horror films have characters in them that you care for an can empathise with, so that when they are put into horrific situations, you are frightened for them and with them. This is the reason that the original 1941 Wolf Man is a classic and genuinely horrifying film, because the tragic fate of Larry Talbot and the evil curse that he is beset with comes from him trying to good by attempting to save the life of another.

    The new Wolfman film is flawed, because it tries to emulate the tone of the original, but changes enough of its storyline, that you do not feel the same empathy for Del Toro's wolfman as you do for Chaney, Jr.'s. Even without some of the subtleties that the original film possesses, The Wolfman is still a good modern adaptation, with fine acting and top notch effects work. The film is a bit too long and you are right in that the start of the film (the second half of the first act) "drags a bit", but even so I liked this better than the remake of Frankenstein by Branagh and Dracula by Coppola. As a horror film fan, I hope that both the modern film fan and the classic film fan can find pleasure in both, as I do, and will continue to try to do. BTW: I can't agree with you more: Zombieland is much funnier than Shaun of the Dead.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find the wolfman to be a boring story, and that doesn't make me a "Modern" horror fan, or someone that doesn't feel empathy for tortured characters at all. The 1941 classic is bland a dated. It definitely deserves it's place in film history as an all time great, but it does nothing for me on screen.

    Dracula, on the other hand, never grows old or stale for me. It really comes down to the story an its elements for me personally.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just felt this movie didn't know if it wanted to be a remake or it's own monster.

    Either way I thought the atmosphere it created was pretty good... though I wished they didn't stick so close with the original 40's wolfman make-up design and maybe ventured into something more monstrous and less Teenwolf.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Love Emily Blunt. Love Emily Blunt. Love Emily Blunt. Love Emily Blunt. Love Emily Blunt.

    ReplyDelete