The Wolfman

The longer they postponed premiere, the more my concerns about the final product grew, but Joe Johnston handled it more than decently. This is not such a fundamental achievement as the first Wolfman, but, to be honest, who could expect it to be? The action is fast, brisk and (in the unrated version) good and bloody, the atmosphere is also good. Benicio Del Toro may be doing nothing more than usual, but Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving (Abberline is probably the best character and I'd love a spin-off or a part two if he was in it) steal the show at times. Elfman's music perfectly complements the plot, and the main theme seemed to me to be a jauntier version of Dracula, which is not a criticism, but a compliment, because it sounds truly superb. It is said there is no sin in killing a beast, only in killing a man. But where does one begin and the other end? (23/05/2010)

Despite not being faithful to the original, Johnston is more true to its spirit and atmosphere of classic horrors from Universal. Both the well-known and well-made, and also those magical naive “such-and-such versus something-or-other" B-movies. I couldn’t ask for more. And it’s also evident that the creators love these movies (there is endless proof of this, e.g. the scene with the medical symposium where they nod at the initial aim of the original, before the studio stepped in). And not just because my heart beat away in utter delight for the entire movie (quite appropriately, since it was Valentine’s Day), which prevented me from making a valid comment about the fact that in some places it was really rather obvious that they didn’t see eye to eye with the producers as to the final cut. (16/02/2010)

Epic period horror with a badass atmosphere, nice make-up and good actors in the main roles. That’s a pretty good calling card, but The Wolfman is unfortunately missing a few key elements. It’s unable to generate fear or tension, it isn’t entertaining, or disgusting, or shocking. It just quietly wanders about in the background in a way that you can barely register, let alone remember. It’s not bad, but it’s a shame that with the money spent on it, you could get quite a few young, unpretentious filmmakers who’d be able to make about dozen better movies. (19/02/2010)

A film on the edge. I definitely count the graphic and at times perhaps a little explicit violence for effect among the pluses of the film. Also the fantastic production design and cinematography. However, The Wolfman falls down on the fact that Joe Johnston is not much of a director. He references classic Universal works with an almost irritating naivety and clichéd story, but then takes it out of context with scenes cut exactly in the vein of contemporary horror films, in particular the ubiquitous and (at least for me in this film) non-functioning jump scares really stink. Otherwise, the pretty good CGI effects don't offend, but watching it I kept thinking of the much better An American Werewolf in London, where the monster was also fantastic and yet it was just a matter of good masks. This way, for example, the fight between two werewolves reminded me quite a bit of Sommers' cockamamie Van Helsing. The last criticism belongs once again to the director and is most palpable at the beginning. The Wolfman has an awfully strong trio of actors at its disposal (Hopkins, del Toro, Weaving), but Johnson fails to lead them in any way. This is how, with del Toro in particular, we get theatrical overacting that is unlike anything he's done before, and it's clear that the problem won't be on his side. In conclusion, I have to admit that my cinematic experience was disrupted by a trio of misfit teenagers who just had to be super funny as usual, and while the scene was loud, their speeches were always flexibly adapted to ensure that no one in the theatre happened to hear them. Kill. (20/02/2010)

It is in fact possible to make a mediocre film with a bloated wallet, a returning screenwriting legend, and a cast of actors perfectly cast to the last extra. The sets, and in general the whole set design, the special effects, and the technical aspects are perfect, but it's all told in a kind of lazy way. The entire time I couldn't shake the impression that it was "skimming the surface," where everything goes according to a perfectly ordered plan that can't surprise and unfortunately doesn't even try to. For two hours, you're in a blissful state of mind about how nice it is to watch, then the credits roll, and now you want to try to remember something about it... and all that pops into your mind is a hairy man with a lot of bloody gunk lying around, nothing more. 3 ½. (23/05/2010)