Wolf Man

What unbreakable did for super heroes movies, Wolf-man did for werewolf movies. Its execution felt similar. But much like Unbreakable I believe the reviews will dip lower than this movie deserves to be. I remember people hating Unbreakable because of the slowness and "seeming" anti-climactic nature of it but over time people began to realize the brilliance of it. This feels similar. The tension is great and atmosphere spot on. I kept waiting for a cringy or overtop moment make me roll my eyes but it never did and stayed the course it was on. Not the modern American werewolf in London I've been searching for but definitely an emerald I didn't expect to find while mining for diamonds. Go see it.

Leigh Whannell's The Wolfman is an absolute travesty, a film so bogged down by its own misguided ambition that it dares to insult its audience with every agonizingly slow, dialogue-driven scene. Christopher Abbott and Julia Garner, while undoubtedly talented actors, are wasted on a screenplay that reads like a collection of rejected first drafts from a sophomore creative writing course. Whannell's attempt to craft a "thoughtful" horror film comes off as nothing more than pretentious navel-gazing, with long, tedious conversations that add nothing to the plot and suck all momentum out of the narrative.

The werewolf design is a disgrace, looking more like a cheap Halloween costume than a creature of terror. It's baffling how a film in 2025 can fail so miserably at something that movies from the 1940s did with more finesse. Worse still, Whannell has the audacity to forgo any meaningful visual transformation sequence. The transformation-a cornerstone of werewolf lore-is entirely absent, replaced by uninspired sound effects and a lazy cutaway. This omission is not only a colossal disappointment but also a blatant disregard for the source material.

Determined to strip The Wolfman of everything that made the original story iconic... Gone are the thrills, the action, and the horror. In their place, we're subjected to a plodding, self-important drama that's more interested in existential musings than delivering even a shred of excitement. The film feels like an insult to fans of the genre, a condescending lecture masquerading as art.

The pacing is excruciatingly slow, with the film grinding to a halt whenever the characters open their mouths. The dialogue is overwrought and meandering, more suited to a bad stage play than a feature film. Whannell tries to inject tension through strained metaphors and half-baked character studies, but it all comes off as hollow and forced.

As a horror girlie, I couldn't resist checking out "Wolf Man" today, and while it had its moments, I'm a bit torn on it.

The cinematography was easily the standout-some of the angles and camera work were fantastic, especially for a horror film. There are also a few fresh ideas that really surprised me, which is impressive for a remake of the 1941 classic.

That said, the child actress's performance kept breaking the immersion for me, and overall, the movie felt a little too safe. It's enjoyable enough, but not particularly memorable. Honestly, it gave me strong novel vibes-this story would've worked so well as a book. It also made me want to replay 'Until Dawn', which captures a similar vibe with way more impact.

"Wolf Man" is worth a watch for horror fans, but it's probably one to wait for on streaming.

This film is just alright, maybe a little better than that. But it's nothing to write home about: close, but no cigar.

It plays it too safe. Just when you think something interesting is going to transpire, it doesn't. The film is an adaptation of a decades-old story, and yet it doesn't break any new ground nor offer up any new ideas.

The cinematography and acting are the two standouts. The presentation of the Oregonian outdoors is beautiful, as is the use of lighting throughout. Abbott and Garner turn in great performances, but the actress playing their daughter is not very good to the point that she often took me out of the film. The film felt like it was leading up to something really climactic, but didn't really. Ultimately it ends up feeling rather generic. There are a few jump scares and creepy imagery, but overall it isn't all that scary.

That said, the film is worth checking out if you're looking for an entertaining, spooky little time. The runtime is short, and it clips along pretty nicely.

A January horror movie. You never quite know what you're going to get. More times than not it's where studios dump their worst of the year. I don't think that's going to be the case with 'Wolf Man' though. It's nothing special, but it's a passable 103 minutes.

The film gets off to a very slow start. There was an intriguing opening scene which I had high hopes for, but it never really went anywhere interesting and was more just an extended way to explain the set up for the film.

From there we are introduced to the characters of the family and I thought this was too drawn out and not done in an interesting way. There were some lengthy dialogue-heavy scenes and it was hard not to check out, because they were just done in such a dull way.

Finally we then get into the meat of the movie. Leigh Whannell is a talented director and there are some well done scenes in here. There is one jump-scare that was very well executed. The problem for me though was it felt very safe. This didn't feel like a horror film where anything could happen at any moment.

'Wolf Man' was filmed in New Zealand so there is some beautiful scenery to look at in a few scenes. It's a well made film but ultimately I think it will be pretty quickly forgotten. 6/10.