उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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.

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.

I appreciated the simplicity of the story which allowed the directing, atmosphere, cinematography and soundtrack to really be at the forefront in their storytelling.

These elements of the film made a somewhat simple story engaging and beautiful to look at on the big screen. Even for a horror movie I was surprised with the strength of the characters, family bond and overall theme of the film especially with the connection to the prior events in the past.

However, I felt the film could've been a bit more bold, took more risks and try to be inventive. Especially with the director's previous film's "upgrade" and "the invisible man" which took some risks which definitely paid off in some great and memorable moments. I just thought that the conclusion to the film teetered on lacklustre.

However, I was happy that the film did not become too over the top and cheesy in which some horror films that have come out recently have. As stated before, the simplicity of the story allowed us to focus on the characters relationship and the atmospheric setting.

All in all a solid horror film to begin the 2025 campaign however, I think a bolder final act could've made it more memorable.

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.

"Wolf Man" is the new adaptation of one of Universal's classic monsters, a different look at what "The Wolf Man" (1941) was, is what Leigh Whannell offers in his film directed and written by him, the script touches on folkloric elements of the werewolf myth and mixes them with a family drama, giving a good but not excellent result. Although Whannell had already brought another classic Universal monster in his version of "The Invisible Man" which was somewhat overrated in 2020, in 2025 his version of "Wolf Man" is more interesting than his aforementioned previous film. The performances of Christopher Abbott and Julia Garner are good, managing to portray a marriage in crisis. The cinematography is good, and it uses the werewolf's perspective to show us his visual change from human to animal, as is the sound design, which is incredible and also takes the audience to be part of the protagonist's auditory mutation. The prosthetic makeup special effects are realistic and nostalgic in an old-school way, giving a nice touch to the subgenre that the film touches on, that of body horror. Whannell manages to introduce suspense in several scenes and knows what he wants to show on screen. "Wolf Man" is not a perfect film, and it will certainly not be the best horror film of 2025, but it is an entertaining and well-made cinematic product.

From the director of The Invisible Man comes a reboot of yet another Universal Classic Monster, this time offering a modern spin on the studio's lycanthropic franchise. But unlike his impressive last feature, Wolf Man fails to create any sort of intrigue or interest, is formulaic & forgettable in every possible way, and makes for a bland, banal & boring offering with nothing worth investing into.

Co-written & directed by Leigh Whannell (Insidious: Chapter 3 & Upgrade), the premise is paper-thin, characters are poorly sketched & devoid of personality and the plot is predictable from afar with not many (or any) surprises in store. And if that's not enough, the sappy melodrama & lame dialogues don't do the film any favour either. And the ride is furthermore hampered by its lack of suspense.

There is no sense of direction to where the plot is headed, the family unit isn't developed enough and the horror set pieces also lack the expected ferocity & flesh-tearing carnage. Performances are lifeless, and even the werewolf design fails to impress. Whannell intended to address themes of parenting, marriage, sickness & death here but for those to work, the fundamentals needed to be solid which isn't the case here.

Overall, Wolf Man is ineffective in its storytelling, flat in its execution and underdeveloped as a whole. Terribly directed, shoddily scripted, tediously paced & weakly acted, there's nothing that clicks here nor is there anything to latch onto, thus resulting in a finished product that has no bite. An uneven, uninspiring & underwhelming reimagining that's not only devoid of tension & scares but is also lacking in narrative & emotional depth.

Let me start by saying that Christopher Abbott's performance was splendid. He stepped into this role with ease, and I would recommend this film based solely on his interpretation of the titular character.

That said, there were many things in this film that failed to work for me. Addressing Julia Garner's performance, I must say I think she is a lovely actress. In fact, she tends to steal any scenes she's in when it comes to most of her other work that I've seen. In Wolf Man, however, she is less than believable in the role of wife and mother, and, along with a lack of depth in the script, I found myself less than concerned about the fate of the family.

I was especially excited to see this movie after hearing it was being written/directed by Leigh Whannell, whose work on The Invisible Man was impeccable. Wolf Man fails where The Invisible Man succeeds in the way of character development and raw emotion. When it comes to the world of fantastical creatures like vampires, werewolves, zombies, etc., I think there should be a clear direction chosen between campy/outrageous and dark/serious when telling such stories. While Whannell seems to have chosen the latter, I felt the film was too tame to affect an audience and too surface-level to reach the heart.

Leigh Whannell is truly one of the most underrated directors/writers around and it baffles me how he's still not mentioned as one of the tops of the genre. People also somehow still don't know he's partially responsible for Saw and insidious franchises. His more recent films ; Upgrade and invisible man are still some of the best films of the past 10 years. As you can tell, I'm a bit of a fan and have been since Saw. So when news broke that he was going to be helming the wolf man, I was ecstatic to see his vision .

Now that it's finally here, I'm not afraid to say this the best werewolf movie in my honest opinion of all time as far as sheer visceral terror, and body horror for the mythical legendary man beast . Even if you don't wanna put it above classics like American werewolf in London or many others over the years you have to recognize its absolute onslaught of brutality and creature chaos . While he does give some different sort of visuals that might be less traditional. It makes the body horror aspect, all the more frightening and disturbing.

The story also has breakneck speed, and intensity that never lets up. The cast at first seems run-of-the-mill, but towards the end, you won't want it any other way as their performances were very well executed . I believe the true star of the show were the phenomenal creature effects both practical and digital which these days is few and far between to find a working balance between the two. The realism and true animosity to this newer wolf , I just cannot get over. Along with brilliant bleak settings and masterful lighting throughout. The environment created for this film is also amazing. Whannell seems to always get some of the best cinematographers to work with him.

Overall, I think people will go into this thinking it's just a run of the mill January dump off Blumhouse horror film, but this is so much more. Hopefully it will garner some good word of mouth because for the classic monster horror , it breathes a huge new howl into the genre and lore of the werewolf. Would absolutely love to see them continue to create new takes on the classic horror. Monsters may be creature of the black lagoon. Frankenstein could also be next.

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.

This movie starts with a severely underwhelming opening scene. And that was a sign of things to come. The entire movie is underwhelming and provided me very little in terms of entertainment value.

I can't give specific reasons why this didn't work better, I'm not really sure why. It just could not get me invested. I was bored for the entire runtime. Not just the slower parts, but even during the "exciting" parts, all I could think was, "Meh."

It also has some questionable parts and characters reacting to situations in oddest ways. And I found it highly predictable. I did not have a good time with this movie and wouldn't recommend it.

(1 viewing, opening Thursday UltraScreen 1/16/2025)

Leigh Whannell's reimagining of The Wolf Man is moderately entertaining. But, ultimately, it falls short of the levels of suspense, creativity and energy achieved in his 2020 remake of The Invisible Man starring Elisabeth Moss and Aldis Hodge. It also pales in comparison to 2010's The Wolf Man directed by Joe Johnston and starring Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, and Hugo Weaving.

For starters, the film's script is devoid of nuance, a problem highlighted by instance after instance of unimaginative dialogue that really could have benefited from a punch-up or two prior to principle photography. From start to finish, each character in the movie more or less says exactly what they're feeling. As a result, the viewer is consistently denied the emotional reward derived from dialogue that requires a certain level of maturity and investment in order to connect with what the actors are attempting to convey nonverbally.

Next, Christopher Abbott and Julia Garner lack onscreen chemistry and are not very believable as a married couple. Additionally, the lack of physical resemblance between actor Sam Jaeger and Abbott, who are cast as father and son in this film, is a bit distracting.

The biggest problem related to casting, however, is Garner. She seems out of her depth in this project and is neither convincing nor sympathetic as the story's forlorn wife and mother.

However, child actress Matilda Firth delivers a strong performance that mitigates some of the aforementioned casting issues. Very talented.

On the technical side, the movie's cinematography is rather flat, devoid of light, contrast and vibrance. In all fairness, this is a problem that's been common among a number of horror projects shot in recent years. Even non-horror projects like Gladiator II, directed by a filmmaker known for crafting beautiful, visually dynamic motion pictures, have fallen victim to this current trend of drab lighting. So, no real surprise there.

On another positive note (in addition to Firth's performance), Wolf Man, much like The Invisible Man (2020), features outstanding sound design. The movie's sound does a lot of the heavy lifting during the story's most suspenseful moments. In light of this, the entire sound department deserves an immense amount of credit and recognition for their work on this project.

So, in short, not as good a movie as I'd hoped for, but by no means bad. I'll definitely watch it again at home when it's available.

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.

I saw in imax after my shift of working a little bit of maintenance at the theater timed this just right. Solid movie I enjoy most anything by Leigh Whannel I guess I would recommend this pretty good horror, I loved the effects, music is awesome not much else was hoping to like more cause to me Invisible Man is a masterpiece but Wolf Man is above average. Nice to see Julie Garner in anything I love her and Christopher Abbott is staying busy he was in Kraven not to long ago that was pretty good. Nice that this has a 6 rating that's solid enough definitely great for horror just felt a bit cheesy Im sorry to say.

By the end, I was actually hoping it would pull a M Night Shyamalan, because even a corny twist would have been better than what we got.

I have no idea why this film exists. It is not heavy on action and horror, and for the better part it hints that it might want to tell a family drama or address the protagonist's childhood trauma. I thought maybe it would end up being a story of redemption, or perhaps a tale about the power of love vanquishing evil. But no, it doesn't do any of these things. Instead, it clumsily moves on from one scene to the next, boring and frustrating the audience. No motif is developed in this film, every plot twist is telegraphed way ahead, the action is pretty bad, and the monster is pretty lame. The ending offers no payoff, nothing is explained, and one is left wondering what the purpose of the prologue was supposed to be. It tries to set up the idea that the boy is careless, and it might cost him dearly. But then they drop it, and nothing in the film connects with anything in the prologue. The protagonist even seems to have forgotten he'd even encountered the monster as a kid. The script completely ignores this experience. Things are hinted at, and never addressed again. There is no narrative purpose for his daughter, and no reason for her to be in the film. The film hints at a special bond between her and her father, but again, it is not developed into anything. This is a poorly written script that annoys people every step of the way. You'll probably want to leave the theater after about 30-40 minutes.

It's hard to put into words how much I hate this movie. I thought the first 10 minutes was interesting, then it becomes everything I hate in a bad horror film. This movie he felt lazy, derivative and unnecessary. It's like a cheap, terrible version of 1986's, The Fly only without the charm of a Jeff Goldblum. It's not frightening, it's not interesting, it's just gross and hard to look at. This movie is ugly and not just visually. I thought the performances from the family were atrocious, and probably due to poor directing and some of the worst writing put to screen. Hard to get invested or get behind this family when there's nothing likeable about any of them. This is a film I hope soon to forget, and I take comfort knowing and I will.

I loved it. It's basically old school horror: the werewolf concept, the desolate cottage, the dark woods, it's all there, as well as the needed jump scares and some serious violence and gore. The special effects are very convincing, and the appearance of the creature is pretty original, compared to the cliché werewolves: in spite of the transformation he still stays clearly a person. The photography (entirely in the dark of night) is great, and there's a very effective build-up of the tension.

The makers added to all the excitement and turmoil a fair amount of quiet moments, serving as reflection for the besieged family members, as well as for mounting the suspense. Both Julia Garner and Christopher Abbott do a fine job, as does young Matilda Firth as the daughter. In short: an entertaining and exciting addition to the horror-wolf genre.