Wolf Man

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.