Wolfman

I'm surprised by the low ratings The Wolfman gets. Surprised yes and no because I've giving up since a long time deciding whether or not I should watch a movie based solely on the ratings. Too much people rate mediocre movies with the highest score possible whilst perfectly good entertaining movies are being bashed. The Wolfman is entertaining, certainly in the lycanthrope genre, a genre that had multiple bad movies in the past, but this one is one for the "good werewolf movies list". The cast is full of excellent actors like Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt and others. The cinematography was what I liked the most about this movie, a nice dark tone of imaging added something special to the ambiance. It's not a wonder it won an Oscar for make-up as that was also one of the better things about The Wolfman. The story could have been better, I won't deny that, but all the rest made up for it. The Wolfman is underrated certainly in this genre.

This movie has it all. Great actors, great music, a great setting and mood, great CGI and special effects, just great everything. And on top of that, you got a werewolf running around. I would also heavily recommend watching the unrated directors cut of this movie, it goes much deeper into the story and clears up some of the confusion in the theatrical version and also adds some more action packed violence in the middle of the film. I was a skeptic before watching this movie because of some of the reviews but to me this movie deserves much more attention than it got. For me, it's a must watch and I would recommend this to anyone who is looking for a great way to spend some time on a full moon lit night.

Upon his return to his ancestral homeland, an American man (Benicio del Toro) is bitten, and subsequently cursed by, a werewolf.

A remake of this sort is caught in a no-win trap. If it tries to reinvent the story entirely, it will make some fans upset for deserting the source material. But, on the other hand, coming too close to the original will have people saying there is no way to top the original (which may be true).

Benicio del Toro was the obvious choice for the wolf man, and he plays the part well. The cinematography and atmosphere are gorgeous, and the Elfman music is appreciated (and much more subdued than many of his scores). Rick Baker won another Oscar for his makeup here, and who can argue with that?

The reviews tended to be negative. Roger Ebert, no fan of horror, gave a lukewarm review of 2.5 stars, but then had to find a flaw regardless of any praise he had: "The film has one flaw, and faithful readers will not be surprised to find it involves the CGI special effects. No doubt there are whole scenes done so well in CGI that I didn't even spot them, but when the werewolf bounds through the forest, he does so with too much speed. He would be more convincing if he moved like a creature of considerable weight."

Granted, he is spot on. When you have Baker on your crew, there is no need for CGI (or at least not very much of it). There is no shame in using it when it honestly helps, but when it stands out like a sore thumb, maybe it is time to do a few reshoots.

One of the most heavily criticized types of films is the remake. The most common criticism is that there is no reason to remake something that already exists and can still be accessed. While this is heavily lobbied at the live-action Disney films of today, the complaint has been around for a long time. And while I imagine that fans of the original Wolfman film from the classic horror films look down on this movie, I have to say that it delivers a satisfying package.

One thing to note about the remake is the inclusion of more bloody kills. While I haven't seen the original Wolfman, I imagine that the film practices of the day had tame kills in the same vein as Frankenstein and Dracula. But here, and especially in the unrated cut which I watched, the mostly practical effects make for some great gore, even if most of it is caused by simple slashes to the body and neck. There are some noticeable moments of CGI blood spurts and transformation sequences, but that doesn't stop the rest of the action from being pretty good.

The cast also does a great job, which is to be expected from so many big names: Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, and Hugo Weaving all give great performances, as well as the more minor characters. In addtion, the set designs and costumes are amazing as well. The manor in particular has a great, creepy design.

One thing I did find very lacking is the character of Gwen. While Blunt is an amazing actress and her performance is still good, she doesn't do much in the film besides be the love interest. It's a shame, because the setup in the beginning of her husband being one of the Wolfman's victims would make for a cool Van Helsing-style character driven by revenge to parallel Weaving's more lawful take on the character. In addition, her inclusion in the final act greatly added to that unwanted romance element. But if you can look past that fairly sizable flaw, I see no reason to look down on this movie. It's a fun watch, and I don't see why its score is just 5.8.

It's a decent horror/Wolfman movie. Great cast , story moves along at a decent pace. It's not an Oscar winning movie but to have a universal exec say it's one of the 2 worst movies universal ever made, other being babe pig in the city. Like come on, it's not close to that bad..but hearing that doesn't it make you curious to watch it? Give it a shot.