Lobisomem

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.

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.

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.

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.