Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Wolfman (2009)

This is topic The Wolfman (2009) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001633

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 02-18-2010, 10:13 PM:

Universal owns werewolf movies. There are three that have stood out in my opinion. First is the original "Wolf Man" with Lon Chaney, the second was technically a Hammer film but Uni co-financed it via their US distribution deal..."Curse of the Werewolf", and third was John Landis' "American Werewolf in London". Now we can add a fourth one to the list...

"The Wolfman" borrows liberally from all three of it's Universal-released predecessors and the result is an enjoyable if unremarkable horror thriller in the classic tradition. It is fortunate that the filmmakers avoided the comic book direction they took with "Van Helsing". The plot and characters start out solidly as in the original Curt Siodmak screenplay from the '41 version and it's visual style seems greatly influenced by the 1963 Hammer film. In fact it looks like the kind of film Hammer would have produced had they made it themselves. Benicio Del Toro's better-than-adequate performance seems - either by chance or design - to encompass the best aspects of both Chaney and Oliver Reed's interpretations. There are also a few similarities to "American Werewolf..." not the least of which is excellent makeup effects by Rick Baker (who is featured in a quick cameo). It would be great to see him win another makeup effects Oscar to keep company with the first one ever given out. Thanks to whomever made the decision to reinstate the fine Danny Elfman score rather than subject us to the techno-shit music that appeared in one of the trailers.

The remaining cast - Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving in particular - are all predictably good.

In short if you are a fan of werewolf movies and like what you saw in the trailers you are likely to enjoy "The Wolfman". It isn't going to blow you away but it is an effective horror thriller that will keep you entertained from start to finish.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 02-21-2010, 12:02 PM:

Basically, I agree with Joe Tommassello's review. However, I did not care for the CGI generated/enhanced sets, although I did like the man to wolf transformations. I also am a stickler for films staying in period. The film was clearly set in Victorian England, pre automobiles, yet the antique shop in London had electric lights when nowhere else in the film had electric lighting.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-01-2010, 04:32 PM:

I never saw THE WOLFMAN (2009) in a theatre but will watch it tonight in the comfort of my home on a Blu-Ray disc I had picked up at a Blockbuster store as part of my Online/In Store rental service plan. I grew p with the original Lon Chaney and Hammer films and look forward to watching the current film tonight.

I used to love horror films very much including john Carpenter's original HALLOWEEN but I no longer watch the current stuff because they have become too gory. Thank God, the current WOLFMAN film is not a modern version of that classic film with a lot of unnecessary bloody scenes.

-Claude

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 06-11-2010, 10:57 AM:

Claude - I am curious as to your opinion since seeing the film.

To anyone planning to watch this at home I recommend the Theatrical Version. The "unrated" version might as well have been the "workprint" version as it simply seems not edited enough. It's the kind of footage that belongs in the supplemental materials rather than dragging out the first act with ten unneccesary minutes. If there was any material beyond the first 20 minutes that was added it didn't stand out to me. Perhaps someone else here knows if there was anything later in the film.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-11-2010, 01:24 PM:

Joe,

It is very interesting you had asked me what I thought of THE WOOLFMAN because I was planning to post my comments after watching the movie on a rented Blu Ray disc from Blockbuster. I never did because I got busy.

The original has been a favorite ever since I saw it for the very first time in a theatre when I was a little boy. I was hoping I would enjoy this remake very much but I did not. I thought it was very boring and decided to turn it off after I had watched it for about an hour and fifteen minutes. I did not watch the theatrical version but the directors cut. Do you think that was probably the reason I did not enjoy the film? Perhaps I should watch it again but the theatrical version the next time.

-Claude

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 06-11-2010, 01:49 PM:

Claude- As you can see from my original review I liked the film when I saw it in the theater. While watching the extended version it felt slow. The extra 16 minutes of footage didn't help it at all. Most of it was in the first 20 minutes of the film. Primarily the whole scene in London before he goes home was entirely new and the scene in the pub is longer. I am sure there are others too but those stick in my mind. If you watch it longer - on the extended version - they refer to a letter that Talbot never got...but he got it in the theatrical version. You might indeed find the theatrical version more appealing.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 06-12-2010, 12:32 AM:

I screened this at work, back when it came out in February (incidentally, this is a 2010 release, not 2009) and I remember liking it a lot more than I was expecting.