Pretty crappy. It's nice to look at but that's about all going for it. D+

I completely disagree. I thought it was very solid entertainment. It reminded me of Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, which I also adored. It's atmospheric (the fog! the mansion!), frightening, and romantic, with a very strong lead performance by Benicio Del Toro. The werewolf's escape from the asylum and subsequent rampage through the streets of period London is one of the most satisfying and well-staged action sequences in recent memory.

Yes, it would be a stretch to call this film perfect (it could have been longer, with more character development), but I am completely enamored of it and know, in the future, it will be a Blu-ray I revisit often.

A-/B+

It can never really decide what kind of movie to be (an obvious side effect of having how many different edits of the thing), and so it falls roughly halfway in between a true Gothic horror and a dark comedy à la An American Werewolf in London (or Coppola's Dracula, for that matter). Rick Baker's retro makeup, Hopkins' scenery-chewing performance, and a rather ridiculous surreal dream sequence all seem to lean towards the latter, but then you've got Del Toro and Emily Blunt playing the thing totally straight as they attempt to sell us on some sort of half-baked romance. It's all over the map. Once we arrive at (as A.O. Scott magnificently put it) "an extreme-fighting cage match conducted by a pair of rabid Wookies", you know the movie is lost.

Still, it's better than it could have been, considering the circumstances, but not as good as it should have been. Blame Joe Johnston.

I liked the make up of Wolfman. Some gore and violence was cool. The first 30-35 minutes were kinda boring. It was NOT scary at all. It felt rushed and Benicio was such a miscast. Overall: C

The good:
The visuals - lighting, production design, all superb
Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving chewing scenary with glee
The gore
Some of the more hallucinatory scenes

The bad:
Benicio del Toro looking physically uncomfortable during every scene
Absolutely no chemistry whatsoever between Benicio and Emily Blunt
The majority of the dialogue
After a nice build up, a very disappointing climax

I really wish that Universal had given Mark Romanek (the original director) enough creative control to get him to stay on the project. There are these glimmers of genius, but it's painfully obvious this movie had a troubled production. It isn't an awful movie so much as a frustrating one.

Well it was better than if Brett Ratner had directed it, I suppose.

4/10 -> D

It's boring and all over the place. It looks good, but even with re-shoots I can't see why this thing costed $150 million. It doesn't look THAT good.

I'm guessing it was in large part due to the multiple re-shoots, re-edits, rescoring etc.

The Wolfman works on typical dialogue and horrid performances to get through the day. With how great they are, Benicio Del Toro and Emily Blunt are incredibly bland along with the rest of the cast and the special effects couldn't be any worse. Once Del Toro transforms, the film has already lacked enough that we don't care that he is living a double life. The ending is over the top as well and we're left with a sour and horrid piece that is worthy of worst of the year so far. No Stars

Real bad.

0 out of 5.

Coming from the fellow who thought TJ Miller was great in SOOML.

Of course I'm not saying Hopkins, del Toro or Blunt were any good, but this just reeks of hating for the sake of, juxtaposing both reviews makes it all the more obvious.

Sorry to be singling you out, but, this is exactly the kind of reviews that irk me. People being biased and hating/liking something when they are both delivering the same thing. But, hey, it's the Internet, so whatever.

I was aware of all the bad buzz this movie generated and prepared for a crappy movie yet holding out hope that it could be redeeming in my eyes (it was the Director's Cut too). However, just as was foretold, the movie started off very badly. The acting displayed by del Toro was lacking and even Blunt seemed blunt. But to cap off the bad performances was Hopkins, delivering a woeful turn as Master Talbot. Yet, this movie seemed like it had so much more to offer, the cinematography is gorgeous and is a real beauty to look at. If only the performances in between were more fleshed out. Towards the middle to end Blunt and del Toro get a whole lot better and the entrance of Weaving was a welcome diversion from the bad throughout Hopkins. I'll probably never watch it again, but it had a lot of promise and that didn't go unnoticed.

Currently a solid B but might gravitate towards a B- or so by year's end. Definitely not falling below that though.

TJ Miller is hilarious.

His lines were, his performance wasn't.

Even Jay Baruchel could have done better and he sucked bad in SOOML.

Trixster pretty much nailed down the problem I had with the movie. If Del Toro and Blunt had hammed it up in addition to everyone else, this could've been a pretty entertaining movie. Or if everyone else had decided to play it serious, it could've been a damn good horror movie. Instead the film comes off like the director Joe Johnston had absolutely no control over the thing. Hopkins, Weaving, Rick Baker's makeup, Elfman's score, they all suggest that the film is supposed to be an over the top homage to the original Universal horror films. Del Toro and Blunt didn't seem to be in on it. And because they play the damn thing so seriously (and admittedly, they're good - they're just acting in the wrong film) that makes everything else come across as being laughable, the gore especially. What should've been entertaining just comes across stupid.

So yeah, if Johnston had everyone on the same page it could've been a decent horror film or a decent camp homage. Instead it's an entertaining in places misfire.

**

Johnston was undercut from the word go by being the studio's last-minute replacement for Romanek. He never had a chance.

Not saying that an entirely Joe Johnston-directed Wolfman would be any better, though.

B+


I know the film has a lot of detractors, but I don't quite get it. I thought it was a very well-made and fun gothic horror flick. You don't see such a large-scale big budget horror that almost seems like a throwback to the glorious times of the Hammer studios often these days. In that aspect it certainly delivers.

It is really a pretty film to look at. The cinematography is lush, the art direction quite wonderful and Johnston actually knows how to set the gloomy yet romantic mood on the whole thing. The make up effects and the visual effects are very well-done too and I really enjoyed most of the horror action. The problems of the film lie mostly with its casting. Benicio del Toro is a truly great actor, but he really seems miscast in the role. I am a huge fan of Hopkins, but he hams it up too much in this. Emily Blunt is a wonderful young actress, but she is barely given anything to work with here. The only one leaving a somewhat solid impression here is Hugo Weaving.

I really liked the way the story unfolded. It has its fair share of creepy moments, fun action moments (Wolfman roaming through Victorian London!) and atmospheric scenes. The ending wolfmen fight looked too cheesy, though (besides who did not see that "twist" coming? I mean it was basically spelled out in the marketing already!). I am glad they didn't try to give this film a happy ending, though.

good god

I watched this on Blu-ray tonight. I know most do not, but I still highly enjoy this film, even love it. It has a rich atmosphere, fantastic creature FX and gore, and solid performances by Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, and Hugo Weaving.

The director's cut is richer than the theatrical one, definitely. It has a slower opening, but I don't mind this: more subtle atmosphere, more Del Toro/Blunt interaction, etc. The studio cut a great deal to get to the first transformation faster.

The director's cut does create a continuity flaw, though. It shows Blunt coming to London to meet with Del Toro's character at the theatre where he is playing Hamlet, but later there are two references to her sending him a letter, which is what transpires in the theatrical version.

i must say that i quite enjoyed this little piece of shit, too. i think this is so bad that it becomes borderline-good. of course most of my snobby friends like argos and samourai del'ombre don't agree.

D

This was a massive letdown for me, I didn't go all the way to an "F" due to the film's great atmosphere and setting.

Hugo Weaving is the lone bright spot - everyone else is dull.