User Score
5.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 141 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 71 out of 141
  2. Negative: 37 out of 141
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. KeatonJ
    Feb 18, 2010
    4
    Too much CGI, not enough scares, and not enough romantic development between Benicio and Blunt. I was disappointed.
  2. BillyM.
    Feb 12, 2010
    2
    Absolute crap, from beginning to end a completely predictable piece of drivel, I needed the toilet half way through this film and that was the most enjoyable experience of that wasted 90 minutes
  3. BryanK.
    Feb 13, 2010
    3
    In 1941, Universal's monster films was starting to show a wane in popularity. To add a new monster to the cycle they released "The Wolf Man" starring Lon Chaney Jr, it was an instant box-office hit and launched Chaney into the Universal monster series by playing the mummy through its 1940 mummy films and the wolf-man in several semi-follow-ups. Nearly seventy years later Universal In 1941, Universal's monster films was starting to show a wane in popularity. To add a new monster to the cycle they released "The Wolf Man" starring Lon Chaney Jr, it was an instant box-office hit and launched Chaney into the Universal monster series by playing the mummy through its 1940 mummy films and the wolf-man in several semi-follow-ups. Nearly seventy years later Universal has released a remake making this the last of the classic monster films to be remade. This is not the first time that Universal has attempted to bring the classic monster cycle into the modern era. Their was the Mummy series (1999-2008) which worked well, but over the films moved away from what made the mummy the mummy. In 2004, their was the film "Van Helsing" which attempted to create a tribute to the 1940's monster mashes, but was slow and not as grand as some have said. With all that said we come to the 2010 remake of the Wolf Man and compared to Van Helsing makes the previous film look like a masterpiece of cinema. Without revealing the plot, it seems this film attempted to make a revisionist classic horror film, but failed on so many levels, it's not even funny. The first thing would have to be the acting. Benicio Del Toro, despite being a capable actor suffers from the same problem as Rachel McAdams in "Sherlock Holmes" as in his American voice does not fit in with the English countryside surroundings and characters. Despite this he does alright with the role, but seems too monotone in the delivery of his lines. Anthony Hopkins has one of the more troublesome performances in the film. For the first half, he is dull and does not look like he wants to be in the film. For the second half, he changes into the more capable actor that he is, but by this point it was so far into the film that it was too late to make any change. The rest of the cast tries their hardest, but comes off as monotone throughout. This fairly represents the film in general it's just monotone. The plot is straight-forward, the acting is barely passable, the colour palette is dull and uses gray so much in the landscape that it turns the film into an artistic failure. Director Joe Johnston may qualify with this film as the WORST director of the year for his direction is flat and unmoving. The film's main selling point was its ton of bloody gore. Every attack on a person in this film involves mass amounts of blood and guts. It's not too bad and "gorehounds" may get a kick out of it, but for a film like this it is not needed and makes the film way too campy. While last year I was a little too easy on "Land of the Lost" and "Year One" praising them as 10 out of 10 films when they deserved a 7 or 8, "The Wolf man" does not get any of that kindness, it is just horrible and qualifies one of the worst remakes in cinematic history. The only saving grace sparing this film from the dreaded Zero is Benicio Del Toro's passable performance as the wolfman. Expand
  4. meyes
    Feb 14, 2010
    4
    Not good at all.
  5. PatrickM.
    Feb 14, 2010
    0
    Honest to God, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It makes The Happening look like Hamlet. I love the original, but this flick doesn't hold a candle to it. The script, editing, acting, even special effects are just awful. The film is only about an hour and half long (give or take), but it's so painful that it feels like you're sitting there for a good 4 hours Honest to God, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It makes The Happening look like Hamlet. I love the original, but this flick doesn't hold a candle to it. The script, editing, acting, even special effects are just awful. The film is only about an hour and half long (give or take), but it's so painful that it feels like you're sitting there for a good 4 hours just wondering when it all will stop. Don't even get me started on that awful cliche' of a script. The whole movie was so awful that myself and a couple of friends (both male) actually contemplated leaving halfway through to go and watch "Valentine's Day". Bottom line, Universal needs to quit remaking monster movies and "The Wolfman" needs to be put down. Expand
  6. JoeJ.
    Feb 16, 2010
    0
    Wolfman was a good movie. Yeah, if good means really bad and 10 hours long. No but seriously, it made 30 Days of Night look like the Shining. It made Daywalkers look like There will be Blood. It made The Mist look like Lawrence of Arabia. Wolfman was so bad, it managed to make Flatliners look like Gosford Park. I removed myself from the movie and decided to watch Valentine's Day Wolfman was a good movie. Yeah, if good means really bad and 10 hours long. No but seriously, it made 30 Days of Night look like the Shining. It made Daywalkers look like There will be Blood. It made The Mist look like Lawrence of Arabia. Wolfman was so bad, it managed to make Flatliners look like Gosford Park. I removed myself from the movie and decided to watch Valentine's Day instead. A chippy little flick about love, I was forced to leave that movie as well. Sadly, it just wasn't meant to be. Expand
  7. JamesH
    Feb 17, 2010
    3
    The point of a scary movie is to scare you. This one fails - I was never scared even once throughout the film. The film also seemed "choppy" to me and didn't flow well. The actors did the best they could with the script given them and the special effects were good (not great though), but overall not very entertaining. You just don't care about anyone or anything in the film. The point of a scary movie is to scare you. This one fails - I was never scared even once throughout the film. The film also seemed "choppy" to me and didn't flow well. The actors did the best they could with the script given them and the special effects were good (not great though), but overall not very entertaining. You just don't care about anyone or anything in the film. Character development is lacking. Expand
  8. [Anonymous]
    Feb 12, 2010
    1
    Suffers from terrible pacing, poor writing, poor action and bad acting. Wasn't tense enough to be thrilling or scary, wasn't campy enough to be funny. Just avoid it, don't even bother with it on TV, a 2 hour nap with dreams of nothing would be more exciting and thrilling
  9. EvanQ.
    Feb 13, 2010
    0
    I'm pretty open to 'bad' or 'campy' movies, but The Wolfman is just a mess. I thought it might be a cool thriller or at least something I could laugh at and have a good time with. It was neither. I found it to be very slow and very boring even during the 'exciting' attack portions. If you like horror movies, this will be a disappointment. If you like to I'm pretty open to 'bad' or 'campy' movies, but The Wolfman is just a mess. I thought it might be a cool thriller or at least something I could laugh at and have a good time with. It was neither. I found it to be very slow and very boring even during the 'exciting' attack portions. If you like horror movies, this will be a disappointment. If you like to make fun of 'campy' movies, also a disappointment. I'm not sure who would like this movie. Expand
  10. RichardB.
    Feb 16, 2010
    0
    Let the Wolfman rest in piece.
  11. Aug 25, 2010
    2
    Yikes. The Wolfman fails in almost every respect, unless you consider being unintentionally hilarious a positive trait. First off, it's not scary. Sure, I jumped a couple of times, but I don't consider movies that rely on quiet/loud noise dynamics and things jumping out of the darkness to be truly scary, just annoying. Second, the story is muddled and doesn't seem to be able to make upYikes. The Wolfman fails in almost every respect, unless you consider being unintentionally hilarious a positive trait. First off, it's not scary. Sure, I jumped a couple of times, but I don't consider movies that rely on quiet/loud noise dynamics and things jumping out of the darkness to be truly scary, just annoying. Second, the story is muddled and doesn't seem to be able to make up its mind on whether it wants to stay true to the original story or do something different. Third, the special effects are horrendous for a movie that supposedly cost around $150 million to make. Fourth, and perhaps worst of all, the acting is, across the board, disappointing. Anthony Hopkins looks like he's waiting for his paycheck to clear, Benicio Del Toro appears to be reading off of cue cards, and although Hugo Weaving appears to be trying, he just not able to overcome a tiresome script. With the acting credentials of the cast and a blockbuster-sized budget, The Wolfman should have been better than your average horror movie. Instead, it manages to wallow in the same territory that most dime-a-dozen horror movies occupy, just with a little bit shinier production. Expand
  12. Aug 27, 2010
    1
    Avoid this movie. The droll acting by the majority of the cast lets down a decent performance by Hopkins. The story was predictable, the action scenes were few and far between and not memorable in the slightest. For a 90 minute movie, it seemed to drag on for much longer.
  13. Oct 31, 2010
    1
    BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING. I turned it off after an hour. it lacked the wolfman action I was hoping for. Benicio Del Toro looked like he was exhausted all the time. There was a few action sequences and they sucked as well, and that's saying something.
  14. Aug 31, 2010
    3
    This movie fell flat. With all the talent on display I was soerly disppointed. The story was poor. It felt very gimmicky though the acting had its moments of quality. I doubt Del Toro and Sir Hopkins will be putting this on the mantlepiece. Its main value may be to fill your time at 2am on a Friday in late October but not much beyond that.
  15. Apr 9, 2011
    0
    I fell asleep five times during the first 30 minutes, then woke up when the werewolf attacked, dozed off after that, and turned the entire thing off when the werewolf ended up in a lunatic asylum (!). What an odd twist. The biggest problem with this movie is that the main character is not the least bit likeable. Hence noone cares what happens to him. There are also serious plot holes -I fell asleep five times during the first 30 minutes, then woke up when the werewolf attacked, dozed off after that, and turned the entire thing off when the werewolf ended up in a lunatic asylum (!). What an odd twist. The biggest problem with this movie is that the main character is not the least bit likeable. Hence noone cares what happens to him. There are also serious plot holes - like, why would his own father let him murder 6 or 8 people before turning him in ? Doesn't make sense.
    I wonder if there is no procedure in place anymore where they screen these movies to an average audience. Do that, and you will quickly find out what's wrong with this flick.
    Expand
  16. Dec 10, 2010
    3
    This movie is somewhat of a turd. I liked it ok, but it was full of unnecessary gratuitous violence. Some of us don't need that to enjoy a movie, and this movie would've been fine without it. It did have beautiful set-pieces and was full of good effects, but it was a little dry.
  17. StevenH
    Feb 16, 2010
    4
    Where do I start. I went into this movie hoping it would be the first good horror movie of 2010. I was wrong. This movie had barely passable acting at best, which really ruined it off the bat. You need good acting to have a good movie. The plot was sub par in my opinion because there wasn't anything new about it. It was just the same old wolf man flick. The only saving grace for it Where do I start. I went into this movie hoping it would be the first good horror movie of 2010. I was wrong. This movie had barely passable acting at best, which really ruined it off the bat. You need good acting to have a good movie. The plot was sub par in my opinion because there wasn't anything new about it. It was just the same old wolf man flick. The only saving grace for it was the gore. I'm one of those people who likes a substantial amount of gore in a horror movie. And with every death scene, there is blood and guts flying. So the movie wasn't good by any means, but it wasn't terrible. Oh and one more thing. I've heard people talking about how there was an unexpected plot twist that I wont reveal. Am I really the only one who thought it was predictable? Expand
  18. Robert
    Feb 17, 2010
    4
    Wolfman is one of those movies that isn't supposed to be funny, but is. I would recommend seeing it if you want something that you can make fun of. The dialogue was terrible, the plot was pretty transparent, and the wolf special effects made me laugh. That said, it wasn't ALL bad, just most of it.
  19. Aug 24, 2012
    2
    Genuinely extremely bored throughout this film, at one point I thought of walking out but, being me, I stayed as I had spent the remainder of my weekend's money on this film. Towards the end, the film picked up and was actually fine but the beginning and middle was too slow and tedious. I actually appreciated this film from an artist's standpoint. The camera-work was really rather good andGenuinely extremely bored throughout this film, at one point I thought of walking out but, being me, I stayed as I had spent the remainder of my weekend's money on this film. Towards the end, the film picked up and was actually fine but the beginning and middle was too slow and tedious. I actually appreciated this film from an artist's standpoint. The camera-work was really rather good and the visual effects were up to par as well. All in all, I didn't expect a masterpiece and behold, the film was definitely not one. Expand
Metascore
43

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 36
  2. Negative: 9 out of 36
  1. 63
    But the direction by Joe Johnston (Honey, I Shrunk the Kids) sacrifices originality for computer graphics and stop-motion camera tricks, and the script, by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self, bulges with real howlers: “I didn’t know you hunted monsters.” “Sometimes monsters hunt you!”
  2. 60
    Benicio Del Toro looks even more like Lon Chaney Sr. than Chaney Jr. did, and he’s a far better actor than the previous Wolf Man.
  3. The movie plays like a missed opportunity, with its by-the-numbers scares and a story that feels disjointed, hurried in some places, slow in others.