The Wolfman

User Score
5.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 145 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 49 out of 145
  2. Negative: 37 out of 145
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. Jun 11, 2011
    6
    Upon his return to his father's estate a few years after his mother's death, Lawrence Talbot discovers that his brother's body has been found. Then, he learns that a wolf has killed him and searches for it. One night, the wolf attacks him and bites him, which gives him a curse to transform into a wolf man every full moon and goes on a killing rampage. A young woman and a Scotland YardUpon his return to his father's estate a few years after his mother's death, Lawrence Talbot discovers that his brother's body has been found. Then, he learns that a wolf has killed him and searches for it. One night, the wolf attacks him and bites him, which gives him a curse to transform into a wolf man every full moon and goes on a killing rampage. A young woman and a Scotland Yard inspector must find a way to get get rid of the curse once and for all.

    Saw this in theaters the same month it came out last year and now to make my opinion.

    The Wolfman suffers from its thin plot and undeveloped characters, but has good CGI, gave me a few chills, and even Anthony Hopkins was a lot of fun and it's in no doubt a decent remake of a 1940 movie that I've never even watched.

    6/10
    Expand
  3. Aug 13, 2010
    5
    I found mostly all the Universal Studios monsters pretty damn ridiculous. Although there are considered classics I never really found them interesting to watch. When I heard they were making a remake of it I was actually kind of excited. There are not really a lot of good werewolf movies out there. In my opinion the best one is An American Werewolf in London. I was very sadly disappointed.I found mostly all the Universal Studios monsters pretty damn ridiculous. Although there are considered classics I never really found them interesting to watch. When I heard they were making a remake of it I was actually kind of excited. There are not really a lot of good werewolf movies out there. In my opinion the best one is An American Werewolf in London. I was very sadly disappointed. I'm really negative towards remakes I rarely agree with them. I say leave the original alone. My ideal of remakes is that there is not really an artistic tone with them. You'll only remake it for money, just trying to milk the cow. When you are filming a remake you need to understand the things that made the original so good. Then you build your film using the foundation that the original used. Now the foundation of the original Wolf Man movies was the fact that Lon Chaney Jr. use just makeup to scare people now that's freaking feat considering the movie was made in 1941 that's some talent. With some simple makeup he was able to scare a lot of moviegoers. I think that's what the problem is in The Wolf Man of this year. The film begins with Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Torro) a stage actor who gets the news that his brother was killed by a wild animal. He decides to go to help his brother's wife Gwen (Emily Blunt) and his father Sir Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) who is a very strange man and always carries a gun. We learn that Talbot has a dark past with his mother who is dead, that torments him and resents his father. One day trying to investigate what happen at gypsies camp the wild animal attacks and bites Talbot and I'm pretty sure you get the rest of what's going to happen. The movie has a very strong plot and the movie is very well acted. I do want to mention Hugo Weaving who plays a Scotland Yard inspector trying to figure out what's going on with the murders. He does a very good job as well. The set direction is amazing, the locations are awesome and the cinematography is very good we feel the dread in every corner. The problem with The Wolf Man is the werewolf itself. While the CGI is great it's very excessive and we feel a how you call it a very computer taste in your mouth. The movie feels lifeless and there are so many better horror movies out there with better looking and realistic special effects. If they really want to give homage to the original they should have toned the CGI. As well as the pace is very bad it was really boring and the script lacked scares and actual suspense. There goes another remake down the drain. Expand
  4. meyes
    Feb 14, 2010
    4
    Not good at all.
  5. Nov 22, 2010
    5
    I haven't personally seen the original, but I was only slightly impressed by what I saw. The movie was slow, but this doesn't mean it was flat out boring. The lighting adds effect, but the director depends too much on the lighting to enhance the action. Might I remind you that this was rated R for violence and gore, in which that was fair. In addition to unecessary lighting, all the actorsI haven't personally seen the original, but I was only slightly impressed by what I saw. The movie was slow, but this doesn't mean it was flat out boring. The lighting adds effect, but the director depends too much on the lighting to enhance the action. Might I remind you that this was rated R for violence and gore, in which that was fair. In addition to unecessary lighting, all the actors gave a great performance, but everything else was blan. From what was going to happen next, to a dissapointing blan ending, the movie needed another look at before being released. If only one aspect of this film was better, you would most likely see a "GO" above this review. Go see it, but don't expect an audience to applaud at the end. Expand
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. ChadS.
    Feb 13, 2010
    6
    It might be a little premature for Lawrence(Benicio Del Toro) to be seducing his dead brother's fiance, so blame it on the fog, which looks so romantic over the gray lake, it can't help but put the Shakespearean actor in the right mood to teach Gwen(Emily Blunt) the finer points of rock-skipping. Acting coquettish like any self-respecting Victorian woman in a bustle dress, Gwen It might be a little premature for Lawrence(Benicio Del Toro) to be seducing his dead brother's fiance, so blame it on the fog, which looks so romantic over the gray lake, it can't help but put the Shakespearean actor in the right mood to teach Gwen(Emily Blunt) the finer points of rock-skipping. Acting coquettish like any self-respecting Victorian woman in a bustle dress, Gwen flatters the man's cleverness by feigining ignorance on the physics of skipping a stone, a pretense for physical contact, as the wolfman lends a guiding hand to her delivery. While romance enmeshes itself in "The Wolfman"(it's a Victorian period piece, after all), the movie doesn't forget that the genre a monster is traditionally affiliated with is horror, so Lawrence does a lot more killing than kissing. Although the sun never shines in "The Wolfman", the shadows and fog fail to create an atmosphere of dread, or even a minimum of suspense, despite the unrelenting pall that hangs over everything. But there is blood, not glitter on the monster. All those gratuitous shots of the moon are for the werewolf, not lovers. Unlike that moonbeam Bella, Gwen doesn't love Lawrence past the point of rationality where she'd want to be his wolfwoman. That's how the moviegoer can tell "The Wolfman" is more of a guy's movie. It's not "Twilight", but the Victorian setting makes this handsomely photographed film seem like a Merchant Ivory production when compared to "Saw" and its ilk. That's not a bad thing. Sitting through "The Wolfman" is not torture. But the nineteenth century trappings almost renders the blood and gore benign. Expand
  9. Andrewk
    Feb 21, 2010
    6
    I give this a 6, very reluctantly, but because I felt it somehow deserved it. It was not "good", but it was so without being horribly bad. The only movie I have seen that received a 0 on my scale is "Zombie Nation" and if I could give it a - 5 I would, but that isn't how the scale works. 0 is the worst I can possibly imagine and compared to that, Wolfman is a 6, possibly a 5. Oddly I give this a 6, very reluctantly, but because I felt it somehow deserved it. It was not "good", but it was so without being horribly bad. The only movie I have seen that received a 0 on my scale is "Zombie Nation" and if I could give it a - 5 I would, but that isn't how the scale works. 0 is the worst I can possibly imagine and compared to that, Wolfman is a 6, possibly a 5. Oddly enough, I agree with Joe J. on every good and bad movie he mentioned. The Shining, Lawrence of Arabia, and There Will be Blood are some of my favorite movies and if I could give them 20 I would, but again, not how this works. Anthony Hopkins' acting was surprisingly terrible in this movie, and Del Toro's accent was pretty horrid. If you love old fashioned Horror movies that aren't as low brow as some of today's garbage, I recommend this. If you are looking for a meaningful, delightful piece of cinema, I do not recommend this movie. Expand
  10. Dec 8, 2010
    5
    When i first saw this movie i felt asleep. This movie was so boring the first time i saw it. The second tome i actually got into the movie and finish it. The story could have been better but still a good movie. This is a good horror movie. even though its not really scary it still scare you on some scene. Alot of gore in this movie.
  11. Dec 2, 2010
    6
    When i saw this in theaters i though the real things they had going for it was the quick sound bursts that most scary movies have. But when i saw it at home i was rather unimpressed. This movie almost was meant for theaters because of the surround sound effect but unless you have it at home its worthless. The storyline and the acting was okay but the overall wasn't that great. The graphicsWhen i saw this in theaters i though the real things they had going for it was the quick sound bursts that most scary movies have. But when i saw it at home i was rather unimpressed. This movie almost was meant for theaters because of the surround sound effect but unless you have it at home its worthless. The storyline and the acting was okay but the overall wasn't that great. The graphics were good and the cinematography wasn't to bad either. Expand
  12. Jan 17, 2011
    6
    It is about time to bring werewolf back to the screen. With nowadays technologies, THE WOLFMAN is a good vessel to explore how far special effects and make-ups would go. The movie itself already appropriately taken care by former special effects expert, Joe Johnston. Johnston involved on three early STAR WARS trilogy as Special Effect Art Director. His box office movies as a Director areIt is about time to bring werewolf back to the screen. With nowadays technologies, THE WOLFMAN is a good vessel to explore how far special effects and make-ups would go. The movie itself already appropriately taken care by former special effects expert, Joe Johnston. Johnston involved on three early STAR WARS trilogy as Special Effect Art Director. His box office movies as a Director are JUMANJI (1995) and JURASSIC PARK III (2001). The movie starred by Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, and Hugo Weaving. Although Del Toro acted well in thiz flick, I personally think it is very lamentable to use Del Toro on such a movie. Del Toro as we knew was a discreet Actor in serious drama. What are we really waiting on thiz movie is the transformation scene, when Del Toro becomes a werewolf. Rick Baker make-up already supports well. The plots were on customary level. The twist ending did not too surprising. Maybe we could blame Johnston a little bit, bcoz he has not been a good drama Director. If we see thoroughly there are a lot of nuances are similar to Tim Burton SLEEPY HOLLOW (1999). Despite of SLEEPY HOLLOW was happened to be more attractive in some ways. The werewolf had been a great horror icon since Michael Jackson THRILLER video, So It is definitely the time for another moon to rise, to wake up that howling again.

    Visit My Blog on JONNY'S MOVEE: http://jonnyfendi.blogspot.com
    Expand
  13. Nov 16, 2011
    6
    THE WOLFMAN is a good remake with good acting and great effects. But there could have been more stuff happening in the movie and it was a bit slow in some parts as well.
  14. Sep 2, 2012
    5
    A pretty haunting film but also very boring lots of the time. The script seem rushed and seem to miss making a scene a lot more scary then it could have been.
  15. Jun 20, 2013
    5
    A very mediocre attempt to remake a classic. Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins are both solid, but the script is sub par and the effects could have been better.
  16. Aug 8, 2015
    5
    Another pointless movie about the wolf man.Benicio Del Toro's acting performance and Emily Blunt's one were probably the only interesting thing about this pretty boring movie.
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.