Directed by:
Written by: , ,
Starring: , , ,



RUNNING TIME: 103 mins



Nobleman Lawrence Talbot returns from America to his ancestral home in Blackmoor upon hearing of his brother’s disappearence. Either a maniac or a creature is stalking the residents at night. He starts to bond with his father and forms a friendship with his brother’s fiancee, but one night whilst investigating a gypsy camp, Lawrence is bitten by the something, and it’s not long before he becomes a monster himself on the night of the full moon….

With a seemingly endlessly protracted release date [wasn’t it going to be sometime in 2007 first of all?!] and a very troubled production with lots of reshoots, directors and composers leaving and sometimes coming back etc, you’d be forgiven for thinking that The Wolfman is a real dog of a film. Predictably the critics have jumped on it. The film does have it’s problems, but it’s actually very enjoyable if you like really old-school horror with all the cliches you expect, right down to – for example –  a pub where the locals talk of the strange goings-ons. It’s very much like a Universal horror movie of the ’30s or ’40s, though with the colour, gore and a few other things you may find it also resembles more a late Hammer film or a Tyburn or Amicus production.

Of course it’s basically a remake of 1941’s The Wolf Man starring Lon Chaney, though I detected influences of the earlier Werewolf Of London and the later Curse Of The Werewolf and An American Werewolf In London. The plot does follow the Chaney film quire closely and is very predictable even if you haven’t seen it, but there are a few changes including a very effective sequence set in an asylum where a silly professor decides to prove his theory, in front of a large audience, that lycanthropy is all in the mind, with Lawrence chained to a chair and the full moon shining in. Well that was never going to go well, was it?

There’s a fair amount of gore in the werewolf scenes; this wolf man is truly vicious, tearing off heads and ripping out entrails. Some have said this jars with the low-key, old-fashioned feel of the rest of the film, but I’m sure some of the old-time horror movie directors would have shown this stuff if they could, and anyway these sequences are very suspenseful and exciting with great use made of the effective horror cliche of a potential victim shrouded in fog or darkness and then something suddenly looming in the background. The werewolf, designed by Rick Baker, looks like a bulky cross between Chaney’s and Oliver Reed’s, and thankfully only seems to be computer generated when he is [unconvincingly] running and transforming. The latter scenes do contain some interesting detail such as seeing the bones change, but still fall short of the horrifying changes in American Werewolf In London and even The Howling, proof that CGI just isn’t all that.

The film is stunningly photographed by Shirley Johnson with brilliant use of shadows, silhouettes and candles; it looks like a Gothic picture book come to life and is the most beautiful looking film of its kind since Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Danny Elfman’s score though is a touch uninspired [though it may not be all him] and the acting is a mixed bag. Benicio Del Toro and Emily Blunt seem ill at ease but Hugo Weaving is effectively authoritarian playing the same real-life character that Johnny Depp played in From Hell, and Antony Hopkins looks like he’s having the most fun he’s had in ages. The Wolfman seem to be aiming to be a really powerful and moving Gothic tragedy but it falls rather a little short of that, it’s a bit cold and distant. There’s evidence of heavy cutting in the first half which doesn’t help, though there are rumours that the missing footage may turn up in a DVD. Still, being totally honest, I thoroughly enjoyed The Wolfman. If, like me, you have fond memories of yourself as a child, being interested in monsters and begging your parents to let you stay up and watch the latest Universal or Hammer double bill on TV [or maybe even sneaking downstairs disobediently to watch it], you may get a real kick out of this film.

Rating: ★★★★★★★★☆☆


Since I wrote this review I have viewed the director’s cut, which is, as I suspected, better. I give it

Rating: ★★★★★★★★½☆


About Dr Lenera 3122 Articles
I'm a huge film fan and will watch pretty much any type of film, from Martial Arts to Westerns, from Romances [though I don't really like Romcoms!]] to Historical Epics. Though I most certainly 'have a life', I tend to go to the cinema twice a week! However,ever since I was a kid, sneaking downstairs when my parents had gone to bed to watch old Universal and Hammer horror movies, I've always been especially fascinated by horror, and though I enjoy all types of horror films, those Golden Oldies with people like Boris Karloff and Christopher Lee probably remain my favourites. That's not to say I don't enjoy a bit of blood and gore every now and again though, and am also a huge fan of Italian horror, I just love the style.


  1. So basically, i need to watch the director’s cut? I wasn’t all that impressed with the cinema version to be honest, loved the style and the setting but the film was a complete mess. I shall, however, do the responsible thing and watch the director’s cut to see if it improves things somewhat!

  2. To be honest, if you didn’t like the cinema release much, I don’t think the director’s cut will change your opinion much, but give it a go, you never know!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.