Featured Audience Ratings

• Cameron S

  
  As a remake 'The Wolfman' is as digitized as they get; offering what is supposed to be a dark insight into a land where the line between humanity and animosity is blurred and a savage werewolf brutally terrorizes Victorian Great Britain. 'The Wolfman' suffers with… More
  As a remake 'The Wolfman' is as digitized as they get; offering what is supposed to be a dark insight into a land where the line between humanity and animosity is blurred and a savage werewolf brutally terrorizes Victorian Great Britain. 'The Wolfman' suffers with the self-made juxtaposition between what it strives to be and what it actually is. The few moments of thematic darkness are in vain when placed alongside the somewhat comedic, over the top violence and ungrounded tension. The films biggest problem however, is its overproduced mise-en-scene, its hard to suspend your disbelief when you're looking at something mediated within an inch of its life. A film attempting to deal with the raw, untameable nature of becoming a werewolf shouldn't take place in a land of carefully placed ?moody? shadow and glistening, overly clean Victorian attire, it should be an unstable journey into the mind of a man who is more beast then human. Despite its flaws with tone and stylistic uncertainty 'The Wolfman' does have its upsides: an interesting soundtrack and some rare moments of eerie beauty... If only it knew what to do with them.

• Anthony L

  
  The Wolfman wasn't half as bad as I'd been lead to believe. In fact I thought it was quite good as remakes go. It has added a little more action, a little more gore but still retains the mystery and just the right amount of cheese. It's not perfect but I think quite… More
  The Wolfman wasn't half as bad as I'd been lead to believe. In fact I thought it was quite good as remakes go. It has added a little more action, a little more gore but still retains the mystery and just the right amount of cheese. It's not perfect but I think quite knowingly so. It's pretty entertaining throughout with a couple of stand-out exciting scenes, the only thing I don't really get is the casting of Benicio del Toro!?

• Jens S

  
  The remake of the classic horror tale of a werewolf curse does start out quite promising. Without wasting much time, the beast attacks and our protagonist returns home to investigate in his brother's gruesome death. The atmosphere and setting during those early scenes are working… More
  The remake of the classic horror tale of a werewolf curse does start out quite promising. Without wasting much time, the beast attacks and our protagonist returns home to investigate in his brother's gruesome death. The atmosphere and setting during those early scenes are working quite well, the rural 19th century Britain is filmed rather nicely and the small villages and old manors look great. Sadly, once the curse takes hold of the protagonist, the film is getting more and more lazy. The transformation CGI is alright, but not mind-blowing and even the Oscar awarded make-up effects could have been better. The film does not take the easy path of giving us an evil and a noble werewolf, at the same time it makes it kind of difficult to care for a main character who shreds innocents to pieces. The rather predictable ending is the only possibly solution but still leaves you unsatisfied after a rather mediocre showdown. And what's even worse, it doesn't even address the possibility of the curse surviving the final confrontation. Genre fans could check it out, without expecting too much. Overall, the film is rather forgettable, even if partially well done.

• Chris W

  
  Please note that this review is in regards to the theatrical version. I plan on watching the director's cut, and, depending on how that goes, may readjust my review and rating. I has expecting a good amount from this movie. Unfortuantely, it left me unsatisfied. It's not… More
  Please note that this review is in regards to the theatrical version. I plan on watching the director's cut, and, depending on how that goes, may readjust my review and rating. I has expecting a good amount from this movie. Unfortuantely, it left me unsatisfied. It's not terrible, but it's not really a whole lot more than average. I don't think that Joe Johnston is a hack, but I question if he was the right choice. I'm all for a director expanding their range, but I question if a more accomplished director (in general and with horror films specifically), would have been the way to go (depending of course, on the screenplay). As it stands, it can be hard to successfully blend the violence and gore expected by modern viewers with a traditional gothic setting and atmosphere. It can be done, but it doesn't happen here. I liked some of the gore, but some of it seemed a bit unnecessary. Same goes for the effects. I liked that some of it was done practically, but it would have been excellent to see all of it done practically, or with even less CG. I appreciated that they wisely decided to retain the Victorian era setting instead of doing something stupid like setting it in contemporary times. Considering that two Oscar winners appear in this, you'd think the acting would have been better. It's not. It doesn't suck, but a lot is left ot be desired. Hugo Weaving has some awesome mutton chops though, and, even though Emily Blunt is pretty, the quick glimpse of side boob from her seemed pointless. I like the general concept and story, but the specific plot and story for this film needed work. It's a shame considering Andrew Kevin Walker was involved in the writing. I expect a lot better from him. The big twist was revealed way too early, seemed telegrahed anyway, and wasn't handled very well. .I did like the music though, and the camera work was also quite nice, as was the art direction. That's probably where this film excells the most. Too bad the story and other stuff can't be at the sae level. There was one of the scenes at the asylum though, that was pretty damn decent, and it's probably the best sequence in the film (the latter sequence at the asylum, that is). I liked parts of the gypsy camp attack, but not all of it. This is not quite as terrible as people have made it out to be, but it's sadly pretty average, which sucks even more because this had the potential to be excellent. I am glad it was R though, even if some of the gore was a but much. *update* I have now seen the unrated version. It is only a tad but better, but not enough so to give the film an extra half-star. It is longer, and the additional scenes are actually not extended gore, but scenes that give more depth and development to characters, as well as toying with plot developments. While these additions aren't bad, as they do flesh out characters, they mess with the pacing. Upon second viewing, I realized that the film is a little more boring than I first thought. The additional scenes just bog stuff down. Maybe had they been included to begin with, have the script and pacing be better overall, and make all of the effects be non CG, then this film could have been a quite passable B-Movie. Still though, it's not bad, just mediocre.

• Directors C

  
  A lot of CGI was used in this film, but it was appropriate for it's premise. I didn't feel that The Wolfman suffered from CGI Overload. But, The Wolfman is worth watching for it's great action sequences. However, there could have been more of them as I was waiting a… More
  A lot of CGI was used in this film, but it was appropriate for it's premise. I didn't feel that The Wolfman suffered from CGI Overload. But, The Wolfman is worth watching for it's great action sequences. However, there could have been more of them as I was waiting a while for the first transformation to actually happen. The Wolfman was a great film for me. But for your average movie goer. It probably could have been better.

• Marc L

  
  This is the best movie I have ever seen period. I loved every minute of it. It had fantastic acting, great special affects, a surprising plot twist. It was down right amazing, and even better than I thought it would be. Truly the pinacle of film making. There are a few things I… More
  This is the best movie I have ever seen period. I loved every minute of it. It had fantastic acting, great special affects, a surprising plot twist. It was down right amazing, and even better than I thought it would be. Truly the pinacle of film making. There are a few things I want to say for anyone who saw this movie. First of all, don't expect something very scary, because it is hardly ever scary. There were a few creepy scenes, like the gypsy massacre and the nightmare scene, but this is really just a action film that thinks it's horror. Also, don't expect a story anything like the original Wolfman. They are very, very different, particulary the endings. Now that I got that out of the way, I can get on to what I liked. This was some of the best acting I have ever seen. Every single actor did a fantastic job, particulary Anthony Hopkins and Benicio Del Toro. Del Toro did an extremely powerful and realistic job as Lawrence Talbot, a man returning to his fathers estate in Blackmoor, England to visit his brother's funeral (SPOILER: He becomes the Wolfman)Lawrence is a sympathetic character with a very sad story, and we feel for him, and pity that even he cannot control the evil of the Wolfman at the full moon. The story is really good too. "The Wolfman", tells the story of a world renown actor named Lawrence Talbot, who has returned to his home in Blackmoor, England to search for his missing brother. When he get;s there, he finds his brother has been brutally murdered. While meeting with a group of gypsies to investigate, he is bitten by a werewolf, the same one who murdered his brother. After being bitten, he must find a way to control the beast inside him, or accept his new fate and become pure evil. Then of course, there was Anthony Hopkins. His role as Sir John Talbot was incredible. He manages to play him as a very mysterious character, who we don't really understand until the end. Is he Lawrence's freind, or his bitter enemy? You'll have to see the movie to find out. Emily Blunt was also really good. She was very emotional in her part as Gwen, the fiancee of Lawrence's dead brother. She seemed like a kind, sympathetic character who had no idea what to do when Lawrence was stricken with the curse. Of course, what's a monster movie without great special affects? And great these special affects were. The makeup was really realistic and down right fantastic. The choreography of the final fight scene was incredible, a synchrinized dance if you will. Another thing I particulary like was the plot twist. When Lawrence is taken back to the asylum, there's a great plot twist that will make fans of M Night Shyamalan squeal with joy. I won;t give it away though. I am a huge Joe Johnston fan, but after Jurassic Park 3, I thought I could never start liking him again. Well, The Wolfman, got me right back on the Joe Johnston fan train. I don't understand the massive amount of hate for it, and it frustrates me. In a sentence, this movie is a classic.

• Eric A

  
  I hated this movie. It was poorly done and I felt as if it was completely rushed into theaters. Special effects are sub-par and acting is poor, this film was instantly forgotten about.

• Emil K

  
  Disappointing re-make of the 40's film. The Wolfman certainly had the potential to be much better film. It actually was at one point a project driven by director Mark Romanek, but it seems that even he smelled the trouble and left this project. How is it possible that they blew… More
  Disappointing re-make of the 40's film. The Wolfman certainly had the potential to be much better film. It actually was at one point a project driven by director Mark Romanek, but it seems that even he smelled the trouble and left this project. How is it possible that they blew this project remains a mystery. Maybe it was the troubled production that mirrored to the whole film. When you have talents like Rick Baker (effects), Milena Canonero (costumes), Danny Elfman (music), Walter Murch (editing) and actors like Anthony Hopkins, Benicio Del Toro, Geraldine Chaplin and Hugo Weaving on board, you would assume that it would be hard to go wrong. Sadly there is absolutely nothing that reminds us in the audience from the talent involved. Joe Johnston is certainly wrong director for material this dark and stylish. It is also kinda sad that they decided to turn this film into CGI-show with thinnest possible storyline. Computer generated wolf running around berserk in the misty forests is not that scary. It tries to be gory fun but ends up being dull and ridicilous. Even Benicio Del Toro seems oddly sleepy in his role as a main character. He is like a somnabulist walking through the whole film. The Wolfman is a wasted opportunity and pointless re-make.

• Lady D

  
  A drawn out film which was darkly filmed for maximum effect, yet felt too dark to see the movement at times. The metamorphesis was impressive, which you can't help but compare to American Werewolf in London, that having been a much talked about part of that film. I did feel… More
  A drawn out film which was darkly filmed for maximum effect, yet felt too dark to see the movement at times. The metamorphesis was impressive, which you can't help but compare to American Werewolf in London, that having been a much talked about part of that film. I did feel pretty disappointed by the final look of the Wolfman, to me it seemed not much more than an upgraded version of teen wolf and with the effects, make up and CGI these days I had expected more. Watchable but nothing special.

• Kase V

  
  Joe Johnston's 'The Wolfman' was a film that worked on certain levels, for the wrong reasons. It served better as a gothic B-movie comedy with graphic (and hilarious) kills that reminded you of films such as 'Shaun of the Dead' or 'Hot Fuzz'. It is… More
  Joe Johnston's 'The Wolfman' was a film that worked on certain levels, for the wrong reasons. It served better as a gothic B-movie comedy with graphic (and hilarious) kills that reminded you of films such as 'Shaun of the Dead' or 'Hot Fuzz'. It is pretty laughable if you consider the fact that the film was supposed to be generally scary...it wasn't. But it was fun! Weaving and Hopkins' performances aren't half bad, either. The production design was creatively distinct, and the cinematography could've been a lot worse. But the fact that the film completely missed its mark on what it was trying to accomplish genre-wise is just sad.

• Matt G

  
  Seriously underrated. The effects are wonderful and the story is good. Sure, it's flawed, but it still is a great story telling movie.

• Lee ?

  
  I've always thought that werewolves were the most frightening of the classic movie monsters, but decent films about Lycanthropy are few and far between with the last good one being "Ginger Snaps" back in 2000. This lavish big-budget remake of the classic '40s film… More
  I've always thought that werewolves were the most frightening of the classic movie monsters, but decent films about Lycanthropy are few and far between with the last good one being "Ginger Snaps" back in 2000. This lavish big-budget remake of the classic '40s film may not set the genre ablaze with anything ground breakingly new but it's a good entertaining popcorn flick. Loved the gothic atmosphere, the sursprising amounts of gore and bloody maulings were also a welcomed treat. My main grumble would be with the over reliance on the CGI to animate the werewolf, even though I thought it looked ok, it was quite lazy. Glad I watched it in the end, it turned out better than I thought it would.

• Jim C

  
  See, I didn't hate this movie at all, but I didn't like it much. I wasn't scared and it the plot was good but predictable. The acting was impressive and Make up and production designs were top notch, but people come to see a good plot in a movie that interests them,… More
  See, I didn't hate this movie at all, but I didn't like it much. I wasn't scared and it the plot was good but predictable. The acting was impressive and Make up and production designs were top notch, but people come to see a good plot in a movie that interests them, and this fails in a way, so I give it a C+. I did like however that they kept to the traditional werewolf rules. In conclusion, it was an average film.

• xGary X

  
  An American actor returns to his ancestral home to investigate the death of his brother to be confronted by a murderous supernatural creature. Props to The Wolfman for avoiding the temptation to transpose the story to modern day America, but for all its gothic intentions, it's… More
  An American actor returns to his ancestral home to investigate the death of his brother to be confronted by a murderous supernatural creature. Props to The Wolfman for avoiding the temptation to transpose the story to modern day America, but for all its gothic intentions, it's still just another CGI wankathon that is far more interested in superhero-style set pieces and gore than atmosphere and suspense. Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins are both superb actors but both weigh in with easily their worst performances in a "serious" film I've ever seen (during their final confrontation I couldn't help thinking of Teen Wolf) and the comic strip approach just doesn't work in the context of such a po-faced interpretation of the material. On the plus side, the transformation scenes were quite good (if a little Hulky) and Art Malik's Sikh warrior was quite cool, but he but didn't garner anything like enough screen time and the inevitable beauty and the beast ending was just lame. It's not unwatchable however and passes a couple of hours inoffensively enough, but in such an overcrowded genre as the werewolf movie, this needed to be a whole lot better.

• Jim H

  
  Did the rest of this film end up on the cutting room floor? Is Anthony Hopkins just having fun being an actor? I understood going into this film that I was going to see a formula movie. Even before I put the disc in the DVD player, I could predict the beginning, middle, and end.… More
  Did the rest of this film end up on the cutting room floor? Is Anthony Hopkins just having fun being an actor? I understood going into this film that I was going to see a formula movie. Even before I put the disc in the DVD player, I could predict the beginning, middle, and end. But they didn't even do the formula well. In act one we're never actually sure why Lawrence returns to Blackmoor. Yes, Gwen makes a heartened plea, but his reaction at the time belies the plot point that follows. Did a reel get lost somewhere? Then Sir John, over-acted by Hopkins, is so clearly creepy that we wonder who he could possibly be fooling. Finally, what possibly motivated the "love" story? If it was fraternal piety that motivated Lawrence's return, then where was that piety when he was trying to fuck his brother's widow? And why the completely unnecessary Emily Blunt nude scene? (Don't get excited, folks; it's shot from the back, and you don't see anything.) This is Exhibit A on how Hollywood treats women as objects. Overall, I didn't expect anything original from <i>The Wolfman</i>, but I at least hoped that they would do the formula well. The sad thing is this film is probably my pick for Best Visual Effects, which means that it isn't just a shit movie; it's an Oscar-winning shit movie.

• Michael G

  
  The Wolfman should've been so goddamned awesome but some weak CGI (I'm talking I Am Legend weak) and too many liberties taken with the original story leave little more than a well-intentioned mess. I applaud Joe Johnston for telling the story in a gothic, Victorian era… More
  The Wolfman should've been so goddamned awesome but some weak CGI (I'm talking I Am Legend weak) and too many liberties taken with the original story leave little more than a well-intentioned mess. I applaud Joe Johnston for telling the story in a gothic, Victorian era setting and I understand that a verbatim telling of the original 40s Wolf Man wouldn't fly with today's audiences but The Wolfman's last act was utter nonsense. The compulsion to supply a backstory and explain how someone that looks like Benicio Del Toro would have a father that looks like Anthony Hopkins was also definitely part of this movie's undoing. On the upside, the cast was pretty good and the overall look of the movie (aside from the CGI -- that dancing bear was the worst, I know it was only like one shot in the movie but Jesus...!) wasn't bad and took away some of the disappointment.

• Cynthia S

  
  Average movie that dragged somewhat in places. Not much in the way of surprise plot twists, etc. Anthony Hopkins, and the police inspector, do very good parts and add to the movie. Movie is not bad, but not outstanding, either.

• Derek D

  
  I actually loved this film. I loved the cast, the storyline (however old it is), the pace, the action...everything. i expected it to be longer and more storyline-driven and scary than it was, but still...i loved it. The only really scary thing about it was how incredibly violent it… More
  I actually loved this film. I loved the cast, the storyline (however old it is), the pace, the action...everything. i expected it to be longer and more storyline-driven and scary than it was, but still...i loved it. The only really scary thing about it was how incredibly violent it was. People's insides getting ripped out...heads cut off...arms torn off...it could've been more suspenseful. But they've made much worse monster movies. MUCH WORSE!!!

• Jani H

  
  "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms, and the autumn moon is bright." I'm not a big fan of remakes, especially horror films but after hearing of this film for the first time back in '07 (I… More
  "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms, and the autumn moon is bright." I'm not a big fan of remakes, especially horror films but after hearing of this film for the first time back in '07 (I think?), I was eager to see it because of Benicio Del Toro. I respect him as an actor and he can pretty much pull of any role. But when I realized who was sitting in the directors bench, I wasn't that eager anymore... Lawrence Talbot is a famous actor, whose brother has been violently killed, in fact slaughtered would be more appropriate. He gets back to Blackmoor, his home since childhood. There, in the misty fields, lurks a beast that starts to hunt for the rest of the people. Talbot gets attacked by it and his life is not the same anymore... Wow. Joe Johnston did it again. He managed to pile up a budget worth 150 million USD's and come up with another disaster. Is it because he is good friends with Steven Spielberg that he gets opportunities after opportunities, although his films (except 'Jurassic Park 3') have bombed big time? 'The Wolfman' is very boring and it feels as if the movie never gets going. I saw the unrated version of the film, which lasts for nearly 2 hours and after an hour nothing that chilly had happened. The main reason why this film sucks is that the script is very weak. Andrew Kevin Walker, the man behind 'Se7en' (!) and 'Sleepy Hollow', has come up with a disaster of a "horror" movie. 'The Wolfman' is a very hollow and clumsy effort to give a rebirth to one of the most famous creatures in the history of cinema. Alongside Dracula and Frankenstein, the Wolfman is one of the oldest creatures and has been on the screen for more than 70 years. The relationship between Lawrence and his father Sir John (Anthony Hopkins) is pretty odd and there seems to be a lot of tension coming up from their shared past. But all of this is just put aside. The feelings between Lawrence and his brother's widow, Gwen (Emily Blunt), develops all of a sudden but there's no explanation why this happens. It seems as if the viewer should realize that this all will happen from the start so the filmmakers have not concentrated on this at all. And Hugo Weaving's character, the Scotland Yard detective Aberline, is completely put to waste and that is a shame as Weaving is one hell of an actor. But not all is bad in 'The Wolfman'. The cinematography is at times astonishing and the set decoration and the wardrobe departments have done an equally good job. That is the reason why I choose not to give this film a one star rating. But back to the bad things. The acting is mediocre at best. Del Toro is sleepwalking thru the movie and Hopkins is doing the same thing. It feels as if there's no challenge for these well-known performers. This film is, in my opinion, a complete waste of time and a sad effort by Joe Johnston. These werewolf transformations have been made much better in several other films so stick to the classics like 'A Werewolf In London' and 'The Howling', for example. There's ten times more chills in these movies so prepare to set the alarm clock on to wake you after 2 hours after you start to see this movie.

• Tony G

  
  The problem with watching a critically polarizing film way after its release is that you can't help but be influenced by what you've heard about it. Incredibly praised films get viewed with skepticism and high standards to uphold and incredibly reviled films get viewed… More
  The problem with watching a critically polarizing film way after its release is that you can't help but be influenced by what you've heard about it. Incredibly praised films get viewed with skepticism and high standards to uphold and incredibly reviled films get viewed with a morbid interest in what made the film so bad in the first place. Both situations make watching the film in question an exercise in examination vs just watching the film to try to enjoy it. "The Wolfman" carries the distinction of the latter. This $150 million production not only comes with a parade of terrible reviews but also has the distinction of having its studio push back its release date almost 2 years leading to rumors of studio dissatisfaction with the final product. The film spent its budget well. Great special effects, a dark and moody atmosphere and top-notch makeup surrounds "Wolfman" with the right stage for what promised to be a wild ride, unfortunately Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self's script is devoid of any fun. They seem to have forgotten that this is, at its core, a movie about a man who turns into a wolf and terrorizes a village and tries to infuse too much self-importance and angst into the proceedings. "Wolfman" struggles as it becomes a jumbled together set of frames - sort of like a series of exciting horror sequences cobbled together by lazy bridges of dialogue. It's a shame because the horror sequences fulfill on their promise. They are by far the most gripping parts of the film and they don't disappoint. But on their own they are not enough to sustain "Wolfman". Del Toro and Hopkins are miscast, particularly Del Toro, who seems uncertain on how to play his role. "Wolfman" certainly didn't deserve the harsh reviews it received, but it also rightfully didn't get raves. But for a Friday or Saturday evening DVD rental, with the lights off and a bowl of popcorn, it's not bad.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings