We’ve tried creams, powders, and ointments, but we just can’t get wolf men out of our hair.
Everyone from Jack Nicholson to Benicio del Toro has taken an interest in the classic beast, so an update was inevitable. This is what Hollywood does.
Restart, rinse, repeat.
The Wolf Man understands this on a primal level. It’s time for something different, to shake up the character like Etch-A-Sketch and offer a new take on the classic monster.
“The Wolf Man” succeeds before it fails.
Blumhouse’s original isn’t keen on copying previous efforts, but its attempt to rework the saga falls flat when its imagination runs dry.
Dry powder barrel.
Christopher Abbott plays Blake, a devoted father who takes care of his young daughter at all costs. This is what his father taught him, and his passion for the mission has left him conflicted.
It’s one of many interesting angles that are introduced and later ignored. Even the film’s opening text does the heavy lifting when later events are more important.
Blake decides to take his wife and daughter back to his old home in the woods. He hopes that the family can rebuild itself in a rural setting, and that he can rededicate himself to his wife, Charlotte (Julia Garner).
Their rental truck breaks down along the way, landing them near the family home but stranding them in the wilderness. It’s where they first caught a glimpse of a human-like monster stalking the Earth.
Now, it’s time to survive.
“Wolf Man’s” intro is downright creepy. We see young Blake being taught hunting 101 by his father, but the scene turns into a terrifying confrontation over a blind duck.
Director and co-writer Lee Whannell (“Saw”) knows horror better than most of his peers, and he proves it during the opening scenes. He can’t maintain this intensity.
Its superior reboot of “Invisible Man” had better action, richer characters, and more interesting developments. “Wolf Man” shrinks as the story hurtles toward its crowded conclusion.
View this post on Instagram
“Wolf Man” feels like an indie film you might encounter on streaming. The focus of the film remains mostly on the country house in the woods, and the time period is mere hours. This is a claustrophobic setting that could have worked to the film’s advantage if the story had offered depth, bad developments, or better dialogue.
This is a hearty “no” in all respects.
The friction that occurred in the first act never materializes. The story takes major liberties with the conventions of the Wolf Man, which is fine assuming they replace them with something substantive. Not even close.
The gimmick of seeing the “Wolf Man” doesn’t add much to the movie, nor does it add to the tension. Still better than the “new” Wolf Man look the movie introduced. “Wolf Man’s FX team seeks to deviate from previous creatures, but the results are disappointing to say the least.
He looks like a deformed man with oozing skin blisters, not a wolf-like threat.
Garner proved her worth on “Ozark,” but she struggled to find work that reflected the strength of that show. Here, she is given very little to do, and any competent actress could have nailed the role.
It is much higher than “efficiency”.
Abbott embodies Blake’s haunted past and wobbly present, but his character’s story proves too constricted to matter. Infection has its limits.
“Wolf Man” loses its creative juice midway through the film, leaving us with scenes of action and family conflict that are competently staged, but with no emotional payoff to be had.
The best wolf features end on a sad note. This is where the story ends.
Maybe it’s time to restart the reboot process.
Hit or Miss: “Wolf Man” starts off strong and offers an original take on a well-worn character, but the film doesn’t have much to do or say in its second half.
The post This “wolf man” does not howl. It Whimpers made his Hollywood debut in the movie Toto.
