The 1941 movie The Wolf Man had such a profound influence on my pliable childhood mind, I knew I had to see the recently released remake. Having followed the troubled production history of the new version, I braced myself for the worst.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the The Wolfman. I didn't love it. But I liked it a lot. The cast did a very good job, there are plenty of homages to werewolf movies of the past, and the production design is topnotch. There was a moment during one of the transformation scenes when I thought: Man, if I had seen this when I was twelve, this would have been my favorite movie — and I wouldn't have been able to sleep for a week! It was like seeing a long-lost Hammer film from days gone by, the kind of stuff that's gleefully over the top but works because it takes place in its own little pocket universe — like a fable. And in this case, the Big Bad Wolf will take off your limbs with the just one flick of his claw. Doink! and there goes your head.
Several additional thoughts. The approach to filming this was not one of hiding the monster in the shadows. On the contrary, the monster is depicted almost as if it were a superhero. The viewer is given full opportunity to see every tooth and muscle on the creature, to appreciate the monster's enormity and power. It's meant to instill awe, not lurking dread. Also, the reviews seem disconnected from the movie I saw. The reviews I'd read conveyed the impression that the movie is a jumbled mess. It isn't. Would I have liked to have seen more time devoted character development? Yes, but I doubt the studio would have allowed the movie to be longer than it is. Maybe we'll see more on video. And there's certainly not less character development here than there was in the original version. A couple of plot points are dropped or left unexplored, but the movie is not incoherent. Many of the reviews criticized Anthony Hopkins for hamming it up, but I thought his work was actually rather restrained, and the reviews also dismissed Emily Blunt's performance as being flat and uninteresting, which is not the case. It would have been nice for her — and Geraldine Chaplin — to have had more screen time, but no one in this movie was miscast and there isn't a bad or halfass performance in the lot. Wish I could say the same of Coppola's remake of Dracula. Keanu Reeves? Winona Ryder? WTF?
Of course some of us will always wonder what might have been if the studio hadn't interfered and the director hadn't walked, but this is the movie we've got and it's a good time at the picture show, clearly aimed at fans of the genre. Go see it.

