The Wolfman (2010)

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.