Saturday, March 06, 2010

Movie Review: "The Wolfman" By La Parisienne

The delightful La Parisienne reports from the cinema:

=============================================

I watched “The Wolfman” on Valentine's Day because in my opinion that is the perfect day to see a horror movie. I had no idea what to expect, especially considering the Hollywood trend of taking classic horror films and remaking them into mindless, plotless gore-filled flicks with bad acting. (Gore is not necessarily a bad thing, but I do need some sense of a plot.) So, I went into the movie with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised.

The Good:
I’ll start by focusing on the good points of the movie. There was an actual plot with dialogue and everything. I almost fainted. The writers borrowed from the 1941 classic "Wolfman" but managed to successfully add some new elements, not to mention fun effects and extra gore. Anyone familiar with the film starring Lon Chaney Jr. will notice the similarities as well as the differences.

Every good movie needs a solid script, but in the hands of the talent-challenged even the best script doesn’t stand a chance. Thankfully, the cast had talent. Benicio Del Toro managed to create a believable Lawrence Talbot. Anyone can play the wolf -- it is mostly CGI, after all -- but the man must be someone the audience can understand. Lawrence is a flawed but sympathetic character with some serious daddy issues. And what a daddy he has. No one can play evil like Anthony Hopkins. Sir John Talbot is the perfect foil for his son, and he represents Lawrence’s future if Lawrence isn’t careful.

Hugo Weaving plays the unwavering Inspector Abberline determined to arrest Lawrence for the gruesome murders. (Isn’t he the inspector from the Jack the Ripper movies?) He gives a solid performance, but ignores the fact that Lawrence was not even in town for the first murder. The fact that Lawrence is an actor with a tragic past is all the proof Abberline needs. Now we come to the bad.

The Bad:
I can suspend reality. I do it for television shows and movies all the time. I do have limits, however. I find it difficult to believe that a group of presumably seasoned hunters armed with silver bullets are not able to even wound a werewolf. Also, the lunar cycle is a little confusing, which might be caused by the pacing. Pacing a horror film is not easy; one has to balance plot with gory action seamlessly. “The Wolfman” had serious pacing issues. The flashbacks and dream sequences were interesting and artistic, but they took up too much of the movie, in my opinion. Parts of the movie also seemed to drag on and on, particularly father/son scenes. Sir John is evil; we get it.

This is definitely a movie about a father and son. The female characters exist mainly to move the story along. But there is no reason why they cannot be three-dimensional. Emily Blunt delivers as the sad and unfortunate Gwen Conliffe, who loves and loses both of the Talbot sons, but I would have like to know more about what drives her to fall for such melancholy individuals.

Maleva is the wise old gypsy woman who understands lycanthropy. She falls under the magical mystical minority category. She is misunderstood but has all the answers. Granted, gypsies in this movie are given more sympathy than they were in the 1941 film, but is stereotyping acceptable if it is positive?

Despite its flaws, the movie is worth watching. It is at its core a classic wolfman film. There are no quirky one-liners or plastic pretty actors, which is honestly refreshing. I debated between giving this a C+ or B-. Had lesser actors been cast the answer would be clear. I believe it deserves a B- based on the strength of the actors, moments of fun, and possessing a plot.

Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 32%.

"The Wolfman" runs 102 minutes and is rated for R for violence and gore.

No comments: