If there is anyone who can accurately sum up the film “The Wolfman,” it’s Shakira when she sang, “There’s a she-wolf in your closet, let it out so it can breathe.” The film deals precisely with that dilemma, that fine line between man and monster, though it does so in a boring and predictable manner.
Suffice to say, if there was a contest, I think I prefer Shakira’s she-wolf in all of its double-jointed, acrobatic freakiness than Benicio Del Toro’s wolfman, if only because the former has more personality.
“The Wolfman,” based on the 1941 movie of the same name, follows Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro, “Traffic”) who is called back home to investigate the gruesome death of his brother at the hands of a mysterious monster. Like all heroes in a Victorian gothic tale, Lawrence is weary, has a shady past and is unable to speak in anything other than a monotone.
The place is rainy ol’ England, the period Victorian. What is it about London and monsters? At this point, it would be more interesting seeing a killer tear through the streets of London on a sunny day, while traffic is high and people walk their dogs in Hyde Park. Now that would be frightening, discordant and unexpected.
As it is, “The Wolfman” is filled with cliches and tropes that it never manages to overcome enough to produce something worthwhile and original. Even the characters are the usual players in the game known as the monster movie. There is the selfless lover (Emily Blunt, “The Young Victoria”), a cynical detective (Hugo Weaving, “V for Vendetta”) and a shotgun-wielding father (Anthony Hopkins, “Hannibal”).
The characters are one-dimensional and static, with no real development and no discernible motivation for any of their actions. What propels Blunt’s Gwen Conliffe to fall in love with Del Toro’s Lawrence? Who knows, it isn’t shown in any of their scenes together.
The most fleshed-out character is Lawrence, but Del Toro portrays him with such dry detachment that the audience never really cares about his journey and his plights.
“The Wolfman,” while claiming to be paying homage to the old tradition of monster movies, adds nothing new to the mythology. The point of a remake, after all, is to bring a new aspect to the source material, to take something old and make it once again fearful to a contemporary audience. If the movie fails in that respect, then it is a waste and merely another corporate machination.
What is essentially missing from the film is that spine-tingling, old-fashioned fear. The kind that makes you scared of what might be lurking in the shadows. That was what made the original “The Wolf Man” so memorable and what makes this version so mediocre. Suspense and buildup gives way to cheap bloodbaths.
The graphics on such parts of the film are as realistic as they come these days, and some moments even feel painful. But without buildup, such bloody moments, no matter the amount, falls flat and comes across as merely ridiculous. And of course, something feels distinctly wrong when you have the audience cheering as the wolfman transforms and tears off somebody’s head.
Though maybe that is the point, to prove that everyone has a little monster inside of them. On a positive note, viewers will definitely not be able to guess the turn the movie takes toward the end.
Despite its obvious shortcomings, it is welcoming to see a proper werewolf that is menacing and deadly instead of “Twilight”-cuddly.
“The Wolfman” is a good popcorn flick, especially come this Valentine’s Day when you’ll want to play the fearless knight for your frightened girlfriend.
Then again, perhaps that is really what monster movies ““ and by extension, most horror films ““ are these days. Mindless popcorn flicks with fast-moving action and high body counts.
Pity.
If that’s the case, get the nachos and extra-large soda and enjoy seeing the wolfman tear people apart. That’s probably what will draw people into the theaters anyway.
““ Diep Tran
E-mail Tran at
dtran@media.ucla.edu.