• Not a Member? It's Free to Sign Up
  • Login
  • New Add url
  • Watch The Wolfman

    Download with 9042 Kb/s download speeds

    mirrors

    ID Mirror Views Broken Alive Date Category
    75913 The Wolfman (2010) 919 3 0 2010-03-05 Movie
    76221 The Wolfman 553 0 0 2010-03-05 Movie
    76311 The Wolfman (2010) 566 1 0 2010-03-05 Movie
    76452 The Wolfman (2010) 708 1 0 2010-03-05 Movie
    76537 The Wolfman (2010) 583 1 0 2010-03-05 Movie
    77148 The Wolfman 486 0 0 2010-03-05 Movie
    77172 The Wolfman (2010) 616 0 0 2010-03-05 Movie
    79524 The Wolfman (2010) 493 1 0 2010-03-05 Movie
    79852 The Wolfman (2010) 478 1 0 2010-03-05 Movie
    80112 The Wolfman (2010) 781 0 0 2010-03-05 Movie
    82758 the wolfman 390 0 0 2010-03-16 Movie
    144427 The Wolfman (2010) 543 0 0 2010-05-08 Movie
    149723 The Wolfman cd2 392 0 0 2010-05-20 Movie
    149724 The Wolfman cd1 415 0 0 2010-05-20 Movie
    149768 The Wolfman cd1 487 0 0 2010-05-20 Movie

    Watch The Wolfman movie

    The Wolfman
    • IMDB rating: 6.30
    • IMDB votes: 14061
    • Release Date: 2010
    Download with 9042 Kb/s download speeds

    More information :

    !! This video is hosted on Megavideo. You need the latest flash player to watch this video. Download, install and reboot your browser. User: onwardtheindian
    Added: 9 February 2010
    Vote: 20

    Laughed far too much at this film.

    Light weight story i'm afraid with wolf men that look like Ewok's andmove like they are weightless Crouching tiger rejects.I'm a big DelToro but man was he wooden though not as bad as Sir Anthony. One sceneis ripped straight out of 'An American werewolf in London' and eventhough this film has had 30 years on 'AAWIL' the effects manage to lookworse. This film lacked substance or drama instead trying to rely onheavily sign posted cheap jumps. The original had a solid story and wasas much a tragedy as a horror.I didn't think the character developmentor the acting in this remake led you to sympathise with any of thecharacters, as i mentioned before Hopkins was almost pantomime here. Soin summary not really my cup of tea and i've not even mentioned HugoWeaving accent,absolute fluff.

    User: oliviu2009
    Added: 10 February 2010
    Vote: 10

    They surely tried...

    ...but again they failed. The movie is full of politically correctbull... about romanian gypsy and feminists, non-suspense action andvery bad acting, especially the ever bad Hopkins with his Hannibalisticlook, the only look he possesses anyway. Del Toro, the atmosphere,Weaving and the make up are pretty good, but every good scene isfollowed by another equally bad or even worse so it ruins everything. Istrongly recommend the real ones, werewolf of London, The Wolfman withLon Chaney, Curse Of The Werewolf, The Wolfman 1979 or Paul Naschy'sWaldemar Daninsky movies (especially Mark of the Wolfman). This borrowsheavily from all of this, and from League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen,Hannibal and others, and is pretty a failure. Not completelyunwatchable tough, if you have nothing to do and it doesn't cost you itworths give a try. You may also see this in cinemas, only for theeffort to resurrect a classic. Not more.

    User: bmcmahon40
    Added: 10 February 2010
    Vote: 15

    Very poor fare

    This is a third-rate horror film with second=rate special effects. JohnLandis's transformation scenes in an American Werewolf in London,though made 25 years ago is far superior. The story is predictable andboring and has the tension of a snapped elastic band. I thought we hadall moved on from the time where the biggest scare was the equivalentof someone jumping out and shouting boo!. I cannot believe the rankingsthis film has achieved on early showings. The conspiracy theorist in mesuggests a lot of film executives voting early and often to boost theranking before reviewers and word of mouth kill this turkey off.Considering the cast. which is quite impressive, the only explanationfor their involvement is the big fat pay check.

    User: SeriousMovieCritic
    Added: 13 February 2010
    Vote: 5

    Nice Movie but poor (too dark) cinematography

    Expected more of a new twist to this 70 year old tale and wasdisappointed. The movie itself is watchable and has some nice surprisesand gore for the fans of the genre - but what I really hated most isthe dark lit cinematography.
    Someone on this board praised the set design: how could one even seethe details of the set (less the faces)? Every scene was so dark thatno color was ever visible (with the exceptions of daylight outdoorscenes). The interior (for example the Victorian dressings) came out as"dark mesh shadows in the background". The actors faces were dark andin the shadow in front of windows with even darker shades for curtains.The Victorian era had nice colors in greens, red etc. I would preferany Hammer Film over this "dark ride". Often times I was wondering ifsomeone has turned off all the lights on the set.
    I got a couple of very recent movies on Blu-Ray (which I have not seenin the cinema) who have all similar problems. It seems to be a newtrend in Hollywood. Do directors actually think that this is "artsy" -or are they on hallucination drugs when shooting movies?
    Billy Wilder once said that if he wants to win the Foreign Film Oscarhe has to shoot out of focus. These days the turn off the lights on theset and hope that audience doesn't notice ......

    User: ArthurMausser
    Added: 13 February 2010
    Vote: 4

    Woof Man! Sorry, not good.

    This movie has its fair share of lows and minimal action packed highs.
    Let's talk about the good things first. There are several well-craftedscenes which scare you. The special effects and gore are believable andeffective. OK, that's about it.
    The other 90% of the movie contains drab, run-of-the-mill acting.Benicio and Hopkins seem as if they're reading the script at times andwithout inflection or true meaning. (This will bore you, keep youuninterested and may even put you to sleep).
    The Elfking from the movie Lord of the Rings, presents the only solidbit of acting. (They'll probably keep him for Wolfman II).
    This movie fails to address how, why and when Werewolves acquired thegift of invisibility.
    For Valentines day, if you want your girl to grab a hold of you, takeher to see this movie. If your looking to see a good movie, watch themovie Crazy Heart, which is much much better!

    User: Legendary_Badass
    Added: 12 February 2010
    Vote: 5

    The Wolfman Bites

    Remakes are not your friend. Regardless, they are an inevitable fact ofentertainment these days. I won't go as far as to say that it'spossible to do them right, but there are circumstances that make themeasier to accept. For the 2010 version of The Wolfman you know the ideais to update a 69-year-old film with new effects. If that were all ittakes to create a great remake, the Oscar ballots would need rewriting.
    Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) is a supposed successful stage actorresiding in London during the 1880s. When news reaches him that hisbrother is missing, he hastens to his family's estate in Blackmoor tojoin the search. Once there, his father John (Anthony Hopkins) informshim that his brother's body has been found and it appears that a largeunknown animal is the culprit. After questioning some locals, Lawrencecomes face-to-face with the beast and in a hairy encounter (I couldn'thelp it) he is maimed.
    To Lawrence's surprise his survival has begot him the curse oflycanthropy; a full moon will cause him to transform into a werewolf.While eluding detective Abberline (Hugo Weaving), Lawrence must rely onhis brother's former fianc?e, Gwen (Emily Blunt), as he tries tounderstand the curse.
    This isn't the same Wolfman whom you may recall squaring off withFrankenstein's monster. Every attack is amped up with a dose ofamputation and decapitation. The Wolfman wastes no time in disposing ofcountless innocent bodies. The fashion that which it is seen soundsmore gruesome in theory, that's because Danny Elfman's excessively loudscore dwarfs the film's visuals, making it almost comedic. Elfman'sidea of scary-sounding-music is no longer in vogue.
    Director Joe Johnston has a history with CGI animal-centric productionshaving helmed Jumanji and Jurassic Park III. His whole repertoire is ineffects, and this film doesn't disappoint when it comes to CGI andcreature design. The Wolfman is his first project to receive the Rrating. Aside from the messy attacks, the look and tone of the film areby contrast friendlier to a general audience. Johnston simply doesn'thave the tricks in place to make an unsettling horror film. Not only isthe atmosphere to blame, but also the pacing is all over the place. Itappears that nothing happens unless there's a full moon. Any timebetween them is marginalized. What this means is that characters arealways dealing with the burden of beast mode, and never feeling human.All we get from Lawrence is that he's an actor who has a family. Itwould have been far more realistic for his theatre company to make anattempt to contact him, for him to have debts, deadlines, friends, etc.
    It's so hard to look into a film that's this shallow. All of thecharacters exist only within the context of the narrative. They neverfeel fully realized because we never get a glimmer into their typicalday. Maybe Benicio is an actor, but I need more than a second ofLawrence on stage to give him the same credit, and even if I do I cansee that his occupation plays no factor on the plot. In other regardsyou get what you expect and with a story this simple there's littleroom to truly drop the ball. What you get out of this take on TheWolfman are a few people you don't care about being slashed to pieceswith little buildup for suspense. The Wolfman bites.

    User: Biggest_Loser
    Added: 11 February 2010
    Vote: 1

    The film certainly has claws but they are just not as sharp as one would like them to be.

    Set in the village of Blackmore and the city of London in 1891, a mannamed Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returns home from histheatrical stint in America to investigate the death of his brother Ben(Simon Merrells). Ben was clearly murdered because the body has beenbrutally mutilated by someone or something. Lawrence stays with hisfather John (Anthony Hopkins), and promises his brother's lover Gwen(Emily Blunt) that he will find out what happened. Yet during an attackon a village by the mysterious beast Lawrence is bitten and he findshimself changing into the monster during each full moon, with anuncontrollable bloodlust. As his regular self during the day though, heis shielded from the wrath of the villagers by Gwen and they start aromance together. Meanwhile, a Scotland Yard detective (Hugo Weaving)is hot on the heels of Lawrence and his alter ego, well aware of thetime he spent in a mental institution.
    From Jumanji to Jurassic Park III Joe Johnston has made a number ofaction and adventure romps, but The Wolfman is certainly one of hisdarkest films. This is a terribly violent and moody horror film, onethat is humourless and certain in its tone. It is more grounded in itsfiction, unlike some of the more cartoonish monster movies such as VanHelsing. The effectiveness of the tone can largely be attributed to theefforts of Johnston, his set designs and the art direction. The dimlylit Gothic architecture of the film and the mist covered woods inspirea creepy and chilling atmosphere and firm tension levels throughoutmuch of the film. The violence here is highly graphic and perhapsoverly extreme, with heads and limbs being ripped off in full view, butthis also serves to accentuate the dangers of the Wolfman himself andcertifies the film's serious tone, rather a comical representation ofthe character. There are a number of very obvious but extremelyeffective scares and jumps throughout the film and the action involvingthe beast moves at a cracking pace.
    Where the film disappoints though is in its screenplay, which waswritten by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self. This is essentially justa slasher film that never takes the audience anywhere particularly new.There are some initially promising signs for the film in the openingquarter. The flashbacks to when Lawrence as a young boy emerged fromhis home to see the throat of his mother slashed, along with thediscussion of the time he spent in a mental institution, suggest thatthere will be some interesting psychological developments throughoutthe story. Yet these background details are scarce and are moreinclined to compliment the horror, rather than to explore the psychosisof Lawrence, limiting the films character development and internalstruggles. Furthermore, the film insists on including a superfluousromantic subplot between Lawrence and Gwen that really stems fromnowhere. Its impact on the climax of the film does not deliver theemotional punch that it would like to.
    Given the quality of the screenplay and the limited material, theperformances are also just as uneven. Del Toro slips in and out of hisAmerican and Spanish accents and has fairly limited dialogue. Yetphysically he still carries the sense that he has the weight of theworld on his shoulders and the glum look in his tired eyes hint at hisfractured past as well. Hugo Weaving is even better, with his presenceand his charisma igniting what might have been a largely forgettablerole on paper. Blunt is largely wasted with the simplicity of the lovestory though and Hopkins is just odd with a rambling performance,attempting to mix his usual wise old man caricature with something moresinister. The real star of this film though is the wolfman himself andthe efforts towards his makeup and the special effects are very strong.The horrendous look of the beast has certainly not been comprised foryounger audiences here.
    The Wolfman is passable entertainment because it will satisfy thosethat are looking for scares and high quantities of blood and gore. Theaesthetics, from the set design to the bleak lighting, make this is anatmospheric and often intense thrill ride with a number of jumpymoments. Those expecting something less conventional, refreshing orintelligent will be disappointed by the uneven performances and thescript, which does not take the concept anywhere new or meaningful. Thefilm certainly has claws but they are just not as sharp as one wouldlike them to be.

    User: Catalin
    Added: 21 February 2010
    Vote: 1

    offense to the Romanian people

    This is an offense to the romanian people,that gypsy spoke romanianlanguage not gypsy.We are not gypsy! This is an offense to the romanianpeople,that gypsy spoke romanian language not gypsy.We are not gypsy!This is an offense to the romanian people,that gypsy spoke romanianlanguage not gypsy.We are not gypsy! This is an offense to the romanianpeople,that gypsy spoke romanian language not gypsy.We are not gypsy!This is an offense to the romanian people,that gypsy spoke romanianlanguage not gypsy.We are not gypsy! This is an offense to the romanianpeople,that gypsy spoke romanian language not gypsy.We are notgypsy!This is an offense to the romanian people,that gypsy spokeromanian language not gypsy.We are not gypsy!This is an offense to theromanian people,that gypsy spoke romanian language not gypsy.We are notgypsy!

    User: John Smith
    Added: 12 February 2010
    Vote: 3

    boring film - amazing set designs

    You'd think with several decades since the original, this remake wouldhave some clever twists to entertain us with. Nothing.
    If you know that survivors of wolfman bites turn into a wolfman duringa full moon then this movie will bore you to tears unless you savorpredictability.
    The gore isn't all that. There were maybe two decent kills and a bunchof run off the mill deaths. Hugo weaving delivered lines as if he wasstuck inside the Matrix and Emily Blunt gave us side boob (thank youvery much).
    The set designers deserve an Oscar (if there's such a category). Superwell done. The rest however, sucked wolfman balls.

    User: Pogostemon
    Added: 12 February 2010
    Vote: 2

    I didn't get drawn into their mind.

    (My partner's review): It looked really cool when they showed thetrailer of it on TV.
    I thought, or I was hoping that it will be one of those movies that isa blockbuster type of movie, yet it would have human aspects, too. Thekind of movie I like. Maybe I was thinking it was gonna be somethinglike Spiderman 1, or Hulk (by Ang Lee). Movies with big budgets andfamous actors, based on legends or comic books, yet, containing humans'feelings. The movies in which I feel empathy for the characters-- thosemovies are a success. This movie could have been a success if I hadfelt, or understood the feelings of the characters, but it didn'tconvey that. For example, Anthony Hopkins' character doesn't appeal tome. If his twisted unethical feelings for his son's fianc?e had feltreal to me, then it would have been OK. If I had felt the feelings ofBenicio's and the woman's for each other were real, it would have beenOK. If Benicio's frustration of being a monster came across as real, itwould have been OK. Basically, I didn't feel like I was feeling whatthey were going through inside of the mind and head. I was left out. Ididn't get drawn into their mind. Once again, it's very important who'sthe director, or a combination of a lot of things, or just pure luck.
    The plot was all right, I guess. At least I wanted to know how thisdisaster, caused by monsters, would end. I sort of was hoping therewould be some interesting end. I don't think anything was original,e.g., camera work, action, computer graphics. Benicio is one of the fewpositive things about the movie. He's good looking, stylish, and verycool. He makes me think that it'd be cool to be him.
    I have seen so many bad movies lately, I didn't feel like this moviewas too bad in comparison. 6 stars out of 10.

    User: madjoe1
    Added: 12 February 2010
    Vote: 2

    1/4 of a wonderful film...

    And that quarter was directed by Romanek. Unfortunately he was removedfrom the project and hack Johnston was put in his place. I can't tellyou how disappointed I was to see the actual disconnect where Romanek'spoetic homage was replaced by Johnston's slap you in the face gorefest.
    I can just see Romanek being brought in and told that he was beingfired because he was taking too long and that they were making ablockbuster, not a simple piece of Lewton inspired Gothic poetry.
    Shame. Such a wonderful cast too. Beautiful Blunt is lovely to look atand is given NOTHING to do. Hopkins nicely underplays his role(althoughthose of you have seen the trailer know what he's been up too). Weavingis terrific as always, until he has to play action hero and then helooks merely bored. Del Toro is suitably forlorn and pathetic asTalbot. Lovely to see Ms. Chaplin again. And I did like Mr. Baker'scameo.
    The CGI is horrendous. Again, script changes that transfer the actionfrom an AUTHENTIC British village to a terribly conceived 19th centuryLondon took me completely out of the picture.
    It regains the poetry in the last quarter but only for a moment. Andthose of you who know your werewolf history might enjoy the cribs fromsuch films as "Curse of the Werewolf" and "The Werewolf of London".
    Elfman's score is too bombastic and Batman by half.
    Shame really.

    User: Alkavian
    Added: 12 February 2010
    Vote: 1

    Not bad...but could have been better.

    I am quite the horror movie buff and those who know me also understandI love all sorts of movies in the genre. A-movies and B-movies all havetheir own luster.
    That being said, this movie ranks high in special effects and cast, butjust seems to come up short in the whole "horror" aspect. Not to saythe movie is campy or anything, but it seems to feel plodding. It'salmost to depressive. Parts of the plot seem disjointed and I reallyfeel Benicio Del Toro did not fit the role of Talbot. Too serious andunemotional.
    The monster effects were good, but somehow the creature makeup was justnot scary. Something more primal, that could jumpstart the imagination,would have been better. There is nothing more visceral in werewolfmovies than the monster and it's transformation. (American Werewolf inLondon and The Howling) still do it the best.
    A good popcorn popper, but it won't dethrone any serious werewolf filmsof yore anytime soon. Watch an enjoy, or just wait for the DVD.

    User: kham_phet
    Added: 13 February 2010
    Vote: 1

    We've seen this plot in the 80's and 90's

    **May reveal plots and standards** This is a straight forward review.This is a good movie. Its just we all have seen it over and over again.
    I gave it 5 stars because it is worth seeing (depending on theindividual).
    1 star because it was well made, 1800's England, things fit well andwas done properly. 1 star for Del Toro, Emily Blunt and Hopkins. 1 starfor the so so story. 2 stars because it was somewhat enjoyable.
    There were no real amazing twists here...your simple 90's style movie.Someone gets killed, someone investigates, and in the end, there's arevenge...basic 80-90's style movie. Everything is predictable,literally. the human to wolf tranformations were kinda cool. So,nothing too special going on here...if u just want to go see thisbecause its a werewolf movie, its an OK film.
    don't expect to walk out after the movie, doing backflips and jumpingchest bumps, because it wasn't and wont be a classic. Trust me, we'veseen this type of movie over and over...and so, here it is again...Isit worth the theatre price?...I don't think so, but its up to you...itsjust....like i said, we've all seen this plot/storyline over and overagain...wait for the DVD? ummm, thats questionable also...wait for itto air on HBO,Showtime etc etc? yeah. but then again...u wont missanything special if u miss this movie entirely...

    User: Shawn Watson (gator_macready@yahoo.com)
    Added: 10 February 2010
    Vote: 11

    Lovely atmosphere, little else

    A lot of anticipation has preceded the release of this film, havingbeen delayed for year due to reshoots, and with precious little in theway of teaser images being thrown to the hungry public. So...what's thefinal film like? Very disappointing. The dreary, gloomy atmosphere anddark photography is all the film has going for it. But the weak scriptlets everything else down. There is zero tension and some of the keyaction scenes, especially the attack on the gypsy camp, are poorlydirected. I usually have no problem with Joe Johnstone has he's provedhimself to be a capable fantasy director in the past with Jumanji andJurassic Park 3 but here he fumbles every horror moment.
    I appreciate the gore and blood effects, mostly all of it is make-upbut there are some horrible CGI shots. However, the shots of explicitgore seem pasted on and don't quite fit the overwhelmingly downbeattone.
    All of the actors look bored and disconnected. Benicio Del Toro isusually watchable in anything, as is Anthony Hopkins though they looklike they'd rather be elsewhere and reading better lines from a betterscript.
    It could have been a decent expansion of the 70-minute original from1941, but even at 102 minutes it still feels like something is missing.A slower pace, a better build-up and a more carefully-written scriptwould have made this a great film. After all the anticipation what wehave eventually been given is a careless let-down.

    User: Troy_Campbell
    Added: 11 February 2010
    Vote: 8

    Barely claws above average.

    Why are you seeing The Wolfman? Are you expecting a beautifully toldtale with a massive beating heart of emotion and poignancy? Or lots ofscares and gruesome violence that feels right at home alongsideDaybreakers? If the latter is all you desire then prepare to besatisfied. If, like me, you were hoping for the former then perhaps youshould give this a miss on the big screen. Here you will find plenty ofpotential for the introspective drama Wolfman could (and should) havebeen, but not much follow through. Apparently it was edited prettyheavily for the theatrical version so the Director's Cut DVD mayrectify this problem. Let's also pray they dispatch with theunnecessary and tacky gore that, quite simply, cheapens this story.
    There are other issues that the DVD won't be able to mend though. DannyElfman's intrusive and overbearing score for starters. Or moreimportantly the atrocious makeup of the beast himself. There are manyout there who believe CGI is too frequently used, and they may beright, however Rick Baker's makeup for Talbot's hairy alter ego is astep in the wrong direction for the advocacy of practical effects. Whenwe see del Toro transform into the title character with the help ofcomputer effects, it is entirely believable, yet when we see him as thefully fledged Wolfman under Baker's hand it is hard not to chuckle.
    It's not all bad mind you; the ominous and moody cinematography fromShelly Johnson sets an eerie atmosphere whilst Rick Heinrichsproduction design delivers a terrifically gloomy 19th century England.And the cast hardly put a foot wrong. Del Toro gives an achinglyconflicted portrayal of Talbot and Blunt continues her dream run withanother convincing performance, but more on their relationship wouldhave been very welcomed – something else to add to the Director's CutDVD wish list I suppose. Surprisingly Hopkins is the weak link asLawrence's father - every now and then it almost seems like he doesn'twant to be there - whilst Weaving brings the perfect amount ofarrogance and class to wonder-cop Inspector Abberline.
    A few tweaks here and there and Wolfman could have been very good. Asit stands it barely claws above average.
    2.5 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 -Classic)

    User: gsr1337
    Added: 12 February 2010
    Vote: 6

    Looked promising but failed to deliver

    We actually went to the theater to see another premiere, Percy Jacksonand the Olympians, but it was too crowded and a lot of kids so we wentto see The Wolfman instead.
    Before i start my review, i would like to point out that i am a junkieto films like these like Van Helsing or a bit more modern Underworld.Be it vampires, werewolves or something similar, they have alwaysintrigued me. Couldn't miss out on The Wolfman now could i?
    I personally had high expectations ever since the trailer, even thoughi never was a big fan of Johnston's films. The actors on the other sidebeing Hopkins, Del Toro and the wonderful Emily Blunt had caught myeye.
    The story starts out quite promising, building momentum and a somewhatmysterious approach on a few of the characters. For the first 30minutes or so i think this movie had the makings to be a great film,however this was quickly abrupted. As you will see for yourself (if youstill want to see this movie), the character dress ups, especially oncloseups looked downright horrible. The detailing itself is OK whichsaved it from being an utter loss. If you're not such a film critic asmyself and you have not seen comparable movies you might think this isOK - which will partially lead you to rating this film higher thanmyself.
    Next to that you'll see that a few of those classic shock/scare momentsthat build up via sound and scene are quite predictable. I can honestlysay i knew how the movie would turnout halfway through (and we didn'teven have intermission at this theater!).
    The acting was not bad, the story was. Emily Blunt certainly did a goodjob in her role, i guess Del Toro was OK as well, even though theaccent was not in place. Hopkins is still good on his old day.
    Overall, it's not that bad if you just want to see some thrill andaction, there's even some "horror" as the genre suggests. So in theend, it breaks down to this;
    Looking for a Top 250 movie or box office hit? You wont find it here.However, worth to skip? No. You can still enjoy this movie, but do iton DVD or Blu-ray, don't waste the money on a cinema ticket!

    User: PeterRoeder
    Added: 12 February 2010
    Vote: 5

    Terrible movie with a few good scenes and good lines by Hopkins

    I just saw this movie, and I had been expecting a lot but I must say Iwas very disappointed. Instead of building suspense it relies on shocksand effects. There is really nothing to the story. Hopkins is great asalways, playing a sort of Hannibal monster role again, and he has a fewgreat Shakespearian lines. Also I really liked some individual scenesbut the whole movie put together is really not that good. The femalelead has about as much charisma as a hamster, and none of the otheractors, except for the Jack the Ripper-hunter and policeman and Hopkinsdistinguish themselves in any way. All things considered, a greatdisappointment. Moreover, is this 2010? Surely CGI can be used muchbetter than in this movie. "Avatar" uses CGI much, much better. Anyway,I guess the movie is worth seeing for fantasy-fans, and one can, ofcourse, make up one's own mind whether he or she likes it or not.

    User: willer-killer
    Added: 13 February 2010
    Vote: 5

    5 sober, 10 drunk

    I'll preface this review by saying that during the movie, I was pouringlarge amounts of cheap vodka into the soda I bought at the theater, andthat may have made it much more awesome than it actually was.
    I don't think this counts as a spoiler, but as you can well imagine,many people get ripped to pieces, slashed, beheaded, and otherwisemangled by the Wolfman. This brings the movie up a few points inoverall quality.
    I have to say that Benicio Del Toro was perfectly cast, as he alreadylooks somewhat like an animal. I did, however, have a hard timebelieving that his character was American, as his accent still showedsomewhat. Though, he did a pretty good job of covering it up, and if Ihadn't seen his previous work (especially Fear and Loathing in LasVegas, Snatch, and Traffic), I might have found him believable.Nevertheless, he's a great actor and I was glad to see him in such abrutally awesome movie.
    So basically, the movie would've gotten a 5 or a 6 out of 10 if Iwatched it sober, and is currently ranked at around 9 or 10 due to thedrunkenness. So I'll choose the happy medium of 8, as 7.5 isn't anoption here. My advice is to find the cheapest theater in your area andsneak in some booze--that will make this film much more enjoyable.

    User: Cruiz Dwyer (sinncross@gmail.com)
    Added: 11 February 2010
    Vote: 3

    Incomplete transformation ...

    After learning that his brother has disappeared, Lawrence Talbot(Benecio Del Toro), returns to his family estate to find that hisbrother was the victim of a ferocious attack. Lawrence decides to findout what happened to his brother all while trying to juggle relationswith his brothers fianc?e, Gwen (Emily Blunt), and his alienatingfather, Sir John (Anthony Hopkins). Inevitably, Lawrence is attacked inthe same manner as his brother but manages to survive. This only leadsto him being cursed with a transformation into a werewolf during a fullmoon.
    1880's England is a lovely sight to behold from the opening minutes ofthe film and the gloomy weather, architecture and somewhat sombre toneof the film only go to visually highlight the very important Gothicthemes with which the film will utilize. Thankfully this remains aconstant throughout the film for the narrative does not. The storystarts off interestingly enough with increasing debate as to whether abeast or lunatic is going around killing people. The plot thickens whenit is discovered that Lawrence himself was placed in a mental asylumwhen he was younger and the introduction of Scotland Yard inspectorAberline (Hugo Weaving) gives the film the very sense of mystery itneeds. Though Aberline does very little in terms of tangibleinvestigation as the film's opening few arcs fall away to some veryquick plot reveals. And this is one of the major problems with thefilm's story as a whole: so much is revealed so quickly that the lastthird to quarter of the film contains nothing for the narrative beyonda poorly conceived romance between Gwen and Lawrence. This, in turn,only happens because character development in terms of relations is notfully realized. If anything, the asylum arc of the film is veryenjoyable next to some fun, albeit rather violent, action sequences.And the inclusions of some genuinely good horror elements add to thedynamic, even if lacking, narrative.
    The acting performances are also somewhat on the weaker side. Del Toroand Blunt seemed somewhat distracted. Of course the death of Ben Talbot(Simon Merrells) lingers over both of them but their melancholy neverfeels real. Both do become progressively better by the films end butnever really enough to show what both are capable of. Hopkins has anintriguing role as the protagonist's father who lives in the familyestate by himself but his character lacks the emotional impact to allowmuch from Hopkins. Weaving is the best of the lot and gives hischaracter the life he needs to appear as both a concerned inspector ofthe law, while also a figure that could potentially see his duty asabove common humanity. Weaving's character is not explored enough sohis screen time can feel limited at times.
    On a better note the technical aspects of the film are quitecompelling. The very bleak look of the films setting hits hard theatmosphere that is to be expected from the remainder of the film. TheCGI and special effects are largely good enough to help capture theGothic essence but there is the odd moment where it seems poorlyimplemented, such as when there is a close-up of the werewolf runningat a high speed. Architecture is used well with costume design clearingindicating towards as faithful a recreation of 1880's England aspossible. Lastly the look of the werewolf himself is workable andexudes a promising menacing force for a monster film.
    There is no sex and almost as little use of language. There is nodirect nudity but a female character is shown from behind without a topon. Violence makes up for what is missing however, with some violent,bloody and gory sequences involving decapitations and other morebeastly attempts at mutilation. As expected, these are all done duringthe night which somewhat blankets the violence but nevertheless it canbe quite explicit even though the deaths are not lingered on for long.
    There is much to love in the opening half of The Wolfman as it setsitself up for a potentially thrilling finale. But for all the intenseGothic atmospheric inclusions that the film uses for its foundation,such as the costume design, CGI and scale of the visual treat that is1880's England, it nevertheless falls apart by the films end. If youwish for a dark and bloody exposition on a werewolf then you should besatisfied, but that does not stop some underwhelming performances and athin narrative from impending the transformation of excellent ideasinto an excellent film. At one point Sir John exclaims: 'The beast willhave its day' but for now The Wolfman will have to do until that daycomes.

    User: PirateLordJackSparrow
    Added: 12 February 2010
    Vote: 2

    The special effects are here but the acting not so much

    Well a movie that features Anthony Hopkins, Hugo Weaving and BenicioDel Toro among the stars seems promising enough. The visual affects,scenery and make up all the set the stage. Plus the dark atmospherereally sets the mood for a good old fashioned werewolf movie. But youwould be wrong. The acting fails to be on par with the nice visuals andmake up. The story is average and the direction isn't great either. Andat times the story is a bit clich?. Which, probably sounds redundantfor a werewolf movie but it's clich? in ways outside of the werewolfgenre. Surprisingly Hugo Weaving is the best actor in this sub parmovie. The other actors look lost in comparison to him with theexception of Hopkins whose acting was good at times. Del Toro seems themost lost out of the main characters. He's good as a supporting actorbut he doesn't have enough acting chops to be the lead character.Weaving's great acting isn't enough to save this movie. But if you'rewilling to see it for the werewolf horror story line you might want tosave yourself some money and wait for the DVD or catch it on TV.