Hairballs

email this story
read comments (32)
post a comment

The Wolfman cost a ton of money (something close to $100 million), and it makes you feel like you're stuck inside a deep stone pit with Universal werewolves prowling back and forth and worrying about the grosses. Rowwrrlll! -- make it shorter! Rowf! -- let's throw in another beheading! Owwooooohhll! -- we need to at least get those research scores into the 70s! Let's bring in Walter Murch...snarrrrrll!

You can't say it doesn't look great -- every scene is expertly smothered in fog and smoke and ominous shadows, or is lit by candles. Cheers to cinematographer Shelly Johnson and production designer Rick Heinrichs. But it makes you feel trapped, confined, shackled.

I saw it with an Eloi crowd (i.e., radio promotional) at the Grove last night, and after 20 or 30 minutes the room had no pulse. The crowd watched, waited and seemed to be saying, "This is it? This? Well, we paid to see it so we might as well stick it out but this just isn't happening, man. Where's the juice? This thing is just...what is it?"

Benicio del Toro, who plays the doomed Larry Talbot, looks miserable in every scene. He does the job, hits the marks, mouths the dialogue, etc., but his eyes say, "Good God, get me outta here! I've been very well paid, yes, but I'm stuck in a piece of shit and my soul is writhing in pain." Plus he's been given an awful pudding-bowl haircut.

Why, I was asking myself, is a guy who looks like the cousin of Emiliano Zapata playing the son of a British nobleman played by Anthony Hopkins? Flashbacks of Benny's deceased mom (i.e., Hopkins' widow) show she was Latin, but she looks like Dolores del Rio instead of Juanita Zapata so it still doesn't make sense. It just throws you out of the film for the guy who played a Mexican policeman in Traffic and Che Guevara in Steven Soderbergh's epic playing a late 19th Century Shakesperean actor holding poor Yorick's skull.

They should have gone with...I don't know, Chiwetel Ejiofor?

I was slumping lower and lower in my chair. Indigestion, depression. The color was draining from my cheeks.

Poor suffering Emily Blunt, I was muttering to myself. Look at her trying to make something -- anything! -- work in terms of her cliched character.

There's one short clip in The Wolfman that delivers a neat sense of fright. A little balding gremlin who strongly resembles Hugo Weaving is shown crawling onto a bed. But that's it. The rest of it is rote exposition and shock-boo! cuts. There's nothing lower in the scary flick universe than shock-boo. It's the last refuge of hack director who can't think of anything else, and when it's repeated over and over and over, as it is in The Wolfman, shock-boo isn't just irksome or tedious -- it's infuriating.

This above all else is why The Wolfman feels like it's unfolding waist-deep in a swamp -- i.e., because there's nothing going on underneath. Rent Juan Antonio Bayona's The Orphanage and savor the quietly creepy vibe. Another film that had this was Mark Pellington's The Mothman Chronicles . A cup of serious dread is worth a truckload of shock-boo.

You can actually sense the anguish of everyone involved, including the editors. That would be Walter Murch -- Mr. Fix-It! -- Dennis Virkler and Mark Goldblatt.

What was the last outright stinker that Benicio made -- a paycheck job that added several dozen gray hairs to his head? That would be Excess Baggage, I suppose, with Alicia Silverstone. I guess he can stand it if he does this once every ten years. It's how he suffers for his art.

Stink In Your Bones<< previous | next >>Galavant

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 12, 2010 at 7:02 AM

comment #1

Eloi Manning says ...

I wondered at the time why Del Toro was cast in this. I can only imagine it's because he's hairy and beastly looking and when they were going down the practical effects route he'd have made the most convincing-looking wolf. But since they CGI'd it up afterwards they might as well have gone for Gerard Butler or anyone.

Posted by Eloi Manning at February 12, 2010 11:08 AM

comment #2

gogocrank10 says ...

What's absolutely amazing about this is that, as many writers have pointed out, there's really no reason this should be a stinker. Pretty airtight story blueprint, top-notch casting, one of Hollywood's classier hacks at the helm ... this is what happens when too many people equivocate about what a blockbuster needs to be rather than what it should be. Of course, it will make money, but it would have made money no matter what - it's "The Wolfman," for god's sake.

Posted by gogocrank10 at February 12, 2010 11:09 AM

comment #3

Travis Crabtree says ...

It looks awful and now I'm hearing from reliable sources that it's really dull and listless. I'm absolutely certain I'll hate it. I'll be first in line to see it tonight.
- Half of the Hollywood Elsewhere Readers / Comment Posters

Posted by Travis Crabtree at February 12, 2010 11:18 AM

comment #4

BurmaShave says ...

Benecio is pretty 'blanco' as Latinos go, but your point is well taken. But then I guess if this had starred Guy Pearce it wouldn't have gotten financing.

Posted by BurmaShave at February 12, 2010 11:19 AM

comment #5

Jonathan Spuij says ...

It was brutally chopped into incomprehensible pieces. Also, that shot of Emily Blunt's back was freaking hot. And that first shot had the whole audience proclaim "my preciousss". Seriously, what's Gollum doing in that film? The excess smoke and candles didn't provide any scares or fright whatsoever because they were overused. There were no contrasts between night and day, it all had the same murky look. It was really silly.

Posted by Jonathan Spuij at February 12, 2010 11:22 AM

comment #6

Renfield says ...

This review is pretty much on the money (sans questioning the character's heritage-- that is some high-power nitpicking). I had the same experience last night. You really could feel the energy slipping out of the room after the first Del Toro wolf-out.

There were a few fun moments but other than that, it was emotionally empty.

Anyone else notice that Del Toro's acting style in this seemed to be: I'm going to play this character like he's always about to puke?

Posted by Renfield at February 12, 2010 11:27 AM

comment #7

Rich S. says ...

Terence Fisher would of knocked this out of the park. In fact, he did, with Oliver Reed.

Hard to believe they could mess this up, but apparently they did.

Posted by Rich S. at February 12, 2010 11:27 AM

comment #8

jse33 says ...

I caught a matinee showing and didn't think it was nearly as bad as most of the reviews say. The production was top-notch, including Baker's makeup. Great setting and atmosphere with all the haziness and fog. This looks like a big budget film.

It doesn't take long to realize how heavily edited the movie is though. I'd say it's only 15-20 minutes before he's already bitten by the wolf, which happens after a fairly exciting attack sequence on the gypsy camp.

I thought the score was pretty solid as well. Did they keep Elfman's score afterall? Certainly sounded like his trademark stuff.

The 1st half of the film, a little choppy, is definitely better than the 2nd half, which does hit the wall about 2/3 of the way through and ends on a fairly whimper of a finale. However, the best and most exciting part of the film for me was Del Toror's first of three transformations. Most of that seemed to use the least amount of CGI work.

It's far from perfect and with the troubled production, I was expecting a worse finished product. There is "some" excitement to be had and it certainly earns the R rating.

I'd love to see how Mark Romanek's version would have turned out.

Posted by jse33 at February 12, 2010 11:29 AM

comment #9

Eloi Manning says ...

"Benecio is pretty 'blanco' as Latinos go, but your point is well taken. But then I guess if this had starred Guy Pearce it wouldn't have gotten financing."

Is Benicio really any bigger of a draw than Guy Pearce?

Posted by Eloi Manning at February 12, 2010 11:39 AM

comment #10

michael says ...

Everyone is asking why is Del Toro in this and saying he looks like he's miserable, but from what i've heard, he was on this from the jump and was one of the guys fighting to get it done. Maybe he realized too late that it sucked? Just asking. I'm not much of a werewolf fan anyway, so I don't know if i'll pay the ten bucks for this or not.

Posted by michael at February 12, 2010 11:49 AM

comment #11

PCP says ...

I'll see it because of the eye candy (Blunt).

Posted by PCP at February 12, 2010 11:55 AM

comment #12

btwnproductions says ...

Del Toro loves horror movies and wanted to make one. Too bad he didn't make a good one, but that's the reason.

Posted by btwnproductions at February 12, 2010 11:55 AM

comment #13

Bobby Cooper Superior says ...

I sense Del Toro was unable to jump ship contractually despite probably seeing the writing on the wall ala Pitt in THE DEVIL'S OWN. His attaching himself to the project in its early days is one thing but that was before the majority of the project's creative team walked or was swapped out.

Posted by Bobby Cooper Superior at February 12, 2010 12:00 PM

comment #14

BurmaShave says ...

Eloi, I'd say he is. Maybe not box office, but more of a name.

Posted by BurmaShave at February 12, 2010 12:19 PM

comment #15

Glenn Kenny says ...

Echoing Michael and btwn, yes, Del Toro is a real horror maven. I fondly recall a lengthy conversation with him about Lon Chaney (Senior), who he reveres, and the sad fate of the lost ChaneyBrowning "London After Midnight." This was around the time of "Traffic." I imagine the idea of doing a full-blown and maybe even a little old-fashioned horror picture had a lot of appeal to him, but it sounds as if he might have been better off assembling the production team himself...

Posted by Glenn Kenny at February 12, 2010 12:26 PM

comment #16

THE MovieBob says ...

I liked it. Could've been better, but what needs to work works. The wolf stuff is great, the third act kills, good score, etc.

The main problem is that you can REALLY see that the "fix" editing was to make it LESS odd and unusual than seems to have been intended. You can tell from most of the second act that it was really aiming for something close to Coppola's Dracula but has be rejiggered into "linearity."

Posted by THE MovieBob at February 12, 2010 12:26 PM

comment #17

Renfield says ...

Whoever was top bill in this doesn't really matter. It could've been an unknown and the box office would be the same. It's a big-budget Wolfman with a very solid trailer. People will go.

The overall, major problem with this film is the script.

Posted by Renfield at February 12, 2010 12:29 PM

comment #18

COCO says ...

Was going to see this...alas will pass...will go see
''The Book of Eloi" instead....say what!!

Posted by COCO at February 12, 2010 1:10 PM

comment #19

teeem says ...

to Glenn Kenney,
where can we read more about del Toro's interest in Chaney senior? and did you detect anything in the movie that might be about the Chaney Sr/Jr relationship?

Posted by teeem at February 12, 2010 1:12 PM

comment #20

Jonathan Spuij says ...

People won't go predictions are that Valentine's Day will own Wolfies ass bigtime. Perhaps over 10mln difference even.

Posted by Jonathan Spuij at February 12, 2010 1:14 PM

comment #21

LexG says ...

Does anyone else get literally *drowsy* at monochromatic, dark, murky, desaturated movies?

I like movies with BOLD OVERSATURATED COLORS. This looks like it might have that Sherlock Holmes/Illusionist chocolatey exhaust-fume sheen... makes me sleepy every time.

Posted by LexG at February 12, 2010 2:00 PM

comment #22

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Big fan of Speed Racer then, Lex?

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at February 12, 2010 2:33 PM

comment #23

reverent and free says ...

Lex, it's from a lack of ball to film in b&w.

Posted by reverent and free at February 12, 2010 3:10 PM

comment #24

DeeZee says ...

Damn, and that trailer looked good, too. But I guess if they had more confidence in it, we'd be at least seeing a March date for it.

Nonetheless, BOP is aiming way too low on its predictions for Wolfie.
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=12545
Find it hard to believe there's that kind of demand for Percy, when even the last HP movie sort of had a limp domestic box office.

Posted by DeeZee at February 12, 2010 3:19 PM

comment #25

Glenn Kenny says ...

@ teeem: Sorry; should have specified the conversation wasn't an interview. Premiere magazine hosted a private screening of "Traffic" and Soderbergh and Del Toro were at the party afterwards, that's where we spoke. (Man, those were the fucking days.) But other interviewers of Del Toro should absolutely bring the subject up!

Posted by Glenn Kenny at February 12, 2010 4:49 PM

comment #26

Sams says ...

Loved your choice of headline and the playful first paragraph.

Posted by Sams at February 12, 2010 7:27 PM

comment #27

Scott Mendelson says ...

Um... the last Harry Potter picture was the first sequel to cross the $300 million mark, and the second-highest grossing chapter behind Sorcerer's Stone. Not exactly 'limp domestic box office'.

Posted by Scott Mendelson at February 12, 2010 8:47 PM

comment #28

DeeZee says ...

Scott: Yes, but it cost more than the average HP movie, and had a shitty second-weekend drop.

Posted by DeeZee at February 12, 2010 11:01 PM

comment #29

Jonathan Spuij says ...

LOL, even Percy Jackson is on course to triumph over Wolfman.

Posted by Jonathan Spuij at February 13, 2010 9:22 AM

comment #30

Terry McCarty says ...

Wondering if it's the beginning of the Jim Aubrey-at-MGM era in terms of Universal releases.

Posted by Terry McCarty at February 13, 2010 11:36 PM

comment #31

reverent and free says ...

Saw it tonight. Was disappointed it wasn't better. As gogocrank says, every element is in place for a hell of an entertaining picture, but it doesn't deliver. The look and feel is great, the kind of horror period piece they used to make in the '90s like Coppola's Dracula, Branagh's Frankenstein, and Burton's Sleepy Hollow, but having made the decision that it was going to be a hard R, they should have had the balls to make it a real horror movie, and not a semi-Summer CGI blockbuster. Emily Blunt certainly looks great in period clothes; I can't wait to see Young Victoria, but it is pretty uncomfortable how she has no real part at all in the film.

Posted by reverent and free at February 15, 2010 9:04 PM

comment #32