El hombre Lobo

En comparación con los predecesores es insignificante e innecesaria. Los sustos y la tensión no funcionan, por lo menos, los cineastas no tenían miedo a la sangre. Bonita escenografía retro y el elenco de calidad luchan con el complejo Vanhelsing de atracciones digitales egoístas. Y la relación padre-hijo, que se suponía que era el motor dramático de la película, no funciona en absoluto. Desafortunadamente, los ganadores del premio Óscar, Hopkins y Del Toro, están aquí solo para evocar un sello distintivo de mayor calidad para esta peli de verano de Hollywood. El inspector de Scotland Yard Hugo Weaving, cuyo papel es «secundario», despierta más alegría entre los espectadores que esos dos famosos. (17.10.2010)

Despite not being faithful to the original, Johnston is more true to its spirit and atmosphere of classic horrors from Universal. Both the well-known and well-made, and also those magical naive “such-and-such versus something-or-other" B-movies. I couldn’t ask for more. And it’s also evident that the creators love these movies (there is endless proof of this, e.g. the scene with the medical symposium where they nod at the initial aim of the original, before the studio stepped in). And not just because my heart beat away in utter delight for the entire movie (quite appropriately, since it was Valentine’s Day), which prevented me from making a valid comment about the fact that in some places it was really rather obvious that they didn’t see eye to eye with the producers as to the final cut. (16.02.2010)

Epic period horror with a badass atmosphere, nice make-up and good actors in the main roles. That’s a pretty good calling card, but The Wolfman is unfortunately missing a few key elements. It’s unable to generate fear or tension, it isn’t entertaining, or disgusting, or shocking. It just quietly wanders about in the background in a way that you can barely register, let alone remember. It’s not bad, but it’s a shame that with the money spent on it, you could get quite a few young, unpretentious filmmakers who’d be able to make about dozen better movies. (18.02.2010)

It is in fact possible to make a mediocre film with a bloated wallet, a returning screenwriting legend, and a cast of actors perfectly cast to the last extra. The sets, and in general the whole set design, the special effects, and the technical aspects are perfect, but it's all told in a kind of lazy way. The entire time I couldn't shake the impression that it was "skimming the surface," where everything goes according to a perfectly ordered plan that can't surprise and unfortunately doesn't even try to. For two hours, you're in a blissful state of mind about how nice it is to watch, then the credits roll, and now you want to try to remember something about it... and all that pops into your mind is a hairy man with a lot of bloody gunk lying around, nothing more. 3 ½. (22.05.2010)

Horror was expected, an homage to the original was anticipated. But what wasn't expected was a complex drama that combines more genres than I could have ever hoped for. The script hints from the very beginning that we're going into the darkest waters, and the transformation into a monster is shown through advanced mental decay. At first glance, the "fake" scary moments may seem like clichéd flaws, but in the context of the whole film, these scenes serve as progressing traumas. Like a nightmare from which the main hero jerks awake, only to wake up to a real, creeping, and inevitable reality that is just as terrifying as the imagined horrors. Moreover, Johnston's direction amplifies all of this into a depressive second nature. And when Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins say it in the dialogue, there's nothing more to discuss. A very specific work has been created, which is certainly not for everyone, but those who can look at it differently than just a monster horror can take away more than they ever expected. (13.09.2011)