THE WOLFMAN Should Have Been Called JOE JOHNSTON'S MARK ROMANEK'S FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA'S THE WOLFMAN. But I Get That That's A Bit Unwieldy.

The recent Benicio del Toro remake of THE WOLFMAN has one of the more interesting production histories in recent years, with director Mark Romanek bailing just three weeks before the shooting was to begin and Joe Johnston (of JUMANJI and THE ROCKETEER fame, and the forthcoming CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER) stepping into his shoes at the almost-last minute. Romanek left over the always dependable "creative differences", but things seem to have worked out well for him, as he went on to make NEVER LET ME GO, one of the finest films of last year. How did THE WOLFMAN fare?


Not so well. Perhaps predictably, this movie is a mess, a mishmash of ideas and styles that never forms into a cohesive whole. What is more surprising is the blatant stylistic lifts from Francis Ford Coppola's BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA, which might be the only film in history to possibly have more apostrophes than words in the actual title. I'm sure Johnston had minimal time to prep his version of THE WOLFMAN, but everything from the sped-up wolf-vision camera, to his use of long, creeping shadows, to the secret garden labyrinths, is a direct lift from Coppola's film.

So with so many similarities, let's explore some of the reasons why THE WOLFMAN falls so short of it's stylistic predecessor:

Anthony Hopkins is no Anthony Hopkins


The clearest link between the two films, aside from their gothic monster-movie origins, is the presence of veteran actor Anthony Hopkins. Unfortunately, THE WOLFMAN doesn't have the right Anthony Hopkins: it has THE RITE Anthony Hopkins, a decrepit shadow of his former self. Hopkins has been typecast as Hollywood's go-to creepy old guy ever since SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and he seems remarkably fine with it. Occasionally he'll turn out a THE FASTEST INDIAN or something, but I kind of picture him sitting in some sort of spiky black tower, cackling to his orc henchmen as royalty checks for RED DRAGON and FRACTURE pour in.

Here, he's doing nothing new, occasionally lifting an eyebrow or smiling enigmatically, and you get a glimpse of the mischievous actor peeking out underneath the fatigue of playing the same role over and over. They're fleeting moments, though, few and far in between. In DRACULA, his Van Helsing is a fascinating enigma, a presence that constantly demands your attention. Where has his fire gone?

Emily Blunt is no Winona Ryder


Somehow, I've made it through my entire adult life without someone forcing me to watch THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA, so I first saw Emily Blunt in SUNSHINE CLEANING. To my mind, she's never been better. Every role I've seen her in since has been an excuse to look sort of sullenly off camera and be delicately vulnerable. Her character is severely underwritten in THE WOLFMAN, but she doesn't add anything to it, either.

Look at that picture: Winona's gonna mess you up. Emily's auditioning for a role in THE VILLAGE 2: CRAZIER WHITER PEOPLE. There's no comparison.

This Gollum-Thing is no Monica Bellucci


Monica Bellucci rising up between your legs as some sort of busty succubus vampiress? That's scary hot. Smeagol doing the same thing? That's neither.

And neither is this movie.