WOLFMAN

THE WOLFMAN

Inevitably, the first thing that comes to mind when you see a film cast with Benecio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins is, "Wow this should be great!" But we tend to forget the rule about films with very talented cast members... the talent is better than the movie could ever hope to be.

So it should come to no surprise that the latest rendition of the "Wolfman" tale would be filled with fatal flaws. All of which lead back to my distaste for remakes.

Keep in mind "The Wolfman" has been remade a few times as a standalone and with Frankenstein, the Mummy, Abbot & Costello and if I recall Laurel & Hardy. How many times does the same story have to be told? What is wrong with getting the old versions on DVD and watching it at home?

"The Wolfman" is the story of a family and a man's torture after being bitten by a werewolf. There are tons of metaphorical explanations and analysis' about the Talbot's and I'm sure there will be a few arguments with this latest version.

To his credit director Joe Johnston recreates the time period with very accurately... it's grim and dark atmosphere. Ben Talbot has just been rip to shreds by an unknown critter. Well actually the townspeople know what creature do know that it was a werewolf, but they play dumb.

His brother, actor Lawrence Talbot (Del Toro) comes to England from the USA to investigate the death; during which time he is reunited with his estranged father Sir John Tablot (Anthony Hopkins).

Aside from being estranged from his son, he is the keeper of the family secret. Yes, it seems wolfman-dom runs in the family.

But Lawrence finds out the hard way that he too is susceptible to the condition. Especially after he gets bitten by the same werewolf and begins to get the urge to prowl every full moon.

Now it becomes a cat and mouse game with the townspeople pursuing the monster and Talbot trying to conceal his beastly identity from the honey he hooks up with his brothers widow, Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blount).

We get yet another douse of Men Behaving Badly or Beauty and the Beast. Yet another tale of forbidden love, animal magnetism and every other metaphor you can imagine.

But nothing new. Even with the kick ass special effect technology available these days for a generation that embraces technology over a storyline, we are handed very mediocre, second-hand effects. The transformation was more believable in John Landis' "An American Werewolf in London" (1981) than these. In fact they were no better than Michael J Fox's send up "Teen Wolf" (1985). And for sound effects, I am certain that as a werewolf he sounds more like a lion than a wolf!

Another problem I had was the lack of blood considering the amount of violence. Repeatedly the wolfman buries his face in his victims guts, yanking out the liver and other innards, yet there was little to no blood on the wolfman! Does fake blood cost that much? And what about those claws like X-Men's Wolverine? A wolf's claws are not that long by any stretch of the imagination.

Maybe this is why the release date was repeatedly pushed back to now... a February "Warning this may be a dog of a movie" release date. Clearly Johnston was over his head even with the talent involved.

And what about the talent? Well let me just say Hopkins and Del Toro will surely not starve though I doubt either will mention "The Wolfman" when they reflect on their careers. --GEOFFREY BURTON

RETURN TO CINEMATREK HOME