Wolfman

Une ambiance prenante, des acteurs brillants, une histoire un peu faiblarde et un grand moment quand on le regarde dans un complexe de cinéma. Il nous faudrait plus de ce genre de film d’horreur classique dans la pléthore de films de meurtres modernes. (18/02/2010)

Par rapport à ses prédécesseurs, il est insignifiant et inutile. Les plaisanteries et les tensions ne fonctionnent pas, du moins les créateurs n'ont pas hésité avec le sang. La belle mise en scène rétro et le casting de qualité luttent contre le complexe vanhelsingien des attractions numériques autarciques. Et la relation père-fils, qui devrait être le moteur dramatique du film, ne fonctionne pas du tout. Les lauréats aux Oscars Hopkins et Del Toro sont malheureusement là uniquement pour donner un soupçon de qualité supérieure à cette bouchée estivale hollywoodienne. L'inspecteur Scotland Yard, un "personnage secondaire", interprété par Hugo Weaving, suscitera plus de joie chez le public que ces deux-là. (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)

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)

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)