The WOLFMAN (Blu-ray; 2010) -- 2-DISC UNRATED DIRECTOR'S CUT (Universal)

P

PearlcorderS701

Banned


Studio Name: Universal (Relativity Media)
MPAA Rating: R/Unrated (Unrated version reviewed)
Disc/Transfer Information: 1080p High Definition Widescreen 1.85:1; Region 1 (U.S.) Release
Tested Audio Track: English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
Director: Joe Johnston
Starring Cast: Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt

SYNOPSIS:


I always thought it was a smart – and creative – move for Universal Studios when they decided to commission some new visions of the old, classic monster films that defined the filmmaking giant during a certain era. These, of course, came in the form of Stephen Sommers’ re-imagining of The Mummy and Van Helsing; in the case of the latter, Sommers took a slew of the popular “monster” figures from old Universal films – such as Frankenstein, Dracula and the Wolf Man – and injected them with a modern, CGI-driven edge to introduce the monsters to a new generation. Incorporating most of these – including the re-invented “Van Helsing” Dracula chaser character – into one major motion picture with an average run time length was a gamble, but in my opinion, Sommers and crew pulled it off. In Van Helsing we have these legendary Universal monster leads and an updated Dracula all coming together for screen time – and it was effective. When Joe Johnston decided to listen to the writers he worked with and planned a specific re-imagining of the classic Wolf Man, fans of these kinds of pictures clamored in anticipation – but what Johnston did, in a wise decision, was to not rely heavily or excessively on CGI or over-the-top modeling and computer work for the wolf attack sequences and such. The result is a much more realistic-looking main monster character and more fluid kill and set sequences (as seen in classics like An American Werewolf in London) as opposed to the super-animated, almost cartoonish approach Sommers and crew took with Van Helsing in terms of how the creatures ended up looking and moving during their screen time.

You would think, with Anthony Hopkins on board for this horror extravaganza, that he would steal the screen and chew up the scenery with each appearance. Actually, who steals the show in this “remake” of The Wolf Man is Benicio Del Toro. Playing Hopkins’ character’s son in The Wolfman, Toro portrays the cursed, troubled character actor who is bitten by the legendary werewolf creature with a conviction not seen since perhaps Javier Bordem’s performance in No Country For Old Men, in my opinion. His acting is kept restrained, and he portrays the struggles of his tormented character utilizing effective facial gestures and eye movements. In this updated version of the Universal Pictures classic – which actually opens with the throwback Universal spinning globe logo which used to adorn all their early films from that era – Del Toro portrays Lawrence Talbot, an actor by profession who returns to his family’s estate in England when he learns of his brother’s grisly murder. The opening sequence of the Unrated Cut – which is the version I viewed and which is being reviewed here – depicts Lawrence’s brother being torn to pieces by the frenzied attack of the wolf creature. Emily Blunt (of The Devil Wears Prada) stars as the brother’s rather sexy (for that era) wife who now remains a widow at the Talbot Estate. Del Toro returns to the home and catches up with his father (Hopkins) while making some flirtatious conversation with his brother’s wife. It’s clear Blunt has a thing for him. Del Toro’s investigation takes him to a local pub, where the town drunks speak of legends regarding a fanged, clawed creature which makes mincemeat out of men in the area. At this point, the wolfman idea is merely a story; a tale to tell around a campfire or over a few mugs of English ale.

That all changes when Lawrence is attacked one evening while he and some Scotland Yard-sent authorities close in on the creature during the full moon of that month. Lawrence is savagely bitten, and his fate has been decided. As the days pass, the classic symptoms of his inevitable transformation become apparent…the hyper-engineered hearing abilities, the nearly instantaneous healing properties of the wounds he suffered during the wolf’s attack…the overall change in appearance and personality. At one point, a slew of townspeople surround and confront Lawrence on his father’s estate’s driveway, ready to shoot him as they know the secret boiling within him. Hopkins shows up, brandishing his gun in the air and taking shots at the men threatening his son – but his protection will only go so far. Once Lawrence changes into the creature for the first time and goes on his nightly rampage, he is subsequently admitted to a mental asylum for observation. There, he is subjected to torturous methods of attempting to remove this “delusion” from his head that he is a werewolf. During one observation session, in which the head doctor in charge of Lawrence’s case gathers other doctors in a room to observe a tied-down Lawrence and to attempt to prove that this is all in his head, the full moon arrives outside and Del Toro transforms before their eyes into the creature. Proving this isn’t just “in his head,” Lawrence, as the wolfman, goes on a frenzied murder spree targeting the medical staff attempting desperately to escape from the building they’re trapped in.

The real kicker and surprise in The Wolfman involves Hopkins’ character and a secret he’s been hiding from his son Lawrence – you’ll have to watch the film for that one to come to fruition. It also involves his mother’s death (you know how these stories go, don’t you, when a father was somehow involved and claimed a death was an “accident” or “mystery?”).

As engaging as this film was, there was something about it that wasn’t quite worthy of recommending a purchase for ownership – the special effects, as I said, were surprisingly not reliant on modern CGI work or usage, and thus the sequences involving Del Toro’s wolfman attacks looked realistic and utterly believable. To compare, in Van Helsing the wolf creature appeared completely cartoonish and utterly wolf-like – but here, Johnston was going for a recreation of the original film’s shock value and so the creature retained nearly human-like facial characteristics and the transformation sequences were not nearly as animated or faux-looking as other films have suggested. When Del Toro leaps from rooftop to rooftop as the creature, or crouches down to run through a forest to chase his next victim, the effect was refreshingly realistic – almost too much so. The facial makeup work was impressive as well when Del Toro was onscreen as the creature, with the massive beard-like hair growth all over the face and the realistic eyes and fangs. This just didn’t look like a CGI-created wolfman.

Hopkins was effective in this, as he usually is, but still there was something just “missing” from the remake of The Wolf Man that stopped it from being a real memorable effort; there were times when I felt I was watching a reenactment of the Jack Nicholson thriller Wolf. Further, Emily Blunt doesn’t do much here except for flirt with Del Toro’s character after her husband is mauled by a werewolf and attempt to snap Lawrence out of his murderous daze when he’s the creature by bellowing at him ”Lawrence, it’s me! I know you can hear me! It’s me!”

She did look kind of yummy in those period-era dresses through…

Okay. Never mind.

CONTINUED BELOW...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
VIDEO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC LOOK?

Much like Van Helsing, Joe Johnston’s reimagining of The Wolfman was filed in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio and appears on this 1080p Blu-ray Disc transfer with this visual information pretty much intact. This is a bit of a departure for Universal’s home video division and their Blu-ray releases in that the film has a purposeful bleak, stark, cold look to it, appropriate for the material and era it’s supposed to portray – most modern Universal releases have been chock full of bright, colorful, image-popping elements for the most part, so this was a tough one to review and comment on. However, given the perspective of what was being sought after here, the transfer is very effective – facial detail was excellent, exhibiting a solid high definition appearance, while shadow detail in this menacingly dark film was actually excellent without signs of any black crush. The overall look of the transfer, as I said, is bleak with cold, stark overtones to depict a cold England countryside of the time, but this showed up nicely on Blu-ray. Many scenes appeared “flat” but again this was due to the photography and creative filming decisions. One sequence in particular blew me away, in which a dark scene faded out into a bright, daytime sequence in the English hillside…the detail in this sequence was strikingly clear, with the trees and grass appearing flawless in appearance and effect. You really felt as though you could step into the scene and become part of the storyline. And this was coming from an outdated-technology-embellished rear projection display.

The shots of Del Toro as the creature looked disturbingly real during close up cuts, and the final fight sequence between father and son was rendered cleanly despite the bleak, dark environment of the Talbot Estate main salon with fireplace.

AUDIO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC SOUND?

Universal’s Blu-ray standard in terms of audio tracks supplied with their releases has become DTS-HD Master Audio. Here, in 5.1 configuration, the soundstage is deep, wide and aggressive when called upon, but dialogue was a bit low and soft in terms of delivery in the mix. The wolf creature attacks rampaged through all the channels, startlingly so sometimes, and there was a great sense of transparency in the audio as if the environment had been placed in your living room. Gunshots hit and echoed through the surrounds, horse hoofs and carriages crashed from back to front in conjunction with the onscreen action and voices cried out from every angle in the room – this was an involving Master Audio mix.

Still, it wasn’t perfect – as I stated, I was disappointed with dialogue delivery and there was an overwhelming lack of deep LFE on the track. Some hoofbeats of horses and pounds of claws on the wolf creature itself were accompanied by a bit of thudding and thumping, but there wasn’t anything here that is going to rattle your teeth out, or your plates off the wall. This was disappointing.

EXTRAS:

As I stated in the beginning, I sampled the Unrated Cut of the disc, so the beginning and ending may very well be different from the Theatrical Cut – however, I did watch an interesting special feature about the remaking of this classic Universal picture, and it was somewhat intriguing to learn what went into this.

There’s a plethora of interactive Blu-ray content on The Wolfman if this is your thing, including U-Control parameters and “Pocket BLU.” I still don’t see the point of these elements, as I always argue it’s about the film you’re watching but…

SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS:

I wanted to see this theatrically, but missed it. I was excited to see it at home, but was a little disappointed and I can’t quite put my finger on what it is exactly. It’s definitely worth a rental, and the image and audio qualities will make for a good night in your home theater, and if you’re a fan of these re-engineered classic Universal monster films, it will probably entertain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
skizzerflake

skizzerflake

Audioholic Field Marshall
I saw the theatrical release of the blue-ray and I enjoyed it. Granted, my expectations were low since I always thought that the werewolf was the weakest of the classic monsters. I wholeheartedly agree that toning down the use of CG was an asset. Unfortunately, I thought that the extreme nature of the transformation was a downside though and made what could have been a better movie still seem like a FX festival. I'd actually be much happier with a werewolf who just got hairy, sharp, strong, fast and nasty instead of major skeletal transformations accompanied by bone-crackling noises.

Nevertheless, I liked the gloomy look, the scared villagers and the fact that none of the locals doubted the reality of a wolfman. They were kinda like the Wallachian peasants and Dracula.

Benicio was his usual sad-eyed, excellent self, Emily Blunt was OK, but her role wasn't strong enough. I also though that Anthony Hopkins felt somewhat phoned-in...almost a retread of his Van Helsing in Dracula. Again, a reliable character actor, Hugo Weaving, adopted his cold, analytical guise as the cop. I'm looking forward to him donning ears again as Elrond in The Hobbitt.

As these sort of movies go...I'd put in the "pretty good" rank.
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
I saw the theatrical release of the blue-ray and I enjoyed it. Granted, my expectations were low since I always thought that the werewolf was the weakest of the classic monsters. I wholeheartedly agree that toning down the use of CG was an asset. Unfortunately, I thought that the extreme nature of the transformation was a downside though and made what could have been a better movie still seem like a FX festival. I'd actually be much happier with a werewolf who just got hairy, sharp, strong, fast and nasty instead of major skeletal transformations accompanied by bone-crackling noises.

Nevertheless, I liked the gloomy look, the scared villagers and the fact that none of the locals doubted the reality of a wolfman. They were kinda like the Wallachian peasants and Dracula.

Benicio was his usual sad-eyed, excellent self, Emily Blunt was OK, but her role wasn't strong enough. I also though that Anthony Hopkins felt somewhat phoned-in...almost a retread of his Van Helsing in Dracula. Again, a reliable character actor, Hugo Weaving, adopted his cold, analytical guise as the cop. I'm looking forward to him donning ears again as Elrond in The Hobbitt.

As these sort of movies go...I'd put in the "pretty good" rank.
Thank you for your thoughts and for reading! :)
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
Oh, one other thing I neglected to ask you, Skizzer...

What did you mean by this:

I saw the theatrical release of the blue-ray and I enjoyed it.
Did you mean you saw both the theatrical film and then watched the film on Blu-ray?
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
I wholeheartedly agree that toning down the use of CG was an asset.
Indeed. Agreed. :D

Unfortunately, I thought that the extreme nature of the transformation was a downside though and made what could have been a better movie still seem like a FX festival. I'd actually be much happier with a werewolf who just got hairy, sharp, strong, fast and nasty instead of major skeletal transformations accompanied by bone-crackling noises.
I can agree with this too -- the skeletal transformations did get a bit unnerving and would have been better tamed down a little. Still, nothing will come close to the visceral effect of American Werewolf in London's sequences...:eek:

Nevertheless, I liked the gloomy look, the scared villagers and the fact that none of the locals doubted the reality of a wolfman. They were kinda like the Wallachian peasants and Dracula.
Indeed -- agreed. The tone and feel of the sets really did have an almost good "Tales from the Darkside" sensation mixed in with the "scared villagers" element like you mentioned, almost like "Sleepy Hollow" and even the aforementioned "Van Helsing." ;)

Benicio was his usual sad-eyed, excellent self, Emily Blunt was OK, but her role wasn't strong enough.
Agreed here, on both accounts. :)

I also though that Anthony Hopkins felt somewhat phoned-in...almost a retread of his Van Helsing in Dracula.
I totally agree about Hopkins feeling "phoned-in" (good description), and he was almost an afterthought, which I pointed out in the review -- but refresh my memory: When did he play Van Helsing in a Dracula version?

Again, a reliable character actor, Hugo Weaving, adopted his cold, analytical guise as the cop. I'm looking forward to him donning ears again as Elrond in The Hobbitt.
Indeed...

As these sort of movies go...I'd put in the "pretty good" rank.
That pretty much sums it up; it was an entertaining rental, but I can't see repeat viewings potential in my personal collection. :eek:
 
skizzerflake

skizzerflake

Audioholic Field Marshall
Oh, one other thing I neglected to ask you, Skizzer...

What did you mean by this:

Did you mean you saw both the theatrical film and then watched the film on Blu-ray?
Just bad syntax at the end of the day...I missed it in the movies, saw it on blue-ray but it was the theatrical release and not the director's cut.
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
Just bad syntax at the end of the day...I missed it in the movies, saw it on blue-ray but it was the theatrical release and not the director's cut.
OK -- gotcha. :D

Was there a reason why you didn't want to view the director's version? Just a matter of choice?

To be honest, after reviewing many titles over the years, I don't see much difference between these so-called "Unrated" or "Director's" versions on the discs and the "Theatrical" counterparts; maybe a longer run time or such, but nothing to really warrant all the marketing hoopla on the packaging, you know?
 
skizzerflake

skizzerflake

Audioholic Field Marshall
OK -- gotcha. :D

Was there a reason why you didn't want to view the director's version? Just a matter of choice?
Only because that was what they had in Blockbuster.

To be honest, after reviewing many titles over the years, I don't see much difference between these so-called "Unrated" or "Director's" versions on the discs and the "Theatrical" counterparts; maybe a longer run time or such, but nothing to really warrant all the marketing hoopla on the packaging, you know?
Now and again I have seen DC's that are distinctly better, most notably Blade Runner (which did away with the awful voiceover narration) and The Abyss, which had a much more fully fleshed out "Day the Earth Stood Still" plot.
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
Only because that was what they had in Blockbuster.
Oh; they didn't have any 2-Disc Director's Cuts? That's strange...the Blockbuster by me had only the Director's versions of the Blu-rays...

Now and again I have seen DC's that are distinctly better, most notably Blade Runner (which did away with the awful voiceover narration) and The Abyss, which had a much more fully fleshed out "Day the Earth Stood Still" plot.
Indeed -- I've heard about the Blade Runner issues with the DCs; I never got a chance to see the Abyss' Director's version. To be honest, I wasn't much of an Abyss fan.
 
skizzerflake

skizzerflake

Audioholic Field Marshall
Oh; they didn't have any 2-Disc Director's Cuts? That's strange...the Blockbuster by me had only the Director's versions of the Blu-rays...
Mine only has the theatrical release.

Indeed -- I've heard about the Blade Runner issues with the DCs; I never got a chance to see the Abyss' Director's version. To be honest, I wasn't much of an Abyss fan.
I think there were several director's cuts of Blade Runner, but then there was a so-called "final version", which I bought when it came out a couple years ago. It's one of my desert island movies and while I can't recall all of the other permutations, I thought the final one was the best.

As for Abyss...a cultivated taste. Now and again I like a long slow movie and I loved how the end was so clear...clean up your act or start eating water. One version I saw completely dropped the huge, looming waves created by the deep-water entities and went straight to the teary ending, which completely lost the point of the story.
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
Mine only has the theatrical release.



I think there were several director's cuts of Blade Runner, but then there was a so-called "final version", which I bought when it came out a couple years ago. It's one of my desert island movies and while I can't recall all of the other permutations, I thought the final one was the best.

As for Abyss...a cultivated taste. Now and again I like a long slow movie and I loved how the end was so clear...clean up your act or start eating water. One version I saw completely dropped the huge, looming waves created by the deep-water entities and went straight to the teary ending, which completely lost the point of the story.
Got-cha. I enjoy a long slow film as well, and I'm actually an Ed Harris fan, but I just never took to that picture -- the whole "underwater ET" thing had great potential.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
A lot of people complained about this one. I thought it was well done. The makeup (Rick Baker) was excellent. People these days don't seem to get what a real horror flick is, and this one paid very good homage to the original. Not a lot of LFE, but the sound was excellent on this one.
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
A lot of people complained about this one.
Because it wasn't really engaging, even with Hopkins onboard for support.

I thought it was well done. The makeup (Rick Baker) was excellent.
Indeed; I agree, and pointed that out. ;)

People these days don't seem to get what a real horror flick is
I'll agree with that -- and even though I'm not using that to say that I loved the Wolfman retake, I cannot stand what the average younger audience today wants as "horror" i.e. House of Wax with Paris Hilton...:rolleyes:

and this one paid very good homage to the original.
It did have an "updated original" feel to it, and I'll give it credit for that -- in the end, as a whole, I just wasn't moved enough to actually want to add this to my collection.

Not a lot of LFE, but the sound was excellent on this one.
Not too much real deep sub LFE -- the stuff that wrinkles your pant leg, you know -- but some interesting sonic moments such as when the creature is chasing some victims and you can hear the pounding of the hoofs and such.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
Because it wasn't really engaging, even with Hopkins onboard for support.
That part of it was too easily figured out. It was OK, but his portion of the story was the thinnest.


Indeed; I agree, and pointed that out. ;)
I didn't read it ;)

I'll agree with that -- and even though I'm not using that to say that I loved the Wolfman retake, I cannot stand what the average younger audience today wants as "horror" i.e. House of Wax with Paris Hilton...:rolleyes:
I liked the fact that the creatures were make-up and not totally digital. It makes it a LOT more believeable.

It did have an "updated original" feel to it, and I'll give it credit for that -- in the end, as a whole, I just wasn't moved enough to actually want to add this to my collection.
Baker ASKED to do this one, citing it as one of his early influences. I agree, not one for the collection, but worth a rent.
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
That part of it was too easily figured out. It was OK, but his portion of the story was the thinnest.
You mean with Hopkins being the connection to Toro's curse? Beyond that, there was something that just wasn't...I don't know...right about the film even with his performance; I suppose that's what I was getting at...

I didn't read it ;)
Oh; well, I did mention it in the main review. ;)

I liked the fact that the creatures were make-up and not totally digital. It makes it a LOT more believeable.
Agreed.

Baker ASKED to do this one, citing it as one of his early influences. I agree, not one for the collection, but worth a rent.
Agreed on the last statement (of course). As for "Baker," which part of the crew are you referring to? Joe Johnston was at the helm for direction on this "remake"...
 
A

AudioWolf

Audiophyte
This movie fell flat. With all the talent on display I was soerly disppointed. The story was poor. It felt very gimmicky though the acting had its moments of quality. I doubt Del Toro and Sir Hopkins will be putting this on the mantlepiece. Its main value may be to fill your time at 2am on a Friday in late October but not much beyond that
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
Agreed on the last statement (of course). As for "Baker," which part of the crew are you referring to? Joe Johnston was at the helm for direction on this "remake"...
In the extras there was an interview with Johnston and he said that as soon as Baker found out there was a remake of this film, he immedately went and sought out the director so that he could do the effects. As I mentioned, this one paid quite a bit of homage to the original, which is why the story is as it is, which is largely unchanged from it with the exception of Hopkins' portion. They wanted to keep it more similar than not, and to me that is a good thing, but the story is a bit light to really do well these days. I am a big fan of the original, and I didn't feel this one was really that bad, but that was also going in based on the original. Probably fully 3/4 of the audience that saw this one, never saw the original. This wasn't a good movie, but it wasn't a terrible movie either. For what it was, I think they achieved what they were after, though I think they could have done more and made it better. Keeping mostly true to the original material ended up not being a good thing in this case, because the original is quite simple.

It was easily a better "retake" than Jackson's King Kong or that travesty that was Clash of the Titans :)
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top