Search movies

Typing something do you want to search. Exam: Movie Name, Actor, Release Year, Director...
if you want to find exactly, Please input keywords with double-quote or using multi keywords. Exam: "Keyword 1" "Keyword 2"

The Wolfman

The Wolfman

Language: Norwegian

Author: sub

Updated: 2 years ago

Files: 1

Year: 2010
Run time: 1h 43min
IMDB score: 5.8

Movie infomation

Movie name: The Wolfman

Genders: Drama, Thriller, Horror

Imdb Score: 5.8

Runtime: 1h 43min

Released: 12 Feb 2010

Director: Joe Johnston

Writer: Andrew Kevin Walker, David Self

Actors: Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, Simon Merrells

Box Office: $61.9M

Company: Universal Pictures

OfficialWebsite

Imdb Link

1
00:00:48,600 --> 00:00:54,100
Selv en renhjertet mann som ber
kveldsb�nnen sin kan bli en ulv-


2
00:00:54,300 --> 00:01:00,600
-n�r ulvens forbannelse blomstrer
og m�nen lyser sterkt i h�stm�rket.


3
00:01:31,900 --> 00:01:34,200
Vis Dem!

4
00:01:48,000 --> 00:01:51,100
Jeg vet at De er der!

5
00:02:26,300 --> 00:02:29,300
Hjelp! Hjelp meg!

6

Trailer

Review

Excellent film for werewolf/monster lovers!

10/10 In contrast to the belief and the whine of many critics, there is an audience out there for dark, gritty and atmospheric werewolf movies such as 'The Wolfman'. I will, however, not go into detail and debunk critic reviews. Instead, I'll try to be brief and express my own feelings towards this film.

This movie is an instant horror classic. It has everything a werewolf fan would want: Gore, blood, atmosphere, great soundtrack, great looking werewolf and good actors. This movie is not like 'The Wolfman' from 1941. Instead, the makers went ALL-IN with this interpretation and really exemplified what's in our deepest fantasies: Intense werewolf-action. This movie doesn't try to be original in any way. What it does, however, is to take a basic story, a basic concept and develop it in an interesting way. This movie doesn't have any werewolves that are cute and look like wolves (See: Twilight). In that way, it manages to break the monotony of modern horror movies (ghost movies or torture movies). This is a RATED R, Universal monster film that should be taken for what it is: A tense adrenaline rush through the werewolf lore with great effects. This, my friends, is a movie FROM HORROR LOVERS to HORROR LOVERS.

5/5.

2 years ago

I really liked it

10/10 Being in the late 50's in age, I grew up on Universal horror and truly love the originals. But I have to say this remake exceeded my expectations. There are many suspenseful moments and the movie makers seem to have a clear grasp of what the objective was. Also there is a clear difference between a Hollywood werewolf (looks like a big wolf on two legs) and a "Wolfman." The wolf-man looks like an indistinguishable combination of both. A monster. I like the werewolf movies but this tops the bill. Forget the professional critics. They get paid to say negative things and most often don't seem to know what they are talking or writing about. If you like this type of stuff, it is top shelf. I may see it again.

2 years ago

A Worthy Remake, Very Dark.

8/10 I saw "The Wolfman" in special screenings Sunday and to be truly honest, I didn't know what to expect. I saw the original 1941 version and I really liked it and it is a classic. I was afraid that the new remake would of been very tacky and that was my biggest concern. But I have to say after I watched this movie. I was very impressed. Benicio Del Toro (An Oscar Winner) portrays the role very well and believable. The cast is very well known with people such as Emily Blunt and the great Anthony Hopkins. They don't technically give "Oscar Worthy performances", but their acting certainly is very believable. The movie oozes mysteriousness and the very Dark mood of it makes it very enjoyable. But the movie has some flaws like the story is not original and has been portrayed at least a million times. Also there are "some" tacky parts in the movie, but they aren't very important at all. So my overall consensus about the "Wolfman" is that it is a worthy remake the 1941 classic and it will gain many new fans.

I highly recommend people to watch this movie, it is very entertaining and Dark.

8.2/10

2 years ago

No more and no less than expected

7/10 Every once in a while, a movie comes along with what many people would call perfect casting. I remember when Jack Nicholson was first cast as the Joker for Tim Burton's Batman. Nicholson's portrayal was just what was expected from such a great actor in a signature role. But it was NO MORE than we expected from him. In a way, one could say it fell a little flat. Well, I feel that way about The Wolfman. First, Anthony Hopkins, one of the consistently best actors out there, gave the exact performance I would expect from him, commanding respect both as an actor and as the character he played. But it was nothing we haven't seen already. Reminiscent of Meet Joe Black or Fracture or Instinct. I'm also a fan of Benicio Del Toro, but his brooding and emotional performance was exactly what I went to the theater to see. I didn't see anything more. The same could be said for the script, a very straightforward storyline that was a bit predictable and sort of tired. On one hand, I commend the film makers for not overdoing the story with convoluted twists in an effort to be "original." But again, I wasn't surprised by anything in the storyline at all.

I was anxious to see this film, and overall I was very pleased with the cinematography, the performances of the cast and of course the special effects. But I did not leave the theater saying "WOW, that was even better than I expected!" like I had hoped I would.

2 years ago

Doesn't beat the classic, but comes out a better remake than most recent ones

6/10 Let me start by clarifying two things: 1) I'm a huge fan of horror Universal monster movies and the original Wolfman is a must see to me 2) I'm 18 so this review is not biased by age

The horror genre in particular suffers an overflow of remakes, reboots, etc today. Once in a while is okay, but there's far too many at once. This is nowhere near as bad as some (looking at you especially House on a Haunted Hill and Wicker Man) but this still didn't quite hit the mark. I wanted to see originality as long as it made sense and there were some interesting ideas here. There's also some pretty good scenes as well. The problem is that it's crippled by certain problems.

Let's start with the good things: Rick Baker was already loved for his effects in werewolf movies like An American Werewolf in London, and Wolf, as well as other movies where even if the movie's bad like Planet of the Apes, his work is excellent and kudos for getting him back. Baker clearly has respect for make-up legend Jack Pierce and the make-up is fantastic. I'm not a fan of CGI and I'm glad the movie cut itself down a bit although it did include it in some scenes. But Baker's work clearly shows.

Hugo Weaving was great and while Anthony Hopkins had a rougher start, he still did rather well. His character is harder than Rain's portrayal but in some ways it works. Certainly more than it did for his portrayal of Van Helsing in my eyes. The settings were fantastic. There's a lot of 19th century buildings that look gorgeous and act as a perfect contrast to the dark and creepy woods.

Now for the bad: The build-up in many scenes was rather limited. The asylum scene was okay, but many scenes could have built the tension better.

The acting from del Toro and Blunt was rather unemotional. I found Gwen Conliffe to be more supportive in this version, but Blunt's emotions were limited. She's a beautiful woman however no doubt. del Toro looks a bit like Lon Chaney Jr. and does well in the make-up, but the Larry side is bland. He's just not able to play it as tragically as Chaney. What's more while some complained that Chaney being Claude Rains son was absurd I can sooner believe in werewolves than the idea del Toro and Hopkins are kin.

Another flaw is the limited screen time of Maleva the old gypsy a key character in the original. She's okay in this, but given little to do which really ticks me off.

A big factor is the werewolf itself. In movies like the original Wolfman and Mummy there was a silent dread. The monsters showed their great power by intimidation alone and the idea they can kill you and go wild but prefer to stalk and plan. Both remakes made them more open to their power. The original's felt scarier without it, but the remakes make it work in their own way a bit.

I found this did better with the horror side than the emotional side. If Talbot was played as dramatically as in the original I think this might have done better. As a whole it's alright. Not too bad, but I can't say as memorable as the original.

2 years ago