Hopkins can’t save ‘Wolfman’ (2.5/5)

The Wolfman

Starring: Benicio del Toro, Emily Blunt, Anthony Hopkins
Directed by: Joe Johnston
Rating: R for bloody horror violence and gore.
Running time: 1 hours, 59 minutes (unedited director’s cut)

“The Wolfman” is a series of understated sequences followed by moments of unintentional comedic effect.

Joe Johnston (“Jumanji,” “October Sky,” “Jurassic Park III,” “Hidalgo”) tries his hand at this simply adequate remake of the 1941 classic “The Wolf Man.”

The updated “Wolfman” is a dark enough production, and the style and pacing will appeal to many who love older movies, but the film’s subtleties and plot-driven manner have made it difficult for contemporary audiences to immerse themselves.

In fact, the worst parts were undoubtedly the scenes that were meant to draw in today’s audiences — they felt too contrived, too predictable, too cheesy. And that is exactly where Johnston will scare away the classical aficionados, thereby driving away any solid viewership.

There aren’t many surprises with this movie — as with many remakes, you know where it’s going when you walk in. Lawrence Talbot (Benicio del Toro) returns to England when his brother’s fiancee, Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt), seeks his help in finding her betrothed. The brother’s body is soon found, mauled by a savage beast, much like the bodies of other victims. Pub tales tell of werewolves, to which some scoff and others cross themselves.

While in England, Lawrence is reunited with his estranged father, Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins), and finds himself falling for Gwen.

But a nighttime ride to a gypsy camp to uncover his brother’s killer ends in terror for Lawrence as the werewolf makes an unexpected appearance and Lawrence ends up being bitten.

Now Lawrence must cope with mending a broken relationship with his father, falling in love with his dead brother’s fiancee and, oh yeah, turning into a horrible monster.

The point of movies like this is not to have a flabbergasting ending but to plunge the audience into the story. Unfortunately, “Wolfman” is unable to grasp the viewer.

Having the lead role in your movie miscast, as was Benicio del Toro as the Wolfman, forces the rest of the film to rise above and beyond the call of duty to make up for such a noticeable lack — sadly, “Wolfman” fails to do this. A lesson for del Toro — being a producer does not mean that you should be the main character.

The shining beacon of this movie is undoubtedly Anthony Hopkins. He’s engaging and seems to get even creepier as he ages. (Is it even possible for him to top his role as Hannibal Lecter? Doubtful, but that doesn’t mean he’s not still scary.)

I actually was interested in this movie because of Emily Blunt (“Dan in Real Life,” “The Jane Austen Book Club,” “The Devil Wears Prada”), but this has been the first movie in which she has not totally captured me.

This movie does have some pretty interesting parts. I especially enjoyed the transformation sequences, but could have lived without most of the overdone fighting scenes. The atmospheric night scenes in the woods, however, were fairly frightening.

And they should have kept the viewers guessing [an engaged watcher’s imagination is all it takes to scare the wits out of someone, trust me] — because once you start getting some good, up-close-and-personal looks at the Wolfman, he’s not quite so scary anymore. More like Chewbacca with indigestion.

If you’re a fan of werewolves or of classic storytelling, “Wolfman” may be a movie worth watching.
But if you’re looking for a terrifying, action-packed gore-fest, this isn’t it (even the unedited version was tame enough for me to watch without covering my eyes).

2.5 of 5 stars

One-dimensional ‘9’ falls flat (3/5)

9

Starring: Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly.
Directed by: Shane Acker.
Rating: PG-13 for violence and scary images.
Running time: 1 hour, 19 minutes.

“9” had a lot of potential.

Its unique visual style is nothing short of amazing. The look of the characters themselves is enough to draw in the audience.

Unfortunately, these should not be the sole aspects that keep an audience interested through the film’s short running time. But, in the case of “9,” it almost is.

It goes without saying that most of the characters are one-dimensional. In fact, that’s almost the point. But it comes across as shallow and not at all as the profound plot device the creators intended.

“9” came on the heels of the successful “Coraline,” both produced by Tim Burton and under the oversight of Focus Features, and actually the very beginnings of both movies are exceptionally similar.

But where “Coraline” excelled in ingenuity and the exploration of a dark fantasy, “9” just leaves its audience wanting.

The movie takes place after the destruction of mankind. Before his death, a scientist created nine “stitchpunks” (as director Shane Acker calls them) because, he says, “life must go on.”

Each of the stitchpunks is made from piecing together various bits of fabric and material (zippers, camera lenses, canvas, etc.) and has a numeral hand-painted on its back.

When 9 awakens, he finds himself apparently alone in a desolate and bleak world. After leaving the dead scientist’s room, he soon finds the other stitchpunks, as well as a terrible, metallic dog-like monster.

Each of the stitchpunks has its own unique traits:

1: The oldest and leader of those stitchpunks that have not struck out on their own. His favorite sayings include “We have rules” and “Questions are pointless.” Blames 9 for many of the events that transpire after 9 awakens.

2: An old inventor who is fascinated with creating things.

3 and 4: Shy twins who live by themselves in a library. They soak up all of the knowledge they can and, lacking the ability to speak, are able to use their eyes as projectors.

5: A healer and a mechanic, 5 is also a devoted friend as seen with his attitudes toward 2 and 9.

6: Possibly insane, 6 draws the same forms on paper after paper. Lives with 1 but is mostly in a world of his own.

7: The “female” of the group, 7 is the warrior. She has abandoned 1’s ways of avoiding the metallic monster and instead seems to take it upon herself to try and destroy that which attacks the stitchpunks.

8: 1’s personal bodyguard, 8 is mean and seemingly clueless.

9: 9 is the character who most leans toward having any sort of depth. He is the “seeker of truth” and is very curious and sincere.

Like “District 9,” “9” began as a 10-minute short film created by Acker. This short film can be found on YouTube under the title “9,” but don’t watch it if you intend to watch the feature film. Watch it as a supplement instead. This short film has an astounding similarity to the feature film, but, while it may work as a 10-minute artistic venture, it just doesn’t function as well as a full-length motion picture.

A major problem with this film is the apparent lack of a target audience. I think here they tried to be the next “Finding Nemo” and appeal to people in all age groups, but somehow “9” just didn’t work out that way. Its fantastical elements, animated style and simple script would largely lend itself to younger viewers; however, the PG-13 rating and nigh-terrifying imagery would leave that crowd with nightmares. But the movie just doesn’t push enough boundaries to be that appealing to the older crowd, either.

It’s a wonderfully creative, imaginative idea. Unfortunately, the end product falls far short of the intended target.

‘D9’ fresh, innovative (4.5/5)

District 9

Starring: Sharlto Copley, William Allen Young, Robert Hobbs.
Directed by: Neill Blomkamp.
Rating: R for bloody violence and pervasive language.
Running time: 1 hours, 52 minutes.

Whatever you think “District 9” is — it’s not.

In an industry consumed by sequels, book adaptations and rehashed plotlines, director Neill  Blomkamp blows away the Hollywood norm in an explosion of innovation, blood and CGI splendor.

“District 9” is considered a remake of  Blomkamp’s 2005 six-minute effort “Alive in Joburg” (which you can find in its entirety on YouTube). But, having seen both, I’d rather classify “District 9” as an extension of the shorter movie. If you haven’t seen “District 9” yet, watching “Alive in Joburg” shouldn’t ruin any of the main feature; however, I would recommend watching “Joburg” after “District 9,” if only to have a completely fresh experience.

One of the coolest things about this movie is that it was never supposed to be made. Peter Jackson (esteemed director of “Lord of the Rings” and the “King Kong” remake) was set to produce a movie with Blomkamp at the helm based on the popular video game franchise “Halo.” When that project fell through, Jackson is rumored to have offered  Blomkamp $30 million to make whatever he wanted (a sum the movie made back in just its first weekend).

With “District 9,” Blomkamp proved that a movie doesn’t  need an excessive budget to be a good film. Take “Spiderman 3” for example — even a $258 million budget couldn’t save that poor excuse for a superhero movie — which is saying a lot because I really hate the “Fantastic 4” series (Jessica Alba can not act, I don’t care how pretty she is).

Too, I may have seen only two or three previews for this movie before I saw it (as opposed to other films where you see a preview a day for six months), but the oft-forgotten power of word-of-mouth really gave me high hopes for “District 9” — which  Blomkamp exceeded in every way possible.

The basic premise of the movie is that a group of aliens somehow became stranded in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 1980. The majority of the movie takes place in 2010, with the aliens segregated into the Johannesburg slum known as “District 9.” The South Africans are not happy with the aliens living in such close proximity — and so MNU (Multi-National United — a fictional technology innovation organization) charges field operative Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley) with the task of evicting and moving all of the aliens to a remote location.

And that’s as much as I’m going to tell you. A big contributing factor to making this movie extraordinary was not having a clue as to how it would unfold.

Copley, who never intended on becoming an actor, truly inhabits the character of Wikus. His performance is so convincing that the fact that he’s playing counter CGI aliens seems perfectly normal. Too, it’s refreshing to see new actors take on large roles (something Peter Jackson himself insisted on with “The Lord of the Rings”). Copley is able to draw an audience into the plot without being distracted by a celebrity status in a way that Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks wouldn’t, or couldn’t.

“District 9” is an amazing ride, from the mockumentary style to the mind-blowing (pun assuredly intended) alien weaponry. My boyfriend maintains that I hate action movies simply because I think that Bruce Willis acts exactly the same in every one, but let me assure you that I can appreciate well-crafted gore as much as the next person — something that “District 9” definitely cashed in on.


Blomkamp does not skimp on the blood, at times making you cringe away in horror while at other times leaving you slack jawed in amazement. My sole request with this movie is that they don’t ruin it with a sequel.

I greatly look forward to  Blomkamp’s next effort, and whether it be “Halo” or “The Wiggles,” “District 9” has unleashed a fresh, powerful directorial force.

4.5 of 5