Leigh Whannell’s “Wolf Man” takes a daring swing in the reinvention of the classic creature feature, a similar swing he took with mad scientists in his 2020 Blumhouse reboot, “The Invisible Man.” Whannell’s recent works offer a raw take on the Universal Monster movies, but “Wolf Man” is ultimately a foul ball of a creature feature.
With “The Invisible Man” delivering a home run low-budget thriller, it seemed like a new dawn for the so-called “Dark Universe” — a franchise that was meant to resurrect Lon Chaney Jr.’s most iconic roles, which had imploded before its first full moon.
Originally announced as a Ryan Gosling-led revival, “Wolf Man” has transformed into a different beast, starring Christopher Abbott in the titular role. Gosling’s attachment initially generated buzz, but ultimately Abbott proves to be a much better choice. Known for his expertise in playing tortured, complex characters, such as in “Possessor” and “James White,” Abbott brings a unique intensity to the role. His dark, melancholic eyes and the simmering rage he conveys align perfectly with the deeply unsettling nature of lycanthropy, making him an inspired casting choice in an otherwise dull reboot.
Abbott stars as Blake, a struggling writer and stay-at-home dad to the adorable Ginger (Matilda Firth), though he’s clearly anxious about a temper that flares up from time to time. Struggling to keep his marriage afloat to his wife Charlotte (Julia Garner), whose paper-thin character details include looking far happier with her work colleagues than she does with her own family, one of the many flaws in Whannell and Corbett Tuck’s script. Following the discovery of Blake’s father’s passing, the Lovell’s decide to relocate to Blake’s childhood home, where the family encounters a familiar beast in a road accident near the home. But this beast has infected Blake, causing him to change into something terrible.
“Wolf Man” adopts a more realistic angle with its ‘infected storyline, contrasting the ‘cursed’ narratives of the werewolf films that came before it. Despite its intriguing premise, the execution lacks the depth and tension needed to fully immerse the audience, ultimately diluting what could have been an intriguing twist on werewolf lore. Poor decision-making by the leads and an absence of any truly memorable set pieces further weaken the experience. A climactic scene atop a flimsy greenhouse, which is built up to be suspenseful, unfortunately leaves your cheeks unclenched.
As tempting as it may be to applaud Whannell for the avoidance of bad CGI and moments of gnarly practicality, his ultra-grounded approach is ineffective and a terrible fit for a movie that feels gnarled to the bone, leaving us with predictable plot beats and a handful of drab werewolf duels.
The movie has its heart in the right place but it’s been crammed into an always pathetic January slate, where studios dump films they have no confidence in. Even though Whannell creatively gives us some satisfying moments — like werewolf vision and decent practical effects — there are too many unpleasant, suspenseless moments that keep this beast from howling.
“Wolf Man” generously takes inspiration from David Cronenberg’s “The Fly,” but what made that film so effective was how easy it was to care for Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis’ characters. Abbott and Garner are never given a chance to get real even when there is an emotional throughline that is present within the film. When the time comes to feel anything, the credits are already rolling.
Running away from its potential with its tail tucked between its legs, the film limps its way through this semi-feral drama about parental fears, never mustering enough bite to turn those anxieties into the visceral action it attempts to throw on screen.
“Wolf Man” falls into the purgatorial space of being a watchable but empty take on a classic monster that just goes to show new isn’t always better.
Related Stories:
- Clear your afternoon with the ‘Settle In’ collection at Gene Siskel Film Center
- ‘Nosferatu’ review – Remake of horror classic casts writing on the wall
- ‘Gladiator II’ review – A sequel 20-years in the making struggles to make a lasting impact
Stay informed with The DePaulia’s top stories,
delivered to your inbox every Monday.
