Noah (2014)

Year: 2014
Running Time: 138 minutes
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writers: Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel
Cast: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Ray Winstone, Emma Watson, Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth, Leo McHugh Carroll, Nick Nolte

If there is one thing that can be said about Darren Aronofsky's Noah, it is that it's most definitely ambitious. It is a huge story to tell, controversial and visually demanding to bring to the big screen. You have to give Aronofsky huge credit for taking on the task to make this story into a film and with all factors considered, he has done a good job. It is most certainly interesting to see how Aronofsky has put his spin on the biblical figure. Although far from a perfect film, there are many good things and is a film that is just asking for you to have a heated discussion about it with others.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had three sons, Cain, Abel and Seth. The descendants of Cain and Seth walk the Earth, with the descendants of Cain building civilisation and coming to represent the wickedness in men. Direct descendant of Seth, Noah (Russell Crowe) receives a message from the Creator that he is going to send a great flood to end the world of man. Noah, his wife Naameh (Jennifer Connelly) and three sons, Shem (Douglas Booth), Ham (Logan Lerman) and Japheth (Leo McHugh Carroll), as well as an orphaned girl they take in, Ila (Emma Watson), start building an ark which will save the innocent animals of the Earth when the flood comes. Noah's quest does not come without great responsibility and sacrifice, and he tests the loyalty of all those close to him.

This film was always going to cause a huge amount of controversy. Noah has been banned in several countries including Qatar and United Arab Emirates as it is seen to contradict Islamic teachings. It has also been controversial among both Christians and Atheists. While the name God is never uttered in the film, several biblical figures including Adam and Eve and their children are mentioned as are angels, which are all products of Christianity. The whole film itself, whether it mentions it or not, is still based on the Bible and Christian ideas, so there is still no escaping the religion itself. However, several pieces of Noah's story from Genesis have been tweaked so it can be said that it is inspired by the Bible, but not a biblical film. This is one way which this film was always going to be a big ask for Aronofsky, as there was never any doubt that it was going to be a huge challenge to keep the majority of people happy. Of course you can never please everyone, but having more people like it than dislike it was always going to be the goal.

So all controversy and conversations of who believes in who and what aside, does Aronofsky's translation of Noah work well on the screen? It depends on which way you look at it. If you do want a retelling of the version of Noah which we have all come to know, it is adequate. The first hour of the film is very slow moving and not overly interesting. It is when the flood comes that the film becomes it's most intriguing. The first half of the film also see's the inclusion of the Watchers, which are a very strange inclusion in the film. The Watchers, although meant to be a version of angels trapped on Earth in stone like bodies, look more like a cross between Transformers and the Ents from The Lord of The Rings. Their physical appearance seem incredibly out of place in the film. On the other hand, if you see the film as being about Noah the man, it is quite intriguing. Again, the psychological state of Noah doesn't really become main theme until the second half of the film and that is when things become really interesting as we start to see that Noah is just a man with strong emotions. The only suspense (because let's face it, we know what happens to the world as a result of the flood), is seeing what becomes of Noah and if he is strong enough mentally to cope with the challenge he is presented with.

Noah was always going to be a visually challenging film. Not challenging for the viewers, but challenging for the film makers to do what needs to be done to make it realistic and spectacular. The flood scenes are the ones which were going to have the most emphasis put on them by the public as that is the event everybody associates with the name Noah. These scenes are quite spectacular, as you would hope they would be. They are powerful and all that you would hope these scenes would be. Some of the panoramic landscape shots of before the ark is built as quite beautiful, but some of the techniques employed and editing for presenting them are off-putting. Fade to black is overused and can become irritating while the family are travelling across the land, and the cinematography of the stream as it winds throughout the land feels very out of place. What is amazing is that no animals were used in the filming of Noah, which is truly incredible. There are some animals which are obviously computer generated, but some others which look so lifelike that it is a shock to think they are not as they seem.

Russell Crowe does do very well as Noah. Although this is not really a huge stretch from many of his past roles, he still plays the role very well. His best moments are towards the end when Noah really starts to first become more aggressive and then collapses under his guilt. When Noah starts to show his emotions, that is when Crowe really starts to give a great as opposed to a good performance. Jennifer Connolly is also very good, but just like Crowe, has her best moments towards the end of the film. Ray Winstone, who plays Tubal-Cain is terrifying. He is a truly great villain as you feel real hatred towards him, but he just is so good at what he does.

While Crowe may be the lead man, it is Emma Watson who is the star of the film. She is absolutely wonderful in Noah as the girl who is in love with Shem and is loved as a daughter by Noah and Naameh, but feels she is a burden on the family and Shem, especially considering she is infertile. Watson's performance is so emotionally charged and she makes a huge connection with the audience as they feel her pain and cry when she cries. This is Watson's best performance to date and she is the one in the film people will remember when they talk about this film. Logan Lerman also does well, but he really only has one scene which is considered powerful.

Noah is a memorable film, but not because it is a wonderful film. It is a great conversation starter for it's background, rather than for it's content and this isn't what makes a great film.

6/10

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

 

Year: 2013

Running Time: 120 minutes

Director: Alan Taylor

Writers: Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgard, Chris O'Dowd, Idris Elba, Christopher Eccleston

 

Thor: The Dark World is now showing in Australia and the United Kingdom. Opening in the USA on the 8th November 2013.

There was never any doubt that Thor: The Dark World was going to reminiscent of it's predecessor, which was just a little bit corny, but still a lot of fun.

And it has proved itself to be just that. However, it has avoided the pitfall that many sequels tend to fall into, which is the "The sequel is never as good as the first" category. That isn't to say that Thor: The Dark World is better than the first film, but it is also not noticeably worse than it. Sequel business aside, it is also surprisingly comical and, not so surprisingly, action packed.

Years ago, the Dark Elves entered into battle to return the universe to the dark it was once in, but using an element called Aether. Since then the Dark Elves have been banished and are only awakened when Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) finds the Aether and has it enter her body. Jane hasn't seen Thor (Chris Hemsworth) since he left her in the first film, but he returns to her as soon as he believes she is in danger. He takes her to Asgard to keep her safe and in his sights while the Dark Elves are after her. However, there is one ally Thor needs more than anybody else in these times, and that is his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who, of course, is locked in the dungeon after trying to destroy the world.

Thor: The Dark World is by all means what you would expect from it. It is more about the action, spectacle and entertainment than about the dramatic, realistic and sentimental. The action sequences sure are impressive, especially the final showdown set in Greenwich. The CGI used to create Asgard and it's surroundings is very well done, although Asgard seems to have suddenly become a cross between a cross between Rivendell from The Lord of The Rings and Naboo from Star Wars. There is also a scene between Natalie Portman and Chris Hemsworth which is almost visually identical to one in Attack of the Clones between her and Hayden Christensen.

As was the case with the original Thor, the script is as corny as can be. Thor himself seems to be a corny character in general, which can often come with the territory of being a buff and handsome god. He is not particularly a character who has cinematically been represented in a serious light, so the amount of humour in the script seems appropriate. While the first half of Thor: The Dark World tends to be somewhat mediocre as not much really happens, the second hour is much better as there is more humour, action and more of Tom Hiddleston's Loki. There is so much humour that the film somewhat borders on a comedy. However, the comedy in the film does work and proves rather enjoyable and entertaining.

Even though Hemsworth's Thor is the star of the film, the film has it's best moments when Tom Hiddleston is on screen. Loki is an extremely complex character. He obviously has an evil past, but this doesn't change the fact that you never quite know what his motives are. Hiddleston makes Loki into a character which the audience feels a real connection with and he is truly the highlight of the film.

Hemsworth does well enough, but his character, as opposed to Loki's is very one-dimensional and nto quite as interesting. Natalie Portman does well as Jane Foster, but often falls into the corniness that Thor does, as one would guess considering she is his love interest. Kat Dennings is also very funny as Darcy and like Hiddleston, doesn't have a bad scene in the whole film. Chris O'Dowd is also on screen for a very short amount of time, but is memorable for his well delivered comedic dialogue.

Thor: The Dark World achieves exactly what it sets out to do as it is entertaining and enjoyable for the most part. Perhaps not the best and most original action production in recent times, but still has some moments worth seeing the film for.

6.5/10



You may have also seen Chris Hemsworth in.....
Thor and The Avengers as Thor
Rush as James Hunt

You may have also seen Tom Hiddleston in....
Thor and The Avengers as Loki
Midnight In Paris as F. Scott Fitzgerald

You may have also seen Natalie Portman in.....
Thor as Jane Foster
Black Swan as Nina Sayers

Red 2 (2013)

Year: 2013

Running Time: 116 minutes

Director: Dean Parisot

Writers: Jon and Erich Hoeber

Cast: Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Anthony Hopkins, Byung-hun Lee

Red 2 opens in Australian cinemas on August 29 and is distributed by Hopscotch Films. Now showing in the USA and UK.

While Red 2 tries to promise a great film experience by tempting you with an amazingly ensembled cast, the film is rarely better than plain bland.

The last 25 minutes of the film are perhaps the best, but it takes a lot of patience to get to this point and not have given up on the film. However, the sequel to 2010's Red is saved by thoroughly entertaining performances by Helen Mirren, John Malkovich and Anthony Hopkins and some pretty exciting action sequences....no matter how unlikely and unrealistic those sequences may be.

Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is back with his girlfriend, Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker) and once partner in crime and best friend, Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich). Frank and Marvin have been linked incorrectly to a secret operation called Nightshade and are on the run from the authorities as a result. As well as having the authorities on their tails, Victoria (Helen Mirren) has been hired to kill Frank, as has Han (Byung-hun Lee). Together they try to find out exactly what is this top secret operation is that they have been linked to and when they finally find Nightshade creator, Dr Edward Bailey (Anthony Hopkins), everyone realises that there is more than meets the eye to Nightshade.

Although it has it's entertaining moments thanks largely to it's wonderful cast, Red 2 is quite lack lustre and borders on the ridiculous on more than one occasion. It is in the first 20 minutes when watching Bruce Willis' Frank take on 15 armed men and come out victorious that you can't help but scoff at how unlikely this seems. Of course in the majority of action films there is usually the presence of less than realistic action sequences, but here in Red 2 we just have no belief that Frank Moses is all he claims to be even though he has so many near death moments throughout the film that he lives through.

Although the script can be just as ridiculous at times. Some of the dialogue (especially that said by Mary-Louise Parker) can be particularly silly and annoying. The story itself has some good moments, such as the uncovering of the Nightshade mystery. Yet it also has it's bad and unnecessary moments, such as the inclusion of the side story of Frank and Katya (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and inclusion of the character of Katya at all. The ending of the film doesn't gather any suspense at all with a conclusion as predictable as the end of day.

On the positive side of things, there are some very entertaining moments in Red 2. Perhaps the best scene in the film is when Victoria and Han are in the car together and the shoot out that takes place. Visually, it was an interesting decision Dean Parisot made to link scenes together by having an outline of the last character seen on screen, and then a red screen leading to a shot of the location for the next scene with the name of the city included. It doesn't really add anything to the film, but there is no real reason to dislike it. It is just an interesting inclusion which makes it a bit more like the traditional comic book to film adaptation.

While there are some ordinary performances by some actors in Red 2, there are some other very entertaining performances. Bruce Willis. who is the main character of the film, seems to be playing the same role he has played in countless films before. His performance doesn't contain any points for discussion, other than it was just mediocre and flat. Mary-Louise Parker plays a character who is just plain irritating, far more irritating than in the first film. Her naivety for the situations she finds herself in is more stupid than endearing. She is not a particularly strong nor inspiring female figure.

Helen Mirren is the best part of the film with her brilliant delivery of her colourful dialogue. She is an amazing female action star and is cooler than many in the younger generation of butt-kicking females in action at the moment. Those who are followers of Mirren's career will have a good giggle at her scene in the asylum where she mimics a character she has played in the past.

Catherine Zeta-Jones' character is not overly useful in the grand scheme of things and her inclusion really isn't necessary. It isn't a particularly interesting performance by her, but it would be hard to give a great performance of a character who really isn't that great. Anthony Hopkins gives a very good performance as Dr Edward Bailey and shows that he can just as likable as he can subtly terrifying. John Malkovich provides great comic relief to the film with some cracking lines and very funny antics.

Red 2 is just a little too mediocre to make it a successful sequel. As a stand alone film, it not a success by any means. However, the presence of Helen Mirren, Anthony Hopkins and John Malkovich make the film bearable enough.

4.5/10


You may have also seen Bruce Willis in....
Looper as Joe

You may have also seen Helen Mirren in....
The Last Station as Countess Sofya
Hitchcock as Alma Reville

You may have also seen Anthony Hopkins in....
Hitchcock as Alfred Hitchcock

Hitchcock (2012)

Year: 2012

Director: Sacha Gervasi

Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, James D’Arcy, Jessica Biel, Toni Collette

Before I begin my review…

Let me have a selfish moment, I was so, so excited about Hitchcock considering I am a HUGE Alfred Hitchcock fan.

HUGE as in the man is my all-time favourite director. In a time where something a little too different in a film was considered not risky but just plain wrong, Hitchcock was the only director who could try something different in his films and be considered an absolute genius. He embraced film as the art form that it is as well as wanting to completely enthral his audience.

Like all old Hollywood films, actors and directors, it upsets me how so many people these days are ignorant to his genius. They only know bits and pieces about the great man. As much as I love Psycho, there are a lot of people out there who have just heard about the movie and haven’t even seen it. Then they assume that Hitchcock was primarily a horror film maker as they just think of the Psycho shower scene. He was the master of suspense and yes, Psycho and The Birds are considered horror films, but the large majority of his film catalogue are categorised as mystery and thriller.

Take for example someone I once served when working in retail.

My co-worker: Are you a Hitchcock fan?

Myself: Yes, I am a Hitchcock fan

Customer: What, you're a fan of being scared?

Myself: I'm just a fan of good film making

(Customer gives blank look)

This conversation just proves to me that some people, who aren’t film crazy like myself, do not understand the true genius of Hitchcock, nor do they understand that he was one of the greatest film makers of all time and not just a horror film director.

And just because we are on the subject of Hitchcock, my top five Hitchcock films are Vertigo (James Stewart, Kim Novak), Rebecca (Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine), North By Northwest (Cary Grant, Eve Marie Saint), Rear Window(James Stewart, Grace Kelly) and Psycho (Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh), with Shadow Of A Doubt and Marnie.

Everybody is welcome to share their top five Hitchcock films in the comments section!

Review

Hitchcock allows the great man to be seen as never before behind the scenes of one of his greatest movies, Psycho.

For movie lovers, Hitchcock is extremely interesting as it gives you a behind the scenes look at Psycho, but also what happened when the cameras stopped rolling and Alfred Hitchock went home to his wife, Alma Reville. However, people who are not as enthralled with film and its history may find the film slow and lacking in the suspense department…maybe even a tad predictable. However, predictability is something that was always going to be hard to avoid with such a film about a film which is perhaps one of the most popular horror films ever made.

Alfred Hitchcock’s (Anthony Hopkins) latest film, North by Northwest has just opened and is a huge success, but Hitchcock knows that you are only as successful as your last film. He takes a chance on Psycho, the film Hollywood is afraid to touch and goes on his emotional journey of dealing with the censors and with his leading ladies. While when he leaves the set, he enters another emotional battlefield with his wife and uncredited business partner, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren).

Perhaps the biggest problem with Hitchcock, which may not even really be a problem, is that you always know where the movie is going. It is no secret that Psycho was a success when it was released in 1960 and still continues to be to this day, so this is really not a film of suspense about the master of suspense. Even Hitchcock’s relationship with his wife is fairly predictable.

 However, is this really a problem? The film does what it is supposed to be as it informs and entertains whether you know what is going to happen or not. It is great fun to watch and really is very interesting. Hitchcock fans in general will love the film and those who don’t know too much about him will find out plenty about him and about the production of Psycho.

The film is quite well made, although there are some interesting choices made by director, Sacha Gervasi. Gervasi has designed Hitchcock as though we are actually watching an Alfred Hitchcock film. He implies that Hitchcock’s mind actually did work like one of his films, as is shown in some of his scenes with Alma, especially with the scene in the kitchen. It does work well for the film and makes it a tad quirky, much like Hitchcock’s films. However, at times it does seem as though he is trying to do a little too much and trying to make it abstract in ways it doesn’t need to be. Once again, nobody can do Hitchcock like Hitchcock.

Yet, some of Gervasi’s choices of scenes in the film are a bit odd in that they seem out of place in the film and don’t seem to add to the film as a whole. For example, the scenes of Alma with the red bathing suit. You can see what Gervasi is trying to say, but it is already a point that has been made without needing to be pointed out once again.

The script, as written by John J. McLaughlin, is great. It covers every aspect of Hitchcock’s relationships and puts beautifully into words his fascination with his leading ladies. The banter between Hitchcock and Alma is also very entertaining.

There are some wonderful performances in Hitchcock. What can you say about Anthony Hopkins? With Hopkins you know you are never going to see a bad performance and this role proves his consistency. Hopkins has studied all of Hitchcock’s facial expressions, body language and speech and has it all perfected. He gives a wonderful performance and truly brings the man back to life.

Helen Mirren gives an absolute knockout performance. However, like Hopkins, Mirren is an actor who you just expect brilliance from. She gives an absolutely amazing monologue in the film when Hitchcock asks her for support which sends shivers down your spine.

What both Hopkins and Mirren have in this film, is the ability to tell so much about the way they are feeling without having to use words.

Scarlett Johansson gives an above average performance as Janet Leigh and again brings the actress back to life. Her recreation of the infamous shower scene is her absolute shining moment of the film. James D’Arcy is also a very convincing Anthony Perkins.

Hitchcock is a wonderfully informative and entertaining biopic with some brilliant performances. A must see for any old Hollywood and Hitchcock fanatics. Hopkins does the Alfred Hitchcock complete and utter justice.

7.5/10

References
The Internet Movie Database
She Knows

Thor

Thor
Year: 2011
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, Anthony Hopkins, Kat Dennings, Tom Hiddleston

In My Own Words
It's amazing what "Home & Away" does for Australian actors. For those who don't know, "Home & Away" is an Australian drama series that airs every weeknight at 7pm in Australia and has been doing so since 1988.  I once had an actress friend who said that she never wanted to go on "Home & Away" because it was "trash"....funnily enough she never made it very far in her chosen profession as I haven't heard of her since . As much as people such as this past "actress" like to bag out "Home & Away", it does provide up and coming actors with a fantastic stepping stone to future international success.  I'm not saying that if you take part in "Home & Away", you are definately going to become a Hollywood star, but for the ones who really want to take the big leap and try their luck in Hollywood it must look great on their resume. Let's look at some past "Home & Away" actors, shall we? Isla Fisher played Shannon from 1994-1997 and is has been in films such as "Wedding Crashers" and "Confessions Of A Shopaholic", not to mention being Sacha Baron Cohen's wife and the mother of his child. Isabel Lucas of "Transformers" fame's first role was as Tasha for four years in "Home & Away". Melissa George, who has had several successful Hollywood roles in the remake of "The Amityville Horror" and "Derailed" as well as television roles in "Grey's Anatomy" and "In Treatment". Ryan Kwanten started off his career on "Home & Away" as well as bad boy Vinnie. The list goes on and on. The star of "Thor", Chris Hemsworth, is also a "Home & Away" alumni. I remember I once saw Hemsworth walking along a street in Sydney while I was out at my work Christmas party one year. He's come a long way since then! And, like many other Australian actors, he has "Home & Away" to thank for kick starting his career!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
"Thor" is reminiscent of what the old action/fantasy movies used to be like, yet still has the characteristics of a Marvel Comic production. Largely carried by extremely impressive special effects, but is still a big cheeseball. "Thor" is definately amazing as far as the visuals go and there are some great moments in the narrative, but there are still some momentsin the script and direction which instigate a roll of the eyes. It is an interesting project for Kenneth Branagh as looking over his past directorial career, "Thor" is his first attempt at a comic book adaptation or an action spectacular. He is no stranger to Shakespearean cinema and there are indeed some Shakespearean references in "Thor". In Short, "Thor" highlights Branagh's strong points as a director and his low points. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has always dreamt of the day when he will be crowned king of Asgard. His father, the current king Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is about to crown him king when their long time enemies, the Frost Giant's bring havoc to Asgard so Thor goes after them without his fathers permission. Odin is so furious with his son that he banishes him to Earth, where Thor meets scientist, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). Thor tries to get back to Asgard, but finds out that his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is working against him and will do anything to no let his brother back into Asgard so he can be king.

"Thor" is very much a touch and go situation. There are some really wonderful things about it and some other things that, as said before, just make you want to roll your eyes. It could almost be divided into two movies. One is a great action film set in the a fantasy world where a great battle is taking place, while the other film is a lack lustre and corny romance story set in New Mexico. The first movie is really quite spectacular to see on the big screen. The graphics are absolutely outstanding and completely bewildering, especially if you see this film in 3D. Asgard is almost like a cross between the Emerald City (except gold)in "The Wizard Of Oz" and Naboo in "Star Wars" and has the elegance and grace of ancient civilizations. The cinematography is wonderful throughout all the scenes in "Thor", as is the editing in the action sequences. Yet, there is the problems of the script. Of course it is corny in the way that comic book films are so it is forgiven for that reason. It would be a worry if there was a comic book adaptation trying to be completely serious and dramatic. Branagh has got this part right. Although it is a lot cornier on Earth than Asgard. The romance between Thor and Jane is very comic book romance. Absolutely over done, predictable and cheesy. But hey, thats comic book romances for you!

After seeing "Black Swan", it was almost like a feeling of finally being able to exhale seeing Natalie Portman in this film. Her performance is nowhere near the intensity of that of Nina in "Black Swan" and it is so lovely to see her in a role like this. It is an exceptionally easy one for her and she seems very natural and at ease herself. Chris Hemsworth isn't too bad, but again is very comic book hero corny on Earth. When he is in Asgard, his acting is actually a fair percentage better than on Earth, especially when he is fighting with his father. Anthony Hopkins is flawless as usual and adds emotion and intensity to the film. Not a bad word can be said about Tom Hiddleston. He's perhaps not as evil as what he could be, but that isn't something that remains in your mind when you leave the cinema. Kat Dennings is a great addition to the film and adds humour as Jane's sidekick, Darcy.

"Thor" is a typical comic book movie crossed with the grand spectacle, historical action film. It is just good entertainment. Not a dramatic masterpiece like Branagh is used to directing, but still good viewing. Cheeseball fun.
6.5/10

The Wolfman

The Wolfman
Year: 2010
Director: Joe Johnston
Cast: Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving

Can an unoriginal film ever be classified as a great film? That is the question posed with “The Wolfman”. It can definitely be a good film, but nothing that is worthy of the highest praise. Of course, there are always exceptions, but “The Wolfman” does not feel as though it is. However, it is by no means a bad film. Joe Johnston does a great job at making a well made film out of an idea that has been done over and over in the past 100 years of film. In this 2010 version of “The Wolfman” (there have been numerous films relating the werewolves and wolf men over the years, too many to list here), Lawrence Talbot (Benicio del Toro) returns to his childhood town of Blackmoor in England to investigate the death of his brother. He is confronted with his father (Anthony Hopkins), who had a large hand in contributing to his disturbing childhood and also some disturbing revelations about himself and his family. There is no guessing what those revelations are.

On the whole, “The Wolfman” is very well made. The recreation of turn of the century England is extremely impressive and makes for a perfect period piece. The visuals of the film in each scene are captivating and aesthetically pleasing. A horror period piece is not a common breed of movie, as one only comes out every few years, and it is exciting to see the most recent perfect the period visually. The script isn’t bad and also captures the period piece, but the story is a typical werewolf story. It is highly predictable and can be quite silly. But these two criticisms are true to the film’s genre. The criticisms of the film are criticisms that could be applied to any film of its genre and any werewolf film both past and present. However, again, it is a good film for its genre.

The role of Lawrence Talbot for Benicio Del Toro is in some ways a different role to what he is typically seem playing. Del Toro takes on the gentleness of the grieving Talbot to begin with well, which is a change from the usual harsh quality of his roles. In some ways, he feels miscast as Sir John Talbot’s son, until he makes his transformation to the monster of the film. It is then obvious to see why he was cast in this role as physically, he is perfect for the role. “The Wolfman” is by far not Anthony Hopkins best role of his career, and is almost forgettable, if it wasn’t for some unsettling moments. Emily Blunt performs well, as she does in period dramas. Blunt is one of those rare young actresses who can successfully pull off characters from any time in history, although her role as Gwen here is like a non-regal version of the young queen she played in “The Young Victoria”. Hugo Weaving is a standout in the film in the role of Abberline. He is dark and sarcastic, but his wit makes him strangely endearing.

“The Wolfman” is definitely enjoyable to watch and if you take it as a horror film with the classic werewolf character, it is not a bad film at all. However, if you are expecting a suspenseful film with an ending that is surprising, there is a disappointment in store. “The Wolfman” is a highly anticipated film release and lives up to its expectation.
6.5/10