"The Wolfman" ** (out of four): This been-there-mauled-that monster movie gets points for being loud and rather bloody, but it still hasn't found a way to make werewolves interesting.
![wolfman[1].jpg](http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/wolfman%5B1%5D.jpg)
Ah, werewolves. In the pantheon of great movie monsters, the lycanthropes have always played second-fiddle to vampires. Just look at the "Twilight" series for one recent example. Still, Hollywood can't resist giving the fanged ones a shot now and then. From a marketing standpoint, it makes sense. If vampires play well to your target audience, why not try werewolves? Well, a couple of reasons: (1) like the Hulk, werewolves are simply not that interesting once they transform - they're just snarling beasts; (2) the transformation sequences - so memorable in "An American Werewolf in London" - usually look cheesy. But hey, vampires are still en vogue (if you haven't checked out "Daybreakers" yet, Netflix it), so it was only a matter of time before their hirsute brethren got a big screen make-over.
The time is now, in the form of the simply-named "The Wolfman". And, while it gets points for being loud and rather bloody, the film still hasn't cracked the code of making a great werewolf movie.
Stumble This
If you liked this story, you might also like...
- Our complete archive of Big Picture Reviews.



Once again, my last name used as wordplay in a bad film review. But I'm okay with it. I put up with it a lot less than Joe McThisFilmSucked.