Wolf Man: Our Honest Movie Review
On January 17, a new entry in the modern Universal Monsters cinematic pantheon hit the big screen: Leigh Whannell's "Wolf Man."
As a Universal Monsters news site, we felt obligated to cover the new release, so we attended the first Friday showing. If you weren't aware of this new Universal Monsters movie, you're not alone—there was minimal promotion, which often spells doom for a film releasing in January's post-holiday doldrums.
"Wolf Man" comes from "The Invisible Man" director Leigh Whannell. After the success of "The Invisible Man" during the COVID era, could lightning strike twice?
The movie bears little resemblance to a traditional Universal Monsters film. It's visually muted, sometimes nearly pitch-black, with the werewolf mythology updated for a more grounded take on lycanthropy. Though set in Oregon's expansive wilderness, the film maintains a claustrophobic atmosphere as a family flees from an elusive wolf creature—only to discover their patriarch is transforming into one himself. In a sequence reminiscent of "Night of the Living Dead," the family becomes trapped in an old farmhouse, attempts a truck escape, and retreats when the vehicle fails (though mercifully doesn't explode). While the body count remains low, several gruesome scenes will challenge squeamish viewers. The practical effects impress, as do the performances from Christopher Abbott as the father, Julia Garner as his wife and Matilda Firth as their daughter.
"Wolf Man" succeeds as both a good movie and an effective horror film. It kept me genuinely spooked and guessing—exactly what I want from a great movie. As a writer, when I can predict a film's every move, it usually signals a paint-by-numbers disappointment. "Wolf Man" avoids this trap. However, it falls short as a Universal Monsters movie.
Here are my key takeaways:
The film has no connection to Universal Classic Monsters whatsoever—no hints, nods, sly references, homages, not even a mention of Talbot. While I wasn't expecting a sequel or reimagining of Lon Chaney Jr.'s 1941 version, this complete disconnect relegates the film to "just another werewolf movie" status.
The film is literally dark—at times, the theater was nearly pitch-black. While my older local theater may have contributed to this, even the opening outdoor scenes made me suspect projection issues upon initially seeing them.
Beyond the Universal Monsters disconnect, the film largely abandons traditional werewolf lore. There's no moon-howling (I'm not even sure the moon appears), no silver bullets, no wolfsbane. Most notably, there's no reversible transformation from man to wolf—it's a one-way journey. Unlike the 1941 film's gypsy curse, this lycanthropy stems from a virus. Where Larry Talbot's awareness of his fate created suspense, here we witness Blake's transformation through both his perspective and his family's eyes, including some fascinating effects that suggest a dog's-eye view.
The family drama feels heavy-handed, particularly in the first half. While developing the father-daughter relationship, the writing labors to show Blake avoiding his own father's overbearing mistakes—a point made too repeatedly for my taste.
The ending feels abrupt. After resolving the immediate crisis, we get a scenic Oregon shot and roll credits. Questions go unanswered between characters. Are there more werewolves? The opening's X-Files-like text and flashback establish intrigue that dissipates in the present-day story. With so few characters—by mid-movie, only mother and daughter remain as the father transforms—there's little room for exposition. Viewers must piece together the film's werewolf mythology themselves. The opening text's reference to Native American werewolf knowledge provides the only hint that this isn't just an isolated case of three men becoming "canine monsters" from a viral infection over thirty years.
Our final verdict: 3 full moons out of 5.
Comments