Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes
Del Toro gives his least mumbly performance in years, Blunt provides the film with a little heart and Hopkins delivers the laughs.
There's a dispiritingly rote and uninvolving air about The Wolfman that keeps the movie from being the slightest bit frightening for anyone old enough to see it.
New York Times:
The title character in The Wolfman suffers from a vexing identity crisis, and so does the movie.
Wall Street Journal:
A film that begins in an eerie gothic mist of suggestion-and turns into a toothless exercise in the obvious.
A few stray livers and severed heads aside, this is a monster too polite for its own good.
The Wolfman ends up a disappointment, then, somewhat interesting in places, but nothing to howl about.
A misty, moody Saturday-matinee monster-chiller-horror special that hits the same sweet spot for moviegoers of a certain age (cough) as those snap-together Frankenstein model kits from the late 1960s.
The Wolfman constitutes a pleasant surprise, if "pleasant" can be used to describe a brooding $100 million-plus diversion with this many beheadings and eviscerations.
Actors fulminate and masticate, spit, scowl and sob; what a gas it is to watch them overact with joy and conviction.
Dallas Morning News:
Consider The Wolfman a pedigreed genre yarn, mindful of its precedents but nimble enough to have a good time in the here and now.
Anthony Hopkins portrays Sir John Talbot. Benicio Del Toro is prodigal son Lawrence. That's a great deal of acting sinew for an oddly anemic outing.
Benicio Del Toro pulls off a nifty trick in The Wolfman: He makes turning into a werewolf look as dull as doing your taxes.
The Wolfman, hokey and uneven though it is, [has] the kind of authentic emotional hook that too many horror movies today don't have.
This is the rare blockbuster that offers its characters - and its audience - no shelter.
Benicio Del Toro stars in this lushly art-designed 19th-century period film, but his beefcake-gone-bad magnetism is not enough to justify sitting through a movie that's full of sound, fury and unintentional camp -- and is still bafflingly inert.
The Wolfman is hardly O'Neill, but it always had subtexts of alpha-male dominance, sexual repression, compulsive behavior and father-son feuds. Johnston runs so fast away from all of it you'd think it was wolfsbane.
New York Daily News:
There's a lot to appreciate in the shaggy, imperfect but still fun new version of The Wolf Man.
New York Observer:
Johnston sacrifices originality for computer graphics and stop-motion camera tricks, and the script, by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self, bulges with real howlers: "I didn't know you hunted monsters." "Sometimes monsters hunt you!"
The root problem with The Wolfman is that it's a hybrid. It tries to fuse the gothic storytelling of the original with the violence and gore associated with modern horror.
It's exactly what it's supposed to be: an upscale goth B-movie with dark humor and buckets of blood.
In any event, The Wolfman makes a satisfactory date movie for Valentine's Day, which is more than can be said for Valentine's Day.
The Wolfman bites, but not -- I think -- in the way the filmmakers intended.
It doesn't know whether it wants to be dark and moodily glamorous or ridiculous and gory -- it's a creature feature suffering from extreme class consciousness.
Minneapolis Star Tribune:
A lavish coffee table book of a horror film, The Wolfman features visuals so beautifully planned and executed that each frame begs to be lingered over and savored.
With its mist-shrouded sets, gruesome slaughter and copious CGI, this is a surprisingly respectful updating of the 1941 Universal original.
There's not much to recommend this dull, cheerless and not very scary re-imagining of the classic 1941 film.
"Why so serious?" would be an excellent question to direct at the makers of The Wolfman, a high-toned, bloody but otherwise bloodless effort.
While it's sleeker and more sophisticated than the Chaney version, this new Wolfman isn't any scarier.