Nothing says Valentine's Day like a good old-fashioned monster flick, eh? While clusters of people packed into the theater yesterday to see She's Just Not That Into You 2: Holiday Boogaloo, I eagerly awaiting to see what kind of werewolf would be wearing someone else's heart on their sleeve.
Would it be campy? Scary? Dark and broodingly gothic? Batshit crazy? In the end, it ended up being all of these. That, I think is one of the movie's biggest weaknesses. Well, that and making Dr. Gonzo play an English gentleman, but we'll get to that later.
The movie takes place in 1890s England, as werewolves can only be Dickens-era gentry or West Coast teenagers. Lawrence (Benicio del Toro) is an actor who ran away to America after a shady and tragic childhood, only to return after his brother is pureed by a mysterious beast. Racked with guilt and egged on by his brother's fiance, Lawrence runs off to the local gypsy camp to hunt said beastie. He gets in a tangle with it, and pretty soon he's feeling a little weird around the full moon. Meanwhile, his Hannibal Lector Dad is getting creepier and creepier.
First up, the good things. I'm a sucker for visuals, and the filmmakers did a good job; the cinematography and set dressings were spot-on, and the visual effects had the right combo of gore and magic. And of course, Anthony Hopkins was good & icky as Lawrence's dad.
Like I said before, though, the movie was pretty marred by what seems like a case of "too many chefs in the kitchen." The story was a mish-mash of 80+ years worth of werewolf stories, and the film itself was an equal mixed bag of styles. One minute it'd be magically realism sprinkled with special effects, the next minute it'd be surrealism chock full 'o gore. Suddenly it's Greek theater style family drama! Oh, wait, now it's cribbing Sherlock Holmes!
Hell, it couldn't even decide which Universal monster flick to reference. Of course there was the obligatory 40's Wolf Man salute, but I also noticed nods to Dracula, the Spanish Universal Dracula, and even King Kong.
Then there's the matter of the Wolf Man himself. When del Toro was in wolf-mode, he does a kick-ass job. Unfortunately, that's maybe 30 minutes of the movie; when he's Lawrence, it's weak sauce. His performance is pretty stilted and can be fairly distracting during scenes that are supposed to be dramatic and emotional.
It's a decent popcorn movie, and I might've enjoyed it more if I hadn't built it up in my head for four months. It's no horror classic, but it's an okay remedy for all the rom-com overload in the theaters right now.
Final verdict: 6/10
6 comments:
I was expecting this to be epic, but this about the best review for it I've read.
And Dickens should've totally written a werewolf novel.
I'm hoping its more like the Van Helsing level of so bad its good. I'm going to see it at some point...just because.
I don't know if it quite goes into "so bad it's good" territory (Oh lordy, Van Helsing was pretty smack dab in the middle of that territory). Maybe so. It's not really bad... just meh.
I spent most of Halloween on a couch making fun of Van Helsing. It was awesome.
I spent countless hours drooling at Van Helsing. Seriously that movie's plot didn't matter. Roxburgh, was hot...Jackman was hot and the little friar dude was hot. I watched it 3 times in the theater and about 4 times at home.
Oh yeah, I'll watch Jackman in anything.
Post a Comment