The Wolfman

Kristie and I had a date night last night and left right after work to catch the late matinee of The Wolfman at the River Cinema in EGF.

We had the theater all to ourselves until about one minute into the film. That's when some stragglers wandered in.

No problem.

That was until a couple came in with . . . gulp . . . most of all pet peeves . . . their baby!

What possesses people to bring an infant to a movie in the first place is far out of my realm of all that is conceivable that I can't even venture a guess. But what on earth would motivate them to bring a poor little baby to a horror movie with loud haunting music and plenty of screaming?

Fortunately, the mother kept taking the infant out into the hallway whenever she would wake up (imagine that!).

In all I bet she didn't see more than a 1/3 of the film.

Why even bother?

Morale of the story: If you can neither afford or find a babysitter, stay home with your baby!

Outside of that, I enjoyed the film.

I'm a big werewolf fan, and this update of the old Universal The Wolfman (1941) mostly lived up to my expectations.

I've seen the original a couple of times, and it's okay. I think it had a much more profound effect on the baby boomers than my generation. My generation's version of The Wolfman was the classic (and greatest werewolf film so far) An American Werewolf in London. I still remember that one scaring me from the living room and into the kitchen when it came on HBO.

The new Wolfman has a strong cast - Anthony Hopkins and Benicio Del Toro and Hugo Weaving. Visually, it is stunning. I think it's the best local and tone for a horror movie since Sleepy Hollow. The updated plot works well too. I think Del Toro was the perfect choice as the doomed Lawrence Talbot. Even the werewolf effects, which are an updated version of the classic Wolfman (basically an overly hairy man's body with the head of a hybrid wolf-man). The updated version, though, uses CGI, which allows for the werewolf to move more fluidly and quickly than did the original werewolf in the 1941 pic.

In fact, the best scene occurs when a werewolf attacks the gypsy camp early on in the film. It is one of the best horror scenes I've watched in some time. I just wish the whole film lived up to that.

Part of the film's problem lies in that it's tied to the cliche plot of the original. Lawrence is doomed. No way around it. So you know how it's going to end (though this one doesn't end the way the original does - with Mr. Talbot killing his son with his own silver walking cane). The only thing the reader has to look forward to then (like any good tragedy) is the character development (which makes us - hopefully - care and relate to the characters) which makes the final outcome all the more tragic (think Hamlet and King Lear).

And this is where the film comes up a bit short. I just never buy the love interest between Talbot and his brother's fiance, Gwen Conliffe. You see Talbot, a Shakespearean actor, returns to his family's home in England after his brother is killed and partially eaten. In fact, his brother's death is the opening scene. Of course, Talbot swears to Conliffe that he'll find who - or what - did this to his brother. That leads him to the gypsy camp, which is promptly beset by the local villagers (who blame the gypsies for his brother's death). In turn, everyone is attacked by the werewolf. This scene really is spectacular as the werewolf moves quickly from victim to victim - seeming to be everywhere at once. Limbs, guts, and severed heads abound here.

Eventually, Talbot is bitten and the film falls in line with every other werewolf film. The only question left is will Talbot kill his brother's fiance, who he has fallen for, or will she survive . . . and maybe just be able to break his curse.

But like I said previously, I just never buy their relationship.

I think that is one of the strongest parts of American Werewolf in London - we buy the relationship between the nurse and the cursed American tourist. The same is true for Wolf. We buy Jack Nicholson's love for Michelle Pfeiffer.

While The Wolfman doesn't really do anything original with the werewolf legend, there are two great films that do: Ginger Snaps and Dog Soldiers. These are two of the best werewolf films right after American Werewolf in London.

Ginger Snaps examines the connection between human transforming into a wolf and a young girl becoming a woman (imagine a werewolf version of Stephen King's Carrie). Dog Soldiers is the story of a group of soldiers sent out for 'war games' only to find that they are used for bait by a special ops force that is tracking a family of werewolves. The special ops force is attacked first. That leaves the soldiers used for 'bait' to seek refuge in the lone farm house they can find on Scottish moors. It just so happens that the lone farm house belongs to the family of werewolves.

I don't, though, ever see werewolves catching on in the mainstream culture the way vampires and zombies have. Vampires - thanks to Bram Stoker and Ann Rice - are overtly sexual creatures. Immortal. Nocturnal. Blood. Doesn't take rocket scientist to see that. Just think of the cliche image of Dracula sneaking into a woman's room in the middle of the night to bite her in the neck. Rather tame by today's standards, but in Stoker's time, quite scandalous.

The recent popularity of zombies ties in, or so I believe, to our obsession with the end times. I bet if you think for a minute, you can name a dozen or so books or films that deal with this (off the top of my head, 2012, The Core, The Day After Tomorrow, World War Z, Left Behind, Diary of the Dead, 28 Days Later, Left 4 Dead, Zombieland . . . I even saw the new Star Wars novel incorporating the idea of the undead).

What most - if not all - zombie movies/stories focus on are not the monsters themselves - unlike the vampire and werewolf movies/stories. Instead the zombie genre focuses on the survivors. And isn't that an innate fear we all share. What would happen if we were the only ones left? And had to face some incredible obstacle (the undead being just one of many used in film/lit).

But the werewolf genre is the ultimate in tragedy. I think of the vampires as Romeo and Juliet. But the werewolves, they're King Lear or Macbeth or Hamlet (in the new version of The Wolfman, Talbot is indeed Hamlet (there's a shot of him in the famous grave yard scene holding the skull . . . and a great "to be or not to be" reference from Hopkins halfway through the film).

Just think of one of the first real mainstream treatments of the werewolf legend, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. No happy endings there. Just the poor doomed doctor fighting against the beast. The archetype has been set since then.