I thought I'd do something a little different for today and give a side by side review of the Universal classic film 'The Wolf Man' and it's 2010 counterpart. We'll go through the various differences, technical aspects, and overall quality of the two. As the old saying goes 'Age Before Beauty' so let's start with the 1941 version starring Claude Rains and Lon Chaney Jr.
Lawrence Talbot (Chaney) is the son of a prestigious family in London who's been away in America for the last few years. When he returns to his native home, he becomes smitten by the beautiful antiques dealer Gwen. During a trip to a local Gypsy celebration Lawrence is bitten by a vicious wolf but survives the attack but he soon learns that survival is a fate worse than death.
The story is simple and straight to the point which makes the film go at a breakneck pace and giving it endless replay value. The story was originally envisioned as having a more psychological angle, not planning to reveal whether or not Larry really was a werewolf or not. While I must say that would have been a smart and unique way to go about it (and is being rumored to have inspired the upcoming Ryan Gosling adaptation) I think overall it was probably a better choice to go the supernatural route.
The acting is typical of the time, over the top and theatrical performances due to many actors' history on the stage. The film doesn't get silly by any means and really these Universal Horror films of the time were played straight and serious more than people give them credit for but don't expect A grade acting.
The best qualities of 'The Wolf Man' is it's atmosphere, it's beautiful set design, and the classic musical score. The fog and the long spindly tree branches as the creature stalks his victims are still chilling and fun to this day. Surprisingly however, there is no shot of the full moon throughout the entire film, something that's so common now. The biggest takeaways from the classic 'Wolf Man' is it's music, it's production value, and it's moody atmosphere but the acting doesn't hold up as well and some viewers will be looking for more substance or action than what's presented here. Still, the Universal Monster films are like a sort of initiation for the fledgling horror fan out there as I was. You should at least see it once.
Unlike the original film, 2010's remake goes for the dramatic and tragic angle for it's story. This time we have Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returning home after his brother is found mutilated in the moors. He immediately begins a relationship with his brother's fiance Gwen (Emily Blunt) while struggling with his mother's death which left him and his father (Anthony Hopkins) estranged. It's here the story begins to connect more to the original source material, with Larry being attacked and slowly becoming a monster and leaving death in his wake. We get a new character with Inspector Abberline played by Hugo Weaving, who is strangely based on a real person. The real Abberline investigated the Jack the Ripper murders so I guess there's a connection with the overall tone of the film but still a strange choice.
You may notice already that the story is already considerably lengthened from the original's, with much added melodrama and more gruesome backstories for Larry and his family. The characters are more fleshed out than the original, but much of it seems like padding. The backstory involving Larry's mother and the ultimate role her and his father play is the film's biggest weakness overall. I understand that films these days need more substance, but this gives the film an unintentionally silly element which contrasts with the dark tone they're attempting.
I will say that they do accomplish recreating the overall look, tone, and feeling of the original and updating it for the modern audience without losing anything in the process. What stands out more than anything is the film's surprisingly excessive gore, all provided by special effects wizard Rick Baker who won the Academy Award for his work here and of course the 1981 classic 'An American Werewolf in London'. If you want a special effects bonanza by one of the best, this will satisfy even if they did implement some poorly aged CGI work post production. The score by Danny Elfman is also a perfect fit and there's some strong inspiration from 1992's 'Dracula' that brings that Gothic sound he's known for.
2010's version goes for gore and mayhem with loud action but retains the tone and mood of the 1941 original. The story is too excessive and the film's running time overall goes on a bit too much but I've grown to love this remake in its own right. With 10 years between viewings, it's kind of a shame in retrospect that this wasn't the film to reboot the Universal Monsters. This film and it's director understood what made these movies work whereas Tom Cruise and Alex Kurtzman just wanted a franchise.
THE WOLF MAN (1941)
PROS: Production Value & Visual Style
CONS: Some Elements Are Dated
OVERALL GRADE: A
THE WOLFMAN (2010)
PROS: Production Value & Special Effects
CONS: Story Is Too Bloated & Finale is Silly
OVERALL GRADE: B+
No comments:
Post a Comment