The Inadvertent William Friedkin PTSD Trilogy: "Rules of Engagement," "The Hunted," and "Bug."

William Friedkin is most famous for his early work, mainly The Exorcist and The French Connection (he also made the excellent Sorcerer around this time), yet I don’t own any of those films. Friedkin is largely forgotten today, even though he’s made some interesting and entertaining films in the last two decades. In fact, the only Friedkin movies I own are films he made after 2000.

I’m not sure if this is intentional, but Friedkin made three movies in a row between 2000 and 2006 that dealt with PTSD with increasing intensity: Rules of Engagement, The Hunted, and Bug. They are three very different films, and none of them were considered all that great upon their release. Bug is the closest, with a 61% on Rotten Tomatoes, but Rules (29%) and Hunted (31%) aren’t even close to being considered critically successful. I happen to love (or at least like) all three. Initially, I was only going to write about The Hunted because it showed up in the same YouTube video that led me to rewatch Constantine. But when I looked at my collection, I saw that I had all three of these movies and the PTSD connection occurred to me. I doubt that Friedkin chose these projects just because of that, but it’s still an interesting way to revisit these three films. First up: Rules of Engagement. (As always, there will be SPOILERS, but I’ll try to keep them minor since these films are lesser known and certainly less popular than Friedkin’s other work.)

Rules of Engagement

Rules of Engagement is about the court martial of Col. Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) who ordered his men to open fire on a crowd of protesters during a peace-keeping mission in Yemen. Childers relies on his lifelong friend, Col. Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones), to defend him.

It’s a very complex film that deals with loyalty within the military, politics in war, Vietnam, PTSD, and Middle East relations. It’s a film without easy answers. It’s unclear for the first half of the film whether or not Childers was justified, and that ambiguity makes the film work quite well, as we’re left to rely on his own stressful memories of the event and the testimony of others who either couldn’t see the crowd or might be covering up to avoid to a larger military conflict.

Unfortunately, it is revealed via a security tape (major SPOILER) that the crowd did have weapons. But the tape is destroyed by a corrupt National Security Adviser. It doesn’t ruin the movie, but according to the IMDb trivia section (so take this with a grain of salt), Friedkin initially wanted to leave the content of the tape out of the film. Leaving that open would make this movie so much more intriguing and powerful. It’s still a very thought-provoking movie, but I think it would have been received more favorably if things were left up to the audience to decide.

The PTSD elements make make a more lasting impression, especially since they are never directly addressed (at the time of the film, PTSD was not the common topic it is today). So viewing it through today’s world makes it an even deeper film regarding military service and what is justified in combat situations. And it seems like Friedkin recognized this after the fact. He doesn’t mention anything in the DVD interviews (which are mainly promotional fluff), though he may have mentioned something in the commentary (I didn’t listen to it because Friedkin seems like the type to explain what you’re watching rather than elaborate on it). Either way, PTSD isn’t the showcase here, but it is immediately prominent in his next film, The Hunted. I don’t think it’s a stretch that he may have looked back on Rules of Engagement and decided to focus more on this aspect of the film for his next movie.

Even with the misstep with the ambiguity, Rules of Engagement is a movie that stuck with me. I’ve watched it at least five times at this point, and will most likely watch it again. There are complex issues brought up in this film, and it handles them in a smart, convincing manner. That, coupled with strong performances from an amazing cast, make this a movie I am proud to own. Rules of Engagement is a movie that is unfairly lumped in with other military thrillers (as evidenced by my own placement of it within my own collection next to other military thrillers). If you haven’t seen it, or you dismissed it the first time around, give it another chance.

I’ll finish with my random thoughts for this film before moving on to The Hunted.

Random Thoughts

Jones has issues with not being able to live up to his father’s legacy, and he has survivor’s guilt from Vietnam, but the PTSD is there, as well. When he visits Yemen, he has a moment on the rooftop where he reacts as if he’s under fire. On his way home, he has memories of Vietnam in connection to the dead and injured victims in Yemen, and it causes him to drink.

The old man fight, which has shades of They Live, is a bit odd tonally, since it plays for laughs at times, but I liked it.

Jackson’s PTSD is evident when he has a flashback while watching the flag being lowered.

It’s clear that Jackson’s experience in Vietnam shaped the kind of leader he became, for better or worse. Jones’s experience sticks with him, as well. Jackson’s hardened his resolve, while Jones’s softened his. All over a coin flip. Both develop drinking issues, and Jackson has a short temper. And a lot of the film is about whether or not you should severely punish someone who has devoted their life to their country. How do we deal with soldiers when aspects of PTSD lead them to make mistakes on the battlefield?

“Murder, sir?” I don’t know why, but this quote stuck with me. I still either say it or think it when I hear the word “murder.” It’s partly due to Jackson’s delivery, but it’s also because they advertised the hell out of this movie, and that line was in every preview.

“Are these the muthafuckas?” Guy Pearce’s delivery is amusing, but it’s made that much better when Jackson answers with an angry, “Yes!”

Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are perfectly cast, even if it is a bit strange that they play themselves in the present and in Vietnam.

The embassy sequence is extremely tense. Friedkin does a great job of placing you there in this chaotic situation, adding to the complexity of the film. In hindsight, the wrong call was made, but when you see it in the moment, you can understand how Jackson could make such a decision.

Strange to see Philip Baker Hall playing Jones’s father, since he’s only fifteen years older. Not impossible, of course, but seems unlikely. Jones just seems perpetually seventy years old, so it’s weird to see him with a living father.  

This is one of those odd movies that is completely fictional, yet contains text at the end letting the audience know what happened to certain characters later. This actually made me think it was based on a true story the first time I watched. Watching it now, it seems like test audiences felt that certain things were left too open, and there wasn’t money or something for re-shoots.

The Hunted

This simple, straightforward film is a mix of Rambo (a veteran on the run that cannot function in the normal world) and The Fugitive (Tommy Lee Jones hunts him down).

The Hunted is almost too straightforward and simple. Benicio del Toro plays the troubled veteran, who was basically a hit man for the military. He goes AWOL and kills two hunters (who are most likely there to hunt him), starting a manhunt. Jones was his trainer, which is why he is asked to help catch him. It’s fine and simple enough, but there are so many intriguing elements to the story that get left out.

For one thing, Del Toro is described as having “battle stress,” which is obviously another term for PTSD, but this isn’t explored nearly enough. Instead of elaborating on that with flashbacks or dialogue, it’s left vague, and he’s pretty much treated as a dangerous monster, rather than a sympathetic victim of his history in the military. To be fair, there are a couple moments that humanize him, but overall he’s just a man on the run who needs to be caught.

Jones is similarly affected by his past, even though he didn’t serve in the military. He just trained people how to kill effectively. This is another interesting aspect that only gets touched on. Here’s a man suffering because he knows his training led to a lot of death and violence.

But Friedkin, as he admits in an interview on the DVD, is not interested in exploring any of this. He thinks action thrillers have become too complex and bogged down in plot. He wanted to give the audience a bare bones, violent chase film. In that regard, he succeeds.

The Hunted has lengthy moments without dialogue. And one chase sequence takes place for nearly a half hour (the movie is only an hour and a half long) through multiple locations. If the film is only judged on its effectiveness along those lines, then it should be considered a success. But if we only judge films based on them accomplishing what the filmmakers set out to do, then how can we criticize anything. Also, it’s not like everyone knows Friedkin’s goals when they watched the movie. So when I look at this film through the PTSD angle, it’s a failure. I still enjoy this film for action thriller aspect, but I can’t ignore the missed opportunities. Also, a foot chase is only interesting for so long…

The film does focus more on PTSD, though. It’s mentioned directly, and every scene with del Toro makes it very clear that this man is struggling with his past. It’s just unfortunate that none of the characters even consider helping him. Instead, it’s just used as a plot device to explain why this trained killer needs to be caught. This also confirms that Friedkin is not actually interested in PTSD, at least not as a major focus. He refers to del Toro as “losing it,” which is not how you would refer to a character you are sympathetic to. That doesn’t take away from the fact that this is a movie about PTSD. The director’s intention doesn’t matter when someone can watch the finished product and focus on the PTSD.

Random Thoughts

I kind of hated this movie the first time I watched it, but the spoken word performance by Johnny Cash that bookends the film (and the use of “The Man Comes Around”) for the credits, made me give it another chance. I was going through a major Cash phase at the time. The use of Cash has less of an effect on me now, but I still like the use of it.

According to IMDb trivia (remember, take some salt) Jones made 20 million for these. If that’s true, it’s insane.

Good knife fights. In fact, there’s a moment I love. You know how literally every knife fight in a movie has that moment when one person tries to stab and the other person grabs their hand and they struggle until one overpowers the other? Well, in this film, del Toro simply drops his knife when this happens, catches it with his other hand, and slashes Jones. Awesome.

There’s a father killing a son thing a la Abraham and the Johnny Cash lines, but there’s nothing to it onscreen. The flashbacks are nothing but knife training. Was that supposed to establish a father-son bond? If so, do all of the trainees think of Jones as their dad?

An odd Del Toro performance: he speaks clearly throughout. It’s off-putting.

Strange scene when he visits Irene. They say each other’s name in every sentence. Try doing that in your next conversation. It’s an unnerving way to talk.

After writing all these complaints, I watched the special features and Friedkin explains most of them. I thought it was too short; Friedkin says thrillers are too long and too drawn out and should be simpler. I wanted more father-son stuff established; Friedkin says the letter scene at the end showed that Jones had received the letters but had no answer. Basically he had failed as a father to Del Toro, which is why he had to kill him. I can see all this, but I think it could have been made a bit more clear in the film. You wouldn’t need to add that much more to the run time for it to work.

Bug

Ashley Judd plays Agnes, a waitress down on her luck living in a seedy motel. She is introduced to Peter, a drifter that she has an immediate connection to. After moving in with her, they become convinced that the motel room is infested with bugs.

This is definitely the strangest film of the trilogy, and damn near the strangest of Friedkin’s career (I think Killer Joe is weirder, though both films are based on Tracy Letts plays). I’m not sure that there were going for a dark comedy vibe, but I find this movie funny at times, mainly because of how quickly the psychosis both characters share ramps up.

From the PTSD angle, this movie opened my eyes a bit. I was only focusing on military-related PTSD, but PTSD can affect anyone. Peter does claim to have military service, and he also claims they did experiments on him. So it’s easy to say that’s PTSD from military experience. But the problem is that he is shown to be very unreliable. It’s possible he’s suffering from a mental illness and was never even in the military. This made me question including this movie, until I considered Agnes. She lost a child (who was kidnapped while she was distracted at a grocery store), and her life has been terrible ever since. She also has an abusive ex (Harry Connick, Jr.). So it’s fair to say she’s suffering from PTSD, and this is what makes her so susceptible to Peter’s delusions.

Once again, this is not directly stated, and the focus of the film is on the delusions of the main characters. Perhaps this can be the theme that ties all of these films together: PTSD exists and leads to troubling behavior, but there’s not much that can be done about it; you either deal with it, or it consumes you. That’s a depressing way to look at it, but since these films came out before PTSD was focused on, it’s a legitimate statement about the disorder. Back to Bug, specifically.

I love this movie for the performances. Ashley Judd is great in a refreshingly complex role. But Michael Shannon steals the show. I had known a little of his work before, but this made him stand out to me. He always looks a little unhinged in general, but he’s set loose in this film. His reveal after the room has been covered in foil and it lit by bug zappers, is equal parts horrifying and hilarious. Once again, maybe I’m the one who’s messed up, but I always laugh at that moment.

From a directing standpoint, Friedkin does a great job at creating paranoia. The stuff inside the motel is already there from the source material. But Friedkin is able to use exterior shots that seem to be closing in on the motel room, as if there really is some conspiracy happening. It adds another layer of “what’s real?” to the film. And as far as that goes, it’s left up to the audience what’s real and what’s not, for the most part. That ambiguity allows the film to transcend the other movies in this trilogy, making it the most interesting of the three.

Sure, Bug is another Friedkin film that focuses on the effect of PTSD rather than the cause or treatment, but that doesn’t make it any less compelling or powerful. And the style of the film shows that Friedkin, even late in his career, is capable of growing as a filmmaker.

Random Thought

Ashley Judd working through the conspiracy with Shannon is a standout scene. The “I am the super mother bug!” line is a bit much, but her crazed thought process coupled with Shannon’s manic coaching, is great.

Last Thought on the Trilogy

There seems to be a pattern to the handling of PTSD in these films. In Rules, there are plenty of scenes establishing what has happened to the characters, but the PTSD is minor. In The Hunted, there is only the opening scene to establish what happened, but the PTSD is major. In Bug, we get almost no info (that we can trust, anyway), and the PTSD has turned Shannon and Judd completely insane. Even though Friedkin probably did not choose these films based on the PTSD elements, he still created a connected trilogy that is possible to analyze on a PTSD level while also working as standalone films about completely different issues. They also work as a good reason to own films, even if they're not my favorites. I was able to revisit these films and look at them in a completely different way than before. I would not have done that if I had to pay to stream one of them (not to mention that I used the DVD extras for the article). Instead, I was going to look at just one film and realized I could look at two others that I own. My collection mainly collects dust, but situations like this make it worth it to keep it.

"Sicario" Is the Dark, Tense Film the Drug War Deserves.

Sicario

Director Dennis Villeneuve has recently established himself as a master of tension, mood, and atmosphere. His two most recent films, Prisoners and Enemy set the tone for what to expect from his latest film, Sicario. Villeneuve’s ability to take basic establishing shots of arguably mundane settings and make them foreboding and intense is impressive. It’s a way of creating an effective style without calling too much attention to itself.

With Sicario, Villeneuve has the deserts of Mexico and the American southwest to play with. Lengthy establishing shots (renowned director of photography Roger Deakins impresses yet again) paired with a menacing score (by Johann Johannsson) let us know that this film about the drug war is going to be dark, intense, and disturbing. Mood isn’t everything in a film, but it certainly helps draw the viewer in. Working with a script from Taylor Sheridan (best known as an actor from Sons of Anarchy), Villeneuve is able to take what could have been a cookie-cutter action-thriller and make it into something special.

A movie about the drug war needs to be elevated because this is a story that has been told before, in a way. There have been movies about the drug war in Mexico for decades, but Sicario rises above the rest thanks to Villeneuve’s direction. That is not to say Sheridan’s script is weak. It is not terribly original, but it is interesting thanks to the perspective Sheridan chose.

The story is told from FBI agent Kate Macer’s perspective. Macer (Emily Blunt) is asked to join a joint task force made up of vague government types including Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro. Neither one wants to tell Macer much, so we do not know much. The most Macer, and the audience, is told is that the mission is to shake things up for the cartel and “dramatically overreact.” There is more to it, of course, which is the mystery of the film. The title itself is a bit of a mystery as “sicario” means “hitman” in Spanish, but we are not told who the hitman is. Having the main character be the new member of a group is a standard ploy of screenwriting to give the viewer someone to empathize with, but it is interesting here when you consider that Macer may represent the typical American’s reaction to the drug war. Not to get into spoilers, but Macer’s story arc is much more powerful when you view her as a representation of America in general.

While the character of Macer may be a bit plain, Blunt is still able to show her impressive range. Even though she plays a successful FBI agent, this is not your typical strong independent female role. Normally, a female character like this would be shown overpowering every man in her way, but Sicario takes a more realistic route. Macer can hold her own in a raid, but in a hand to hand fight with a man who has fifty pounds on her, things do not go so smoothly. While Macer is physically capable of her job, she struggles with the moral implications of her work with the task force. It is a role that requires Blunt to show equal parts strength and weakness, and she is great at both.

Brolin gives a fun performance in his supporting role, providing some much needed comedic relief to an otherwise joyless film. But it’s Del Toro who steals the film. As Alejandro, a mysterious and deadly soldier, he is able to make a menacing character surprisingly sympathetic. Del Toro comes across as the true star of the film. And Macer (and we the audience) are just there to watch him work.

Since this is a film about the drug war, there is a bit of action, as well. Villneuve does not glorify any of the violence, instead making most of the action scenes quick and brutal, showcasing how savage the situation has become. Each “action” scene is an incredibly tense moment that is much more effective than anything you will find in traditional action films of late.

Every positive element of the film is amplified by the style Villeneuve infuses into the film. Perhaps this is giving him too much credit, but mood and atmosphere cannot be undervalued when it comes to films about serious topics. Villeneuve’s style demands your close attention. And your close attention is rewarded with a tense, atmospheric “action” film that will have you contemplating a real world issue. In short, Sicario is what every serious film should be.

Sicario receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I really liked the dark ending of the film, with the whole mission being about supporting one cartel to take over the entire drug trade. It's hard to fault Brolin's reasoning, especially when he points out the impossibility of getting Americans to stop using drugs. It's not a nice solution, but maybe it's a realistic one. 

I liked Sicario quite a bit because of my interpretation of Macer's character. By the end of the film, I saw her as representative of America in general because of her inability to bring real change to the situation. When Alejandro visits her at the end to coerce a signature that will legalize all the illegal things they did, he tells her she isn't strong enough for the war. She is not a wolf. So she should move away from it. I feel like that sums up most of America's citizens in regard to the drug war. Most people can't handle the brutality of what's going on, but their drug use or lack of attention allows it to continue. We are not wolves, so rather than do something about it, we "move" out attention elsewhere, hoping someone else fixes it. This interpretation was solidified for me when Macer retrieved her gun, aimed it at Alejandro, but was not able to pull the trigger. She was left on the balcony, powerless. That symbolizes the typical American regarding the drug war. We're above it on the balcony in America, and we have the power to stop it, but we can't pull the trigger. I really wish the film had ended there, rather than ending up at the kids' soccer game in Juarez. The ending makes a powerful point (that was also made in Traffic, by the way), but the theme of the film would have been more evident if the film had ended with Alejandro walking away as a powerless Macer stands, defeated, on the balcony.

After watching this, it is clear why Villeneuve is directing the next Blade Runner. This film is actually quite similar, stylistically. Blade Runner featured lengthy establishing shots set to a unique score that solidified the mood and atmosphere of the film constantly. I am not officially excited for what I previously thought of as a needless sequel. I know Villeneuve will keep the new Blade Runner just as dark as the original.

Finally, hats off to Sicario for that brutal dinner scene at the end. For a second, I thought Alejandro would prove to be sympathetic to the innocent woman and children at the table, but he turned out to be just as brutal as he had been the entire film. He was truly a man on a mission. I have not found Del Toro this interesting in years. Hopefully he keeps this up with his role in the next Star Wars film.

"Savages"

Directed by Oliver Stone, written by Stone, Don Winslow, and Shane Salerno, starring Taylor Kitsch, Aaron Johnson, Blake Lively, John Travolta, Salma Hayek, and Benicio Del Toro - Rated R

Oliver Stone is back, even if he never really left...

Oliver Stone has gone missing in the eyes of many film fanatics.  His latest work, such as Alexander, World Trade Center, and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, has failed to impress many fans of his earlier, amazing work.  As a fan of Stone, I tend to give him a break.  I thought the final director’s cut of Alexander was great (even if it is over four hours long), and W. felt very much like a return to his old style, though he never went all the way with it.  (To clarify, “all the way” means making a movie in the vein of Natural Born Killers, which is one of my favorite Stone films.)  I was less enthused with his film about the 9/11 attacks, which was well-made, but too plain for me and I couldn’t find much to like about his Wall Street sequel.  With Savages, though, Stone has made a film that deserves to be talked about along with Killers, U Turn, and Any Given Sunday, among others.

Perhaps it’s the plot of “Savages” that brought out the best in Stone.  Based on the very stylistic novel of the same name by Don Winslow, Savages is about drugs, corruption, love, and violence.  This is Oliver Stone territory.  The story follows Ben (Aaron Johnson) and Chon (Taylor Kitsch), two masterful California marijuana farmers who attract the attention of the Mexican drug cartels once their business starts to boom.  Ben is a peace-loving charitable type, while Chon is a hardened ex-Navy SEAL who is willing to do anything for the people he loves; which is where O (Blake Lively) comes into play.  O, short for Ophelia, is the mutual girlfriend of Ben and Chon.  Theirs isn’t so much a love triangle as it is an extended relationship.  There is no rivalry or anything like that to clog the story up.  O propels the story because she is kidnapped by the cartel and Ben and Chon must rescue her. 

That’s enough story spoiling for you, but the story is more complicated than it might seem as there are a lot of characters and things move very quickly despite the 131 minute running time.  What’s important is that the three leads feel like real characters and their relationship seems plausible even though it is certainly different.  The three leads are likable and they are the glue of the film.  Actually wanting the main characters to get what they want is a key issue too many films fail at these days but Savages gets the job done.

It’s a good thing the leads are likable because the supporting players all try their best to steal the show.  First is Salma Hayek as the leader of a cartel.  Hayek has played tough, no-nonsense roles before, but never too great effect.  (I have just never really bought her as a tough lady.)  In Savages, however, she does much better.  Maybe it was how the character was written, with her cold-hearted threats and whatnot.  Whatever it was, it worked and I almost wanted things to work out for her, even though she is one of the “villains” of the film.

Maybe it’s Hayek’s right hand man, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), who makes her character work.  Lado is easily the most despicable character in the film, but Del Toro brings a strange likability to Lado.  He is detestably likable, if that’s possible.  Del Toro just has a way of speaking and griming up the screen that makes you want to see more of him.  He helps Hayek’s performance by being so malicious.  If she is able to stand up to him and even discipline a guy like Lado, who could even think to cross her?

The last supporting role worth mentioning is John Travolta as Dennis, a corrupt DEA agent.  Travolta isn’t breaking new ground here or anything.  He’s played plenty of slimy, double-crossing characters.  It’s just so much fun to watch him do his thing.

This is still an Oliver Stone movie, though, and it’s fairly obvious that he directed this.  He uses a lot of different film stock (or he digitally altered a lot of scenes to appear that way), the music factors in multiple times and does a great job of setting up the mood, and the camera kind meanders wherever in his frenetic, but not too chaotic, style.  And while Stone has never been labeled an action director, Savages has plenty of great action beats that don’t skimp on the blood.  This film doesn’t have the fingerprint that “Killers” has, but it’s certainly more of a Stone film than, say, World Trade Center.

Savages is arguably a return to form for Stone (I write “arguably” because I don’t think he ever really lost it or anything).  But this is still not an upper tier Stone film.  I really enjoyed and will eventually buy this film, but compared to the director’s other classics, this one doesn’t crack the top five.  That’s a very hard top five to crack, though.  If there is one thing that really keeps Savages out of the upper echelon, it is the ending.  I can’t go into it here (check the spoilers section below), but the ending of this film is questionable at best.  It certainly raises a debate and at the moment, I lean towards the negative on it, mainly because I found it to be deceiving and unjustified.  Aside from that potentially major issue, Savages is one of the better films to come out this year. 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Okay, that ridiculous rewind ending.  As a fan of the book, I was quite shocked when they showed the book ending, only to rewind and give some overly happy ending.  I really couldn't believe after I saw that Winslow was a screenwriter.  Some have mentioned that Stone did this to get political with the corrupt DEA and all that stuff and I guess that's slightly understandable, but I didn't think it fit with the rest of the film.  It really took me out of the entire experience.  I liked the treatment of the DEA agent in the novel much better, with his suicide when he realizes how much he has messed up.  But Stone had to keep him alive just so he could say, "Look at your corrupt government!"  I know Stone is political, but enough statements about corrupt governments can be, and are, made within the regular plot.  I only slightly forgive it because I didn't mind seeing the three leads survive, because I liked them.  But it seemed better for them to die together at the end rather than go to Indonesia and shop at the farmer's market.

"The Wolfman"

The Wolfman - Directed by Joe Johnston, starring Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, and Hugo Weaving - Rated R

Looks great, but it's hollow inside.



I am not a fan of the new trend of whiny vampires and wolf boys. I prefer my vampires to be menacing, and I think that a wolfman should be a mindless, bloodthirsty beast, not a teen heartthrob whose only acting “trait” is his ability to not wear a shirt. If you’re in the same boat as me, then The Wolfman will at least satisfy you in the monster department. If you’re expecting much more than a savage monster movie, though, you may leave the theater disappointed.

My expectations for this film were very high. The preview for the film is great and leads you to believe you might be in for something different, or possibly something great. I knew all about the delays of the film and the reports of editing up until days before the release, but the preview made me forget all of that. So, because of that preview, I thought this version of The Wolfman would be very similar to Francis Ford Coppola’s version of Dracula (one of my favorite films). Sadly, aside from the atmosphere created here, The Wolfman pales in comparison.

That’s not to say this film doesn’t have something to offer. It looks great. Late 19th century England has a gloomy and realistic look. The sets were particularly well done. The creature effects are fine, for the most part. The transformation sequences were by far the best, but some of the action scenes had a few flaws and looked a bit fake. I know I comment on special effects and cg quite a bit, but for a film like this, the effects are absolutely vital. If the wolfman effects looked even slightly goofy, the film would be ruined. Thankfully, I never had to fight back laughter when I saw the creature.

The film has a look to it, but it’s missing a mood. I never got a sense of foreboding or evil while I was watching this film. It was all just happening and I didn’t really care all that much about any of it. That might be the fault of the storyline, but I think it has more to do with pacing. The film starts off at a crawl, with stage actor Lawrence Talbot arriving at his father’s old, creepy mansion. His brother Ben has been killed and he intends to find out what happened. His off-balance father (Anthony Hopkins) and widowed sister-in-law (the beautiful Emily Blunt) are still there to help out. But there is no mystery. We know what killed Ben: a crazy wolf creature. We don’t need multiple scenes with villagers talking about what might be happening.

It’s not just the first mystery that is weak, either; it’s the entire film. At no point did I wonder what was really happening. It is painfully obvious what is going on from the get go. This isn’t all that terrible, but when the filmmaking is so-so, it makes the story issues much more blatant. These problems are nearly overshadowed by the visuals, but good set design and cg can’t fix everything.

The film does pick up in the middle, though. The asylum sequence was great and it made me wish that the majority of the film took place there. This is the problem. There’s this great, interesting sequence in the middle of the film, bookended by a bland, obvious plot. I probably shouldn’t use the word “bookend,” though, because that implies that this movie has an ending. It doesn’t, not really. It just stops. I don’t know what they were going for, maybe some kind of sequel set up, but there is a key issue that really should’ve been resolved at the end and it was just left open, pointlessly open.

The actors do their best to overcome these plot issues. Del Toro does a fine job. He has a presence that seems to fit with the time period. Blunt makes things a bit interesting here and there. It was nice to see Hugo Weaving as the Scotland Yard detective. He is a master of the intense stare, which is all he really gets to do with the role. It’s Anthony Hopkins who steals the show. You can tell he really enjoyed making this film and it makes for a very fun performance. I enjoyed every minute that he was onscreen.

The Wolfman looks great, features some good performances, has bloody, brutal action, but lacks the story and substance of a great film. There are a few great moments in the film, but they are too few and far between. This film garners a rental at best.