Maybe it’s just me, but lately there seems to have been an influx of werewolf movies. This seems especially true over the past few years. Now here we are we in January and we already have our first one of the year. It’s “Wolf Man”, a Blumhouse reboot of the 1941 Lon Chaney horror classic “The Wolf Man”. This latest iteration is helmed by Leigh Whannell who impressed with 2020’s superb “The Invisible Man”.

Written by Whannell and his wife, Corbett Tuck, “Wolf Man” takes a dark and gory look at a number of themes through the lens of an old-fashioned monster movie. With a struggling family of three as its centerpiece, the story deals with such subjects as family, parenthood, troubled pasts, and clinging to one’s humanity. Interestingly (and somewhat disappointingly), there’s very little in terms of mythology or folklore. More on that in a second.

Christopher Abbott plays Blake Lovell, a writer and stay-at-home dad who lives in New York City with his wife Charlotte (Julia Garner) and their young daughter Ginger (Matilda Firth). Blake and Ginger and very close despite his tendency of being overprotective. But his relationship with Charlotte isn’t as strong. She pours a lot of time into her job as a journalist and not only has it come between her and her husband, but it has also left her feeling disconnected from Ginger.

One day Blake is notified that his estranged father, Grady (Sam Jaeger) has officially been declared dead by the state of Oregon after being missing for a long time. Grady was a survivalist living in an isolated farmhouse deep in the Oregon wilderness. Blake left that life as soon as he was old enough and he hadn’t spoken to his father since. Now his father’s homeplace has fallen to him and he needs to make a trip out west to pack up his dad’s things.

Realizing their need of some family time, Charlotte agrees to go with Blake to Oregon with hopes it will bring her closer to her husband and daughter. But it doesn’t take long for things to go bad. Less than a mile away from his father’s place, Blake swerves to avoid a strange figure standing in the middle of the road, causing him to wreck their moving truck. As they climb out of the wreckage a creature suddenly attacks, clawing Blake across the arm before they’re able to run away into the night.

The family makes it to Blake’s father’s house and lock themselves inside while the creature prowls outside looking for a way in. From there “Wolf Man” turns into a story of survival that takes place over the course of that one harrowing night. As its title suggests, the creature is indeed a ‘wolf-man’ and it quickly becomes obvious that Blake is infected with whatever animal-borne disease it is carrying. His symptoms start light but quickly turn more grotesque as he begins to change right before his frightened family’s eyes.

The movie chronicles the family’s fight to survive the night, not only from the creature outside the house but also the one within. Though not as metaphorically rich as “The Invisible Man”, there is still plenty of symbolism in the material. The rest is just good old genre fun. The baked-in tension is accompanied by a healthy amount of gore which fits well with the creature’s ravenous brutality. And then there’s Blake’s painful transformation which is captured practically through the prosthetics and makeup wizardry of effects designer Arjen Tuiten.

Again there’s no traditional Wolf Man mythology to speak of. There is no full moon, no silver bullets, no fur-covered body. In fact there’s not much information at all outside of some brief and scant opening script. The film’s infection angle has its benefits but it can also seem like a shortcut which (for better or worse) allows Whannell to focus on other things. Overall it works, but it would have been nice to have a little more background into something so primally and terrifyingly transformative.

As is often the case with so many movies like this, not all of the character choices make sense. In “Wolf Man” some are downright baffling. Yet we still find ourselves invested in this family’s plight, partly due to Whannell never letting us lose sight of their familial bond. It’s also aided by great performances from Abbott, Garner, and Firth. And though most of it takes place in the dark of night, we still get some stunning Oregon scenery that helps creates an isolated setting that’s both beautiful and forbidding.

As it is, “Wolf Man” doesn’t break the mold but it doesn’t exactly embrace it either. It lands somewhere in between, working best as pure genre entertainment with a few compelling themes on its mind. It’s not a movie that will stick in your memory. But it’s well made and noticeably better than the slew of recent werewolf movies that have come our way. “Wolf Man” is now showing exclusively in theaters.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

Julia Stiles makes her directorial debut with “Wish You Were Here” – a sweet, earnest, but sadly formulaic romantic drama that has its heart in the right place but hinges on a few too many tired clichés to get by. Yet while its story is all too familiar, it does offer Stiles the opportunity to show what she can do behind the camera. And it gives the talented Isabelle Fuhrman another noteworthy lead role outside of her entertaining Orphan films.

“Wish You Were Here” is an adaptation of a 2017 novel of the same name written by Renée Carlino. It’s penned for the screen by Stiles and Carlino and stars Fuhrman who worked with Stiles on “Orphan: First Kill”. Their real-life connections show themselves in the film’s strengths, namely in the story’s lead character (played by Fuhrman) who is easily the movie’s most compelling piece. If only the other characters weren’t so thinly sketched.

The story follows a pretty standard blueprint that will be recognizable to anyone who has ever watched a romance turned weepie. Fuhrman plays a young woman named Charlotte who at 29-years-old has found herself in a rut. She works a go-nowhere job at a Mexican restaurant and after several bad experiences (and despite her family’s best efforts to hook her up) she has lost all interest in dating.

But that changes following her chance meet-cute with a street artist named Adam (Mena Massoud). The two have some drinks, paint a mural together, and impulsively go to his place for a romantic nightcap. The next morning a smitten Charlotte wakes up to find Adam cold and adrift. He promptly reminds Charlotte that they’re not a couple which instantly turns her warm feelings to dejection.

Months pass and Charlotte can’t get Adam out of her mind. That’s when she gets a unexpected visit from Adam’s friend and neighbor Stacy (Jane Stiles) who delivers a letter he wrote following their night together that explains why he was so quick to let her go. The heartfelt letter reveals that he had a brain tumor and is now in the hospital with terminal cancer. Charlotte goes to him leading to a rekindling of their relationship which takes on a tender but heartbreaking new form.

Interestingly, Charlotte and Adam don’t spend as much screentime together as you might think. Their relationship bookends what is Charlotte’s struggle to find her place in the world. As she does, a number of underdeveloped side characters pop in and out of her story including her flighty best friend Helen (Gabby Kono-Abdy), her straight-shooting mother (Jennifer Grey) and empathetic father (Kelsey Grammer), and the sweet guy waiting in the wings, Seth (thanklessly played by Jimmie Fails).

Sadly, none of the supporting roles carry much weight. Even Adam sometimes come across as a stereotype rather than a fleshed-out person. And the story itself follows the same path as so many others before it. It even gets a little absurd later on. Take when a weakened Adam is barely able to utter a sentence and then moments later is slipping out of the hospital with Charlotte for a playful afternoon on the beach.

But even with its flaws, “Wish You Were Here” remains interesting thanks to Fuhrman’s emotionally layered and authentic performance. And it’s clear that Stiles has a career in the director’s chair. She especially impresses with the camera, using it in a number of sumptuous ways, from intimate closeups to subtle arc shots. It may not be enough to carry this particular movie, but it does excite us for what she’ll do in the future. “Wish You Were Here” opens January 17th.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

Okay see if you can follow me. “Wicked” is the first film in a two-part movie adaptation of the Broadway stage musical of the same name which is based on the 1995 Gregory Maguire novel which was inspired by the “Oz” book series which provided the source material for the beloved 1939 Victor Fleming movie musical, “The Wizard of Oz”. Whew.

“Wicked” is a $150 million fantasy musical directed by Jon M. Chu (“Crazy Rich Asians”). Co-written by the duo of Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox, it tells a fantastical story set in the Land of Oz that’s loaded with easy to spot social subtext. “Wicked” is a movie of two halves – a fun and comically-charged first half and a more adventurous yet plodding second half which is where the film’s lengthy 160-minute runtime can be felt. Meanwhile its visuals are a mixed bag, offering some elaborate practical sets but with muted digital effects that rarely wow the way they intend to.

The movie opens with the citizens of Munchkinland getting news that the Wicked Witch of the West is dead. As they celebrate, Glinda the Good (Ariana Grande) arrives to join the festivities. As she’s about to depart, a young girl asks the Barbie-pink Glinda if it’s true that she and the Witch were once friends. She answers by telling the gathered Munchkins (and us) the backstory of Elphaba Thropp, the future Wicked Witch of the West.

From there we’re transported back several years where we are introduced to Elphaba Thropp (Cynthia Erivo). Born with green skin and imbued with suppressed magical powers, Elphaba has had a tough life marked by ridicule and loneliness. She arrives at Shiz University (and no, the dean isn’t Snoop Dogg) on orientation day to drop off her paraplegic little sister, Nessarose (Marissa Bode). Also arriving is Galinda Upland (Grande), a popular and pampered rich girl who we quickly learn is impervious to her own privilege.

After an unplanned display of Elphaba’s powers literally shakes up the campus, the school’s Dean of Sorcery Studies, Madam Morrible (a miscast Michelle Yeoh) agrees to teach Elphaba privately much to the chagrin of Galinda who wanted to be her pupil. At first Galinda’s jealousy (mixed with her snobbery) leads her to humiliate Elphaba. But an unexpected act of kindness by Elphaba opens Galinda’s eyes and the two become unexpected friends despite their polar opposite personalities.

The entire university segment is “Wicked” at its best. The humor is spot-on with Grande’s pin-point timing bringing most of the film’s biggest laughs. She nails Galinda’s oblivious nature and is the perfect target for Erivo’s witty sarcasm. While the big musical numbers are showier and grab more attention, it’s the comic energy that really drives the first half. And while there are a couple of semi-memorable tunes, it was the well written and delivered humor that surprised me the most.

The movie does introduce several more characters, none of whom are given enough depth to leave much of a mark. There’s Pfannee (Bowen Yang), Galinda’s fawning college friend. There’s Boq Woodsman (Ethan Slater), a lovesick Munchkin who has the hots for Galinda. Peter Dinklage voices Dr. Dillamond, a talking goat who teaches history and leads an underground movement to restore animal rights. And there is the new transfer Fiyero Tigelaar (Jonathan Bailey), a dashing prince from Winkie Country.

The movie shifts after Elphaba receives an invitation to travel to The Emerald City where she’ll meet The Wonderful Wizard of Oz played by the always irresistible Jeff Goldblum. Refusing to let her nervous friend go alone, Galinda (now going by Glinda for a pretty funny reason) hops the train with Elphaba and they set out on what becomes an unexpected adventure. This is also where the humor vanishes, the effects get a little shakier, and the story begins to drag as it finally builds to its cliffhanging crescendo.

Despite putting in a lot of effort and even more studio money, “Wicked” doesn’t quite dazzle the way it wants to. It’s an uneven and unwieldy production that packs some early laughs but never soars either as a musical or a fantasy epic. It’s mostly due to the storytelling which is hampered by its inconsistent pacing, underdeveloped plot-lines, and heavy-handed (and at times patronizing) messaging. And neither the sub-par visuals or large-scale musical numbers are enough to fall back on.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

With a straightforward title like “Werewolves” it’s not hard to imagine what kind of movie you’re in for. But to director Steven C. Miller’s credit, “Werewolves” isn’t as single-minded as its title suggests. It’s every bit of a genre mashup, throwing in helpings of horror, science-fiction, black comedy, and over-the-top action. That’s more than enough to grab the attention of genre filmmaking fans like me.

But unfortunately “Werewolves” never quite goes far enough with any of the genres it taps into. The film generates a little tension, but there’s nothing remotely scary about it. It throws out a handful of sci-fi ideas but never sees any of them through. It has a few funny bits, but it never treats its material as silly as it actually is. And despite the occasional gore-splattered moment of violence, the action is waaaay tamer than it could have been. Some of it may be due to budget constraints. But that doesn’t change what feels like a missed opportunity.

Written by Matthew Kennedy, the story is built around a hokey but moderately entertaining premise. The earth is one-year removed from a supermoon that triggered a global calamity. A supermoon isn’t unusual. It’s an annual phenomenon where the moon appears particularly large due to it being in its closest orbit to our planet. But last year’s supermoon was different in that over the course of a single night one billion people violently transformed into werewolves resulting in the death of millions worldwide.

Now with this year’s supermoon on the way, people around the world frantically make preparations for the unknown. Leading the science world’s search for answers is Dr. James Aranda (Lou Diamond Phillips), the CEO of Aranda Corp. His company has invented a substance called Moonscreen (yep, you read that right) which is meant to form a barrier between moonlight and human DNA. If effective, Moonscreen could prevent people from turning into werewolves. But it has to be tested.

Elsewhere an ex-military man named Wesley (an always fun Frank Grillo) is busy wolf-proofing the home of his sister-in-law Lucy (Ilfenesh Hadera) and niece Emma (Kamdynn Gary). He boards windows, places bear traps in the yard, and puts up high fences wrapped in razor wire, all in an effort to fulfill his pledge to protect his late brother’s family. As evening approaches, Lucy and Emma plead with Wesley to stay with them. But he leads the Rapid Response Team for Aranda Corp. and is needed to provide security for the company’s upcoming test.

To no surprise the tests go terribly wrong once the supermoon comes out. Dr. Aranda’s human test subjects turn into werewolves and break from containment, killing everyone in sight. But Wesley manages to escape with Dr. Amy Chen (Katrina Law). Meanwhile back at Lucy’s place, her cartoonishly gung-ho neighbor Cody (James Michael Cummings) succumbs to the supermoon, somehow forms a pact with other werewolves, and sets his sights on Lucy’s home.

Of course the two story angles eventually merge as Wesley and Amy make their way across town while Lucy holds off her rabid furry invaders until they arrive. Miller and Kennedy borrow certain story beats from movies like “The Purge” to add some extra peril. At the same time, goofy one-liners like “It’s go time”, “Bite me”, “Come fetch” add some levity. And watching tough guy Frank Grillo chew the scenery in a story this ridiculous is entertaining in itself.

But “Werewolves” still manages to be a frustrating experience largely because it never pushes any of its crazy ideas far enough. It needs be sillier, scarier, and/or gorier in order to be the kind of movie it seems to want to be. With a little more audacity (and probably a little more money) this could have a been an insanely fun ode to grindhouse cinema. Instead it’s a blend of ideas that never gels into the madcap genre entertainment it clearly wants to be.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh shine and carry “We Live in Time”, a romantic drama built upon and sustained by the sparkling chemistry of its two leads. The film is directed by John Crowley and is more in sync with his terrific “Brooklyn” (2015) than his lesser “The Goldfinch” (2019). Despite being low on theatrics, it’s still a little soapy around the edges. Yet Crowley and screenwriter Nick Payne succeed in telling a modern love story with an earnest classical tenor.

“We Live in Time” is very much an actor’s movie, and no matter where the story goes, it’s Garfield and Pugh who keep its gears turning. There’s nothing here we haven’t seen before and it’s a testament to their acting savvy that we care for their characters as much as we do. It’s fair to say that without them “We Live in Time” could easily fall apart and be tossed in a pile with so many other movies of its kind.

Crowley begins his film by telling us exactly where it’s going. We’re introduced to Almut (Pugh) and Tobias (Garfield), a young couple who we see fall in love, have a child, and receive tragic news, all in the first few minutes. The bad news is that Almut has stage 3 ovarian cancer. From there the movie bounces back-and-forth between different points in their relationship, often with no discernible rhythm. It’s a choice that feels unnecessary, but at the same time helps divert our attention away from the conventional aspects of the story.

We do learn quite a bit about the two characters. Almut is an accomplished chef and restaurant owner. Tobias is an IT technician for Weetabix (a British breakfast cereal – I had to look it up). Both have their own strengths, quirks, and insecurities. But they share a connection that’s evident from the first moment they meet. And that happens after Tobias wanders into the street and is struck by Almut’s car. After he heals up, Tobias visits Almut’s restaurant. They begin dating and after a short time-hop they move in together.

Further down their timeline we see the couple deciding to have a child, struggling to get pregnant, and finally giving birth to their darling daughter Ella. And even further down we watch Almut and Tobias forced to make some painful decisions following her cancer diagnosis. As the movie oscillates between the different stages of their relationship, Pugh and Garfield navigate the small intimacies and seismic shifts with an artful precision.

Crowley’s choice to reveal his hand early is a bold one, but it does shortchange some of the drama. And when you peel back the nonlinear devices you find the makings of a pretty standard tearjerker. Yet the movie works because Crowley knows what he has in Garfield and Pugh. And Payne’s script provides plenty of serious-minded and grounded material for the actors to work with.

Reactions to “We Live in Time” are sure to vary. Some may have a hard time getting past its obvious conventions. Others may dismiss it for its delicacy and unwillingness to run its audience through the emotional wringer. But it doesn’t take much effort to look beyond those complaints to see an empathetic and authentic drama that explores life, death, and the intrinsic value of human connection. “We Live in Time” is in theaters now.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

Anna Kendrick makes her directorial debut and stars in “Woman of the Hour”, a well-made thriller based on the real-life crimes of sex offender and serial killer Rodney Alcala. Dubbed the Dating Game Killer, Alcala has been directly linked to eight murders. But it’s believed that his true number of victims may be as high as 130. He was arrested in July 1979 and sentenced to death. In 2021, Alcala died of natural causes at the age of 77 while still in prison.

Kendrick’s film examines Alcala’s killing spree through several different perspectives. She chronicles different murders, making stops in 1971 New York City, 1977 Wyoming, and for the majority of the film 1978 Los Angeles. That’s where we meet Sheryl Bradshaw (played by Kendrick), a struggling actress who is about to give up on her big Hollywood dreams. Out of options, Sheryl’s agent casts her to appear on The Dating Game in hopes of getting her some much needed exposure.

For those who don’t know, The Dating Game was a corny but popular game show where a young woman sitting behind a partition would ask silly questions to three bachelors sitting on the other side. After three rounds she would choose one bachelor as the winner. The show would then send the couple on an all-expense paid date.

On September 13, 1978 Cheryl Bradshaw made her appearance on The Dating Game. And among her three bachelors was none other than Rodney Alcala. By that time he had already raped and murdered several of his victims and been convicted of sexual assault. But somehow the show’s producers had missed his criminal record. It’s chilling footage to watch especially considering that Alcala not only appeared on the show but won the competition.

Kendrick and screenwriter Ian McDonald recreate that surreal broadcast, pulling from several first-hand testimonies while adding some fictional twists of their own. Most of their additions work to build the film’s statement on societal misogyny – a message which quickly and at times clumsily becomes obvious. But Kendrick maintains a steady sense of unease, having already established Alcala as a vicious killer leading up to their fateful encounter.

Alcala is played by Daniel Zovatto who conceals a killer’s brute evil underneath a psychopathic charm. Alcala’s methods were well thought out and he often preyed on innocence and vulnerability. We watch him lure in his victims by posing as a professional fashion photographer. Alcala then convinces them to let him shoot them for his portfolio. Once alone, he would rape and murder them.

The film gives Zovatto plenty of space to mine Alcala’s menace, but it’s Kendrick’s own performance as Sheryl (note the slight name change) that offers the most clarity. It’s seen most in one brilliantly directed and acted encounter she and Zovatto share in a restaurant. It’s intense and terrifying and it shrewdly relays the themes Kendrick is most interested in.

“Woman of the Hour” shines a spotlight on Anna Kendrick who delivers not only another well-calibrated performance but an assured directorial debut. She shows a firm control of her subject matter, capturing a harrowing sense of danger while steering clear of sensationalism or exploitation. Though a little too on-the-nose at times, her commentary on the everyday dangers of being a woman in a predatory society adds a compelling layer. Her two aims don’t always gel, but they highlight Kendrick’s ambition and willingness to take chances.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS