Starring:Theo James, Tatiana Maslany, Christian Convery, Colin O’Brien, Adam Scott, Elijah Wood, Rohan Campbell, Sarah Levy, Osgood Perkins
Genre -Horror/Comedy/Supernatural
Running Time -98 Minutes
Plot:
When twin brothers find a mysterious wind-up monkey, a series of outrageous deaths tear their family apart. Twenty-five years later, the monkey begins a new killing spree forcing the estranged brothers to confront the cursed toy.
Review:
Building upon the success he had with last year’s horror hit LONGLEGS, Osgood Perkins joins James Wan and Stephen King with adapting King’s short story, THE MONKEY. While LONGLEGS was meant to unsettle its audience with a supernatural true crime vibe [as well as an out-there performance by Nicolas Cage], THE MONKEY takes the opposite approach by making a dark joke out of its premise for laughs. The film’s dark humor approach towards the film’s death scenes and overall look on the idea of grief and moving on from trauma will most likely divide moviegoers expecting something more serious in its commentary.
Personally, I had a lot of fun with THE MONKEY. While not as clever or sophisticated, the film reminded me of the FINAL DESTINATION series with its bizarre set ups to the demises of the movie’s characters. The use of a cursed toy monkey causing all this unpredictable chaos is a neat idea, although I would have liked to know more about its origins and why it was so intent on hurting people while growing attached to others. Maybe that’s in the short story, I don’t know.
The humor comes from the characters, who are extremely quirky and pretty much say whatever is on their minds without holding much back. Death is almost treated as a matter-of-fact joke that’s so messed up, you have to laugh about it. No one really takes any of the characters dying all that seriously. Hell, even a church pastor gives a sermon that feels more like a stand up routine than an actual eulogy. Even a montage of people dying within a week to unbelievable deaths is treated as something that normally occurs in this universe. While I’m sure many will not connect with any of this, I felt it made THE MONKEY an entertaining viewing experience. Considering how dark the world has been in 2025 so far, it was refreshing to smile and chuckle over the ridiculous ways people died and how others approached them. For a thin plot - it’s really just a toy monkey terrorizing twins over 25 years - it carries some important themes pretty well.
Osgood Perkins’ direction continues to impress. Great pacing and editing, the quirky tone maintains throughout, and the death sequences hit. THE MONKEY is a lot gorier than I was expecting it to be, considering Stephen King adaptations aren’t known for being gory horror movies. The use of both practical and CGI effects are used very well. And I liked that the film looked kind of grungy, yet popping with vivid colors [mainly red] for a lot of the film’s short runtime. His direction for LONGLEGS is probably stronger overall, but Perkins shows that he can be visually playful in terms of sound design and striking edits. It feels like a long episode of Tales From the Crypt and I enjoy that vibe.
The cast is also very good. Theo James has a great voice for narration, while also giving two different performances as twin brothers [one nerdy and the other more of a bully]. I thought he played both the introvert and insecure brother, as well as the more evil and deranged brother very well. Christian Convery plays his younger versions believably well also. I also felt that James shared nice big brother/father chemistry with the more grounded Colin O’Brien.
Always nice to see some familiar faces as well. This includes a wonderful performance from Tatiana Maslany as James’ quirky mother, as well from an almost unrecognizable Rohan Campbell as a young man who takes drastic measures to get his hands on the toy monkey. Also enjoyed the cameos by Adam Scott, Elijah Wood and Oz Perkins himself. Everyone seemed to be playing against type and having fun with it.
It’s bananas how my two favorite films so far in 2025 involve apes [I see you, Robbie Williams and BETTER MAN]. Looking forward to what Perkins brings us with KEEPER later this year.
In this episode, I joined Matt Poirier as we look at the Troma cult classic, DEF BY TEMPTATION. Before that, we look at CAPTAIN AMERICA: BRAVE NEW WORLD [which has now been released in theaters] and what 2025 could look like for Marvel Studios. Then with the film, we get into how we each found this gem, what about it works so well, and then look at highlights.
When the “Heart Eyes Killer” strikes Seattle, a pair of co-workers pulling overtime on Valentine’s Day are mistaken for a couple by the elusive couple-hunting killer. Now, they must spend the most romantic night of the year running for their lives.
REVIEW
Slasher films about Valentine’s Day have always seemed like a fun and good combination for decades. 1981’s MY BLOODY VALENTINE pretty much started the trend, featuring a memorable killer in Harry Warden in his coal miner’s outfit and pick-axe. It was even brought back in the 2009 3-D remake to similar success. We’ve also had 2001’s VALENTINE with its cherub looking Cupid killer, as well as Hulu’s Into the Dark anthology series that featured two horrific Valentine’s tales to varied success.
It should be no surprise that 2025’s HEART EYES successfully brings both horror and Valentine’s Day together in a fun way. The film would totally fit right in the late-90s/early-00s post-SCREAM nu-slasher revival, while also working as a spoof or satire on romantic comedies with all the tropes and cheese firmly in place. The simple premise pretty much involves the hulking Heart Eyes Killer [or HEK for short] traveling to a different city each year to murder happy couples for reasons unknown to only him or her. HEK arrives in Seattle, only to catch main protagonists Ally and Jay fake a kiss in front of Ally’s ex-boyfriend out of jealousy and mistakenly making them targets for the killer. Romantic tropes, slasher goodness and on-the-nose needle drops ensue.
HEART EYES doesn’t bring anything new to the slasher table, pretty much bringing what MY BLOODY VALENTINE had kind of done for a modern audience. But the film does these old tricks very well, giving you exactly what you would want in a modern slasher. Besides a lack of nudity, the film doesn’t really shy from the violence. While nowhere as gory as something like TERRIFIER, there are some nice gooey death sequences in HEART EYES. People get impaled and slashed by daggers. A victim gets crushed while hiding inside a wine juicer. There’s also crossbow action, as well as a sick looking decapitation that earns the film’s R rating. I thought the effects were handled very well.
Unlike other Valentine’s Day horror, HEART EYES also acts as a sweet rom-com that makes you root for the two leads to get together at the end if they manage to survive the night. Ally and Jay love the same type of coffee, bump heads [literally] at the same time, work in the same profession and manage to understand each other even if Ally [who is still not over a bad breakup] tries to sabotage any chance for love. And when they come together to survive HEK’s rampage, you watch their bond grow and it feels satisfying to watch them fall in love. That’s due to a smart and strong script that fleshes out these two characters, making them very likable and understandable when it comes to their individual perspectives. Add in a supportive and sassy best friend and a sarcastic police department and you have characters you care to watch for 97 minutes.
If I did have a main gripe, it’s probably HEK’s reveal in the final act. I partially got it right, but the entire reveal felt like the writers [mainly HAPPY DEATH DAY’s Christopher Landon] just wanted to be wacky and make up something to shock and surprise people. No one would guess the entire thing correctly since a lot of it was never hinted at or established like in other slasher mysteries, making it seem like an idea that was thrown at the wall to see what would stick. I appreciate how progressive and modern the reveal is and I thought the action during the conclusion was quite good. But the reveal itself didn’t connect with me because it came out of thin air.
The direction by Josh Ruben is energetic and well thought out in terms of set pieces and sound design. The film is never scary and not meant to be, but the romantic comedy aspects are solid and the tone maintains throughout. The Heart Eyes Killer is used very well, having some creepy moments from time to time. I thought their mask having night vision through the heart eyes was a neat touch that I wish more was done with. The death sequences and gore were shot really well. It’s not the most dynamic or memorable film visually, but Ruben did a very good job keeping it all together and maintaining a fun tone that I’ve seen a lot of other filmmakers have trouble with. Maybe it feels too much like the current SCREAM films, but it’s still well made.
What really won me over is the acting. I think both Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding are wonderful as the two leads, Ally and Jay. Holt is adorable, has nice comedic timing, and makes her a cool Final Girl who takes charge when she needs to. Gooding, no stranger to slashers due to his association with the current SCREAM sequels, is extremely charming and funny as hell in terms of his facial expressions and line delivery. Honestly, I think Gooding would make a fantastic romantic lead for a rom-com because he has all the tools to pull it off effortlessly. I also enjoyed the supporting performances by Devon Sawa and Jordana Brewster, playing two very different detectives on the HEK case. With Sawa’s bad-cop named Hobbs and Brewster’s more good-cop named Shaw, that obvious joke does present itself - with Brewster’s no-selling of it making it even funnier. And special mention to Gigi Zumbado as Monica, Ally’s best friend. She’s not in the film as much as I would want her to be, but Zumbado makes every scene she’s in funny and memorable.
Also, a big shout out on the soundtrack. With songs like “Lonestar” by Amazed, “Please Don’t Go” by KC & the Sunshine Band and “You Can’t Hurry Love” by The Supremes, this film has a solid song list.
THE FINAL HOWL
HEART EYES doesn’t reinvent the slasher wheel, but it’s still a fun time for those looking for a good Valentine’s Day horror film to watch. It also surprisingly works as a cute rom-com, just with a serial killer murdering happy couples [whether they know they’re in one or not]. The story is simple and straightforward, yet clever with an obvious wink-and-nod at certain tropes for both horror and rom-com genres. The script also presents likable characters, including two main characters you can’t help but root for in getting together by the movie’s end. This is helped greatly by the charming performances by both Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding, who share a ton of chemistry and play off each other extremely well. Josh Ruben also handles the gory sequences nicely, while maintaining a consistent tone that balances the horror with the romance. While the reveal itself didn’t exactly excite me or win me over and the film has this SCREAM feel you can’t escape, I think HEART EYES is a worthy watch during Valentine’s Day week for any horror [or even rom-com] fan.
With his marriage fraying, Blake persuades his wife Charlotte to take a break from the city and visit his remote childhood home in rural Oregon. As they arrive at the farmhouse in the dead of night, they’re attacked by an unseen animal and barricade themselves inside the home as the creature prowls the perimeter. But as the night stretches on, Blake begins to behave strangely, transforming into something unrecognizable.
REVIEW
It’s funny - I had reviewed the original 1941 THE WOLF MAN earlier this month in preparation for, what I had believed, was a modern remake or retelling of the same story. I had even debated whether to watch and/or review the 2010 remake, but I felt that I would dislike the 2025 adaptation more if I had. I wanted to go into 2025’s WOLF MAN with a fresh set of eyes and judge it for its own merits without comparisons to whatever came before it.
But lo and behold! 2025’s WOLF MAN isn’t an actual remake at all! It has no Larry Talbot. There are no Romani fortune tellers. I don’t think I even caught a full moon. It has family, love, and a man changing into… something. But it’s not the Universal WOLF MAN you’re used to.
And that’s one of my main issues with this version of the story - I feel the title is a bit misleading. Yes, there’s some legend about men turning into wolves and technically there are wolf-looking men in this movie. But WOLF MAN is less of a werewolf film and more of a body horror movie that’s akin to David Cronenberg, mainly 1986’s THE FLY. It’s a horror film where someone gets infected and begins to transform for the entire film, until that person decides to attack the people closest to them. Yes, main character Blake gets scratched and becomes more of a wolf creature. But he’s not technically what one would expect a werewolf to look like either. I respect the change but the title is advertising something audiences are probably not expecting [or even wanting out of a film like this].
The film also struggles with getting its message across in a meaningful way. 2020’s THE INVISIBLE MAN turned the original story on its head to craft a fantastic horror movie about abuse and PTSD. It just happened to star a man who could turn invisible and traumatize the main character with that ability, making characters in the film wonder if she’s going crazy or her outbursts about her ex-boyfriend being invisible are true.
WOLF MAN seems to be about not wanting to repeat the same mistakes our parents did so it won’t pass on to future generations. The prologue doesn’t shy away from this, as young Blake is raised by a strict military father who barks orders rather than show love and affection for him. He’s also hiding his own secrets, which makes Blake turn on him as he grows up. In order to do that, Blake is a bit more loving with his daughter Ginger [nice GINGER SNAPS homage], who dotes on her father and seems closer to him than to her workaholic mother Charlotte. However, Blake continues to feel guilty anytime Ginger acts out or doesn’t listen to him, turning him into his father. It seems while avoiding the past, Blake can’t seem to shake it off for his present and future.
While this commentary is great, it’s not handled in a deep way. The father-daughter aspect is done well, but the rest of the relationships could have used more time. There’s issues between Blake and Charlotte that aren’t really elaborated on besides that she works so much that she feels she’s not a good mother to Ginger, while Blake is a stay-at-home dad who probably isn’t being the best husband and father financially. But we barely spend time with this couple before shit hits the fan, so it’s hard to tell whether the marriage has been rocky for a long time now or this is just a recent event. Plus considering that Charlotte and Ginger don’t have the strongest relationship, the film’s focus would be more on that. While the two do grow closer due to the events in the film, I never got a sense their relationship will improve, although I suspect it would. Plus the “Sins of the Father” deal gets hammered into your head maybe too many times that it soon becomes too much on the nose when the “twist” occurs.
I also felt WOLF MAN was pretty tame in terms of scares and action. The film relies on jump scares for the most part, using the sound design to jolt audiences. But no one in my showing really fell for any of them, which is telling in how much they worked. And while some of the gore is pretty gnarly at times, Whannell seems to shy away from it quite a bit. Some people get murdered or eaten and we just see the aftermath, which is a shame. Plus, there are action moments - including one between two wolf people - that should be the film’s highlight. But instead, they’re cut pretty short and just feel like an afterthought. Maybe it’s because of the budget or Whannell was going for something with broader appeal, but it takes away the energy and intensity from WOLF MAN.
Fortunately, the film does have things going for it. The actors all do well with what they’re given. I feel Julia Garner kind of got the short straw here, as she’s reduced to playing frightened mother and wife for the most part. But she handles it well and convinces you that she’s confused and terrified by what’s going on. Matilda Firth could have played Ginger as a kind of annoyingly precocious child, but she gives the character a level of intelligence that makes her fit with the adult actors. She handles fear well, but also has a charm about her that makes you care for her relationship with her parents. She’s good in the role. The real star here is Christopher Abbott as Blake, who is game for anything asked of him. He plays a great dad. He plays a husband fighting for his marriage. He plays a man struggling with his two lives. And as he transforms into the Wolf Man, he becomes scarier and more intense as he goes from man to beast within a short time. Walking on all fours is kind of goofy, but Abbott goes for it and I respect it. Plus, I liked him in the makeup [even if I have mixed feelings on the look] and thought he conveyed his metamorphosis well. Solid actors who needed a better script to play around with.
I also liked some of Whannell’s directorial choices. The use of the wolf powers was actually a cool idea. It had a superhero origin vibe, where the subject is realizing he or she is becoming something else by realizing they have abilities no human should have. The loud sounds and the gurgling of sound when people talk to Blake was a nice touch. I also loved the wolf sight that would come in and out, reminding me of Detective Mode in those Batman Arkham games. I feel Whannell was more focused on the style of the film rather than the substance here. I mean, that’s fine for some horror directors but we’ve seen Whannell stand out because of the substance in his works. So while I liked the film visually [it’s a nice looking movie], he’s capable of better.
THE FINAL HOWL
If you’re going into WOLF MAN looking for a traditional werewolf movie, you’re going to be seriously disappointed. If you’re looking for something different, you’ll still probably be disappointed but maybe you’ll get something out of it. The issue with this film is that it plays things way too safe. It has a strong commentary about the sins of the father and how their actions affect their children, but it never really goes deeper than that, preferring to predictably play things out on the surface without any subtlety. Same with the relationship between the characters, as their dynamic has no depth other than they have issues that need to be worked on. Also, the film isn’t scary at all and when cool action happens, it’s cut away to something else.
But at least the performances are pretty good, especially by lead Christopher Abbott, who gives his all as both human and wolf-man. And the film has a good visual style going for it, especially when the wolf powers [or “Detective Mode”] come into play. The body horror aspect had some gnarly moments that picked up the film’s intensity at times. It’s also paced very well, as this film blew right by despite my issues with it. And I respect a new way of looking into the Wolf Man character, even if it doesn’t fully work for me.
Considering what Leigh Whannell has done in the past, his version of WOLF MAN is pretty weak and disappointing. Considering how much I loved THE INVISIBLE MAN, I felt that this was a severe drop in quality. Maybe some of you will get a kick out of this adaptation, but I don’t think it’s really anything to moon over. It’s fine at best.
Starring:Dennis Quaid, Max von Sydow, Christopher Plummer, Eddie Albert, Kate Capshaw, David Patrick Kelly, George Wendt
Genre:Drama/Science Fiction/Thriller/Horror
Running Time:99 Minutes
Plot:
In order to diagnose the psychic traumas suffered by his patients, Dr. Paul Novotny gets young Alex Gardner to enter their dreams.
Review:
It’s a shame that 1984’s DREAMSCAPE isn’t as cool as the misleading poster that’s advertising the film. Instead of an INDIANA JONES romp with some horror elements implemented, DREAMSCAPE is pretty much a sci-fi drama that becomes a bit more political as the film moves forward. The film takes elements of movies before it, like SCANNERS and THE DEAD ZONE, while at the same time being a movie that probably inspired others that improved on its premise like INCEPTION or PAPRIKA. Hell, this isn’t even the best 1984 film involving nightmares or an evil person with claws!
Yes, the nightmares look pretty bad 40 years later due to the obvious green screen effects. Yes, the film has a lot of plot threads going on that don’t feel like they should connect or even feel important by the end of the film. And yes, the characters are pretty much archetypes without much depth. Most of them are even unlikable in several ways, including our main protagonist played by Dennis Quaid.
But you have to admire DREAMSCAPE’s ambition for trying to balance all of this out, even if it doesn’t fully reach its potential. Despite the not-so-great visual effects, the nightmare scenarios are still pretty cool to see realized. That Snakeman monster is just awesome looking and he should have had more of a presence throughout the movie. And the plot is intriguing enough to make you want to see how it’ll all end.
Plus, you can’t go wrong with that cast. Dennis Quaid is great as a smug jerk who later becomes heroic. Kate Capshaw, who gets more to do in THE TEMPLE OF DOOM the same year, isn’t bad as Quaid’s love interest. Having Max von Sydow and Christopher Plummer, two masterclass actors, play against each other is wonderful. David Patrick Kelly brings some of that WARRIORS villainy in what should’ve been a bigger role. And George Wendt is here too!
DREAMSCAPE is a decent timewaster that’s worth a look if you want to see a film about nightmares in 1984 that wasn’t directed by Wes Craven. This one could probably use the remake treatment, although I feel like INCEPTION was pretty much the peak of these dream scenario movies.
Lon Chaney Jr. - Lawrence “Larry” Talbot/ The Wolf Man
Claude Rains - Sir John Talbot
Warren William - Dr. Lloyd
Evelyn Ankers - Gwen Conliffe
Ralph Bellamy - Captain Paul Montford
Patric Knowles - Frank Andrews
Bela Lugosi - Bela
Maria Ouspenskaya - Maleva
Genre -Horror/Supernatural/Werewolves
Running Time -70 Minutes
PLOT
After his brother’s death, Larry Talbot returns home to his father and the family estate. Events soon take a turn for the worse when Larry is bitten by a werewolf.
REVIEW
Considering the first big horror film of 2025 is Leigh Whannell’s adaptation of THE WOLF MAN, I figured it was the perfect time to go back to when the werewolf film became mainstream. While Universal Studios’ WEREWOLF OF LONDON from 1935 was officially the first feature-length werewolf flick, that film bombed at the box office at the time although it has now gained a cult following and even a hit song inspired by it. It took six years for werewolves to be cool and engaging for moviegoers, with 1941’s THE WOLF MAN becoming a huge hit and inspiring multiple sequels, spin-offs and even remakes along the way.
While the 1941 WOLF MAN is definitely a product of its time, the film still holds up for the most part and continues to inspire werewolf lore to this day. Probably the most iconic aspect of this classic horror film is the make-up of the title character. While very primitive compared to what would come along much later in films like 1981’s AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and THE HOWLING, the prototype for those later looks begin here. Yes, the Wolf Man looks less like a real wolf, and more like a regular man who hasn’t shaved for years and probably in good need of a dentist. But for the time, this was pretty impressive make-up work and probably horrified audiences.
THE WOLF MAN also has some thick atmosphere and cool locations going for it. Director George Wagnner does a nice job visualizing the story, using the setting quite well, especially at the end where the Wolf Man is hunting within the forest as he chases his love interest while others [including his father] chase him down. Even during the daytime scenes, there always seems to be a sense of dread and bleakness that the characters can’t overcome. Wagnner showcases through the use of fog and mist at night, while main character Larry Talbot encounters strange characters who deal in the mystical arts. There’s a level of spook all around THE WOLF MAN.
And while it may look goofy to many today, the transformation scene is still quite impressive considering this was done in 1941. It’s just a simple series of dissolves with actor Lon Chaney Jr. being shown with more werewolf makeup on in each frame. But again, 1941 audiences probably ate this up and were terrified by this metamorphosis. I honestly prefer this to much of the CGI transformations we get today, as I would rather have a werewolf look like this than look like a cartoon character. But that’s just me, I guess.
Also quite simple is the story written by Curt Siodmak. The narrative is easy to understand on paper, as it’s pretty much a man’s struggle to deal with his animal instincts when he’s bitten by a werewolf. Larry Talbot is already treated as somewhat of a black sheep within his own family, struggling with relationships with his father and those close with the Talbot family. His issues are made worse when he has no control over his new werewolf persona, killing people and stalking an engaged young woman who has refused his advances.
While Larry is a problematic character in a lot of ways, especially in how he doesn’t listen to his love interest Gwen [who is an engaged woman in love with another man], he’s really the only character we follow throughout. He’s the only character we care about because he has depth and is the only one who struggles with anything major in THE WOLF MAN. You want him to reconcile with his father. You get upset when people tell him he’s mentally ill because he believes in werewolves, to the point where he claims to be one himself. You wish he could have a chance with Gwen, who is sweet on Larry but faithful to Frank. Larry is a complex character in a simple narrative. Unfortunately, none of the other characters come close to having any depth or interesting arcs besides maybe fortune teller Maleva, who pops up whenever she needs to bail Larry out of a werewolf situation. Most of the other classic Universal Monsters films have supporting characters you can identify with, but THE WOLF MAN suffers from not having many. Pretty tough to do that when your movie is only 70 minutes.
And while the story is simple, you can take a lot of thematic subtext from THE WOLF MAN. Is this film about male puberty and sexual repression? Are we dealing with topics of duality, like a Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde situation? Is this a story about mental health and mental illness? Is Larry dealing with paranoia, anxiety, depression with everyone around him treating him feel lesser because of it, to the point where he has to transform and take it out on people as a mindless animal? Is this just a film about good and evil, or love and rejection leading to terrible things? There’s so much psychological analysis you can make out of this film, which makes it timeless in a way. THE WOLF MAN may be a monster film on the surface, but there’s a much deeper interpretation of the narrative underneath it all.
Siodmak’s biggest contribution to werewolf lore are all the elements he brings to the table here that quickly become incorporated in other mainstream werewolf movies. We have the weakness of silver. Werewolves have the mark of a pentagram once they’ve been bitten. There’s even the famous quote about men turning into wolves as “wolfsbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright.” Like George A. Romero would do with zombies in the late 1960s, Siodmak formed the werewolf tropes as we know them today.
The acting is perfectly fine here. The biggest impression is obviously Lon Chaney Jr. as Larry Talbot, aka the Wolf Man. At times, his performance is a bit awkward. But for the most part, he carries himself quite well and makes Larry a sympathetic character with goofy charm. Chaney Jr. also looks great in makeup, which makes him ideal for this dual role. Even better is Claude Rains as Sir John Talbot, Larry’s father. His performances are always top notch whether it’s in horror or something like CASABLANCA. The man brings class to every movie he’s a part of and here’s no exception. I liked his chemistry with Chaney Jr. Cool to see Ralph Bellamy here, even though he doesn’t really get a whole lot to do. Same for Bela Lugosi, who is gone as quickly as he appears. Maria Ouspenskaya is pretty great as Maleva though, bringing an air of mysticism to the proceedings. A good cast, even though a lot of them aren’t given much material to work with.
THE FINAL HOWL
While not the best Universal Monsters film ever made [my nod goes to 1935’s THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN], the original WOLF MAN is still pretty damn good all these decades later. Curt Siodmak crafts a simple [maybe too simple?] story that introduces a lot of the werewolf tropes that would continue to be implemented in werewolf movies to this very day. Director George Wagnner does a nice job visualizing the narrative with nice atmosphere and a spooky mood in the last half, while highlighting the use of makeup and dissolves to showcase the werewolf transformation. It may look hokey now, but it probably wowed audiences back in 1941. The actors are fine, mainly Lon Chaney Jr., Claude Rains and Maria Ouspenskaya. I wish the supporting characters had more depth because you don’t really care for them [Chaney Jr.’s Larry Talbot has the only real arc]. And the film may be a bit too short at seventy minutes to give the actors more to do. But THE WOLF MAN is a classic for a reason and still maintains a charm that will continue to make it resonate for many moons to come.
