Wolf Man (2025) Movie Review - More of a Whimper Than a Howl

Welcome to Knockout Horror. We have been catching up on a few movies from the final few months of 2024 over the past few weeks. We are going to be breaking that trend, today, however, as we are taking a look at the first big name horror movie to release in 2025 – Leigh Whannell’s Wolf Man.

A Familiar Face

You may recognise Leigh Whannell as the dude who wrote, and starred in, the first Saw movie. His hokey acting stood out for, somehow, not being anywhere near as bad as Cary Elwes’ respective efforts. Since then, he has gone on to have rather a prolific career as a writer, actor and director. His most noteworthy effort being 2020’s The Invisible Man which was far better than it had any right to be.

For Wolf Man, Whannell takes the directorial helm and teams up with his wife, Corbett Tuck, to write the story and script. Jason Blum shares production credits so you, probably, already know what to expect. Hammy Hollywood horror with a decent budget and a paper thin plot. That is, after all, the Blumhouse way and that is exactly what you get.

This movies serves less as a remake of the 1941 classic Universal horror and more as a complete reboot of the series. This version takes us, sadly, not to my home country of Wales in the UK, but to deep rural Oregon. Where Blake (Christopher Abbott) decides to vacation, with his family, in the remote estate of his late father in an attempt to reconnect with his partner and child. Little realising that the reason for his father’s disappearance may be closer than he thinks.

Typical Blumhouse Fare

That’s really about all I can say to summarise Wolf Man. It is a typically shallow Blumhouse horror movie that doesn’t inspire dislike so much as it inspires apathy. The 100 plus minute runtime seems almost ridiculous given the threadbare nature of the story. I was, thoroughly, expecting a little bit of character development; maybe a little bit of wolf man lore defining; perhaps some tension carefully being built up; but there really is none of that to speak of.

We have a tiny bit of exposition with regards to what has happened to Blake’s father. A small hint that Blake is carrying some of the same negative traits that his father shared. And a miniscule amount of story to explain why the family are heading away from the bustling streets of San Francisco to the wilds of rural Oregon. Before, pretty much, the entire cast, and their belongings, are packed up into a U-Haul and driven across country.

Before you know it, the family are in a desperate fight for survival and a rather suspiciously hairy gentleman is harassing them mercilessly. There is minimal story, minimal development, and minimal lead up to what is, essentially, a night of cat and mouse, dog man, shenanigans. It’s all a bit disappointing, to be honest, but really not that surprising. Blumhouse seem as eager as ever to keep pumping out the “quick-fix” horror that they have been putting out for so long, now.

Ill Fitting Sub Plot

Sure, we have the usual things that you would expect from a title like this. Visceral transformations from man to wolf complete with nails falling off and teeth falling out. The loss of humanity as animalistic urges replace considered thought and plenty of hide and seek action. But Whannell’s choice to focus, practically, the entire film on the process of transformation is something that robs the story of both gravity and potential scares.

The only time we step away from the process of “man becoming wolf” is to explore elements of the ill fitting side narrative weaved into the Wolf Man. A narrative that seems massively at odds with the plot and completely tacked on. Blake is a little bit of an angry man, a trait he has inherited from his father. The thing is, however, it’s never illustrated in any way as to suggest it is all that big of a problem. Sure, he gets a bit short when his daughter acts like an annoying little idiot. But this kid is beyond obnoxious and pretty defiant so it is somewhat understandable.

He’s not, exactly, a walking red flag and certainly isn’t at a point in his life where he couldn’t work on these issues. Indeed, he appears to be working on them already. Aside from that, he is a, seemingly, decent guy trying his best. Hell, his relationship issues aren’t even his fault. They seem to be, more, down to his wife being rather inconsiderate and regretful of being a mother. The truly baffling thing is that this sub-plot never really goes anywhere.

Underdeveloped

The whole thing feels like a pointless diversion that isn’t given the time or focus it needs to actually develop into anything meaningful. It’s just tacked on because Hollywood horror demands some sort of metaphorical monster plotline or allegorical side plot even if it fits about as well as a bowling pin in a butthole.

I guess you could argue that this whole narrative is designed to add humanity to the animal but it really doesn’t work. It’s far too underdeveloped and Whannell takes far too few risks to really force you to buy in. It doesn’t help that Matilda Firth is not great as Blake’s daughter Ginger. I never like to take pot shots at child actors but Firth needed some stronger direction. She is completely unconvincing and robs every perilous scene of gravity.

I will probably take some flack for this because people seem to love her. But I think Julia Garner confirmed my theory, here, that she is massively overrated. I really disliked her performance in Apartment 7A and she was equally unconvincing here. Seeming checked out and expressionless for the majority of the movie. At least she wasn’t dancing, though, so that’s a plus.

A Few Good Points

I really enjoyed Stefan Duscio’s cinematography, here. There are some absolutely fantastic shots of the gorgeous New Zealand scenery and some creative use of angles to keep things fresh. Duscio does some tremendous things with lighting. Making interior shots an absolute treat, albeit a little overly dark in parts. I thought Benjamin Wallfisch’s scratchy, yet classically horror, score was excellent. It felt perfectly fitting for a horror movie that demanded animalistic musical pieces. Wallfisch continues to impress as one of the best horror movie composers in the genre, in my opinion.

The opening scenes are, legitimately, well executed and quite tense. They do a nice job of setting you up for some scares that, unfortunately, never actually materialise. Whannell, obviously, knows how to set up a good horror sequence. The Invisible Man is legitimately scary. Wolf Man, however, just feels very muted and low effort in comparison. Overly keen to rely on tired horror tropes rather than actually trying to scare the viewer.

Christopher Abbott’s performance, as Blake, was strong and I thought he did particularly good in some of the more horror focused scenes. I thought some of the body horror elements were very well done, as well. Though the actual Wolf Man design was rather lacking and, frankly, not all that interesting. Something which is rather a shame given that it is a potential highlight of the film. There’s a distinctly PG-13 feel to this movie that prevents it ever being remotely scary. Something that is only reinforced by the overly saccharin familial elements.

Should You Watch Wolf Man?

Casual horror fans might enjoy Wolf Man. It is tremendously light on scares, has virtually no plot, too much dialogue and a weirdly ill placed allegorical story but it does enough to, perhaps, entertain people with low demands. There are some decently tense scenes well supported by an excellent sound track and the movie looks fantastic. Anyone hoping for a worthwhile reboot to one of the best horror classics of all time should look elsewhere. This is a movie that inspires apathy more than anything else. Trope heavy, overly familiar, not at all scary and very uneven. You can safely give this movie a miss.

Our Scoring Philosophy: A Fair Fight

Horror is a genre that thrives thanks to indie film makers and low budget creators. At Knockout Horror, we firmly believe that every movie that we review deserves a fair fight. That's why we grade on a curve. Our star ratings are all about context, judging a film on what it achieves with the resources it has.

A 4-star rating for a scrappy indie horror made for $10,000 is a testament to its ingenuity and raw power. A 4-star rating for a $100 million blockbuster means it delivered on its epic promises. We don't compare them side-by-side; we celebrate success in every weight class, from the back-alley brawler to the heavyweight champion. Please keep this in mind when considering star ratings.

Disclaimer: Images, posters, and video stills used in this review are the property of their respective copyright holders. They are included here for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and review under fair use. Knockout Horror makes no claim of ownership and encourages readers to support the official release of all films discussed.