Methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark... er, Universal Studios.

In the movies, in the plays of Shakespeare, and even in real life, even the most heroic characters have flaws and weaknesses that they must struggle with to find the true meaning of themselves in the quest to achieve some good.

In Joe Johnston's 2010 re-imagining of "The Wolfman", screenwriters Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self struggle in their quest to bring an iconic character to a new generation of movie fans with a good script. Fans much, much more familiar with quick-moving, flashy "realistic" video games, with music videos featuring quick, flashy edits and with computer-generated explosions, car crashes, firefights and general mayhem all aimed at very short attention spans. Thus, when the business people, that's right, business people, not cinema artists, at Universal Studios decided to take a gamble on presenting such iconic character to this generation, the highly-prized 18 - 24 year old demographic which they know is their target market, there was probably not much of a struggle at all in charting the direction their quest would take.

I imagine myself as the Invisible Man, eavesdropping on a Universal pre-production meeting for "The Wolfman": "Dude! Dude, we gotta make it sweet, ya know? Oh dude, they didn't have cars then... did they? So how are we gonna have any sweet, exploding car chases? Oh dude! Dude, I know, lets have an epic monster battle! Dude, nice!" Now that we understand how creative decisions are made at Universal, we have a certain appreciation of why "The Wolfman" turned out as it did.

Screenwriters Walker and Self present us with a very interesting notion early in "The Wolfman"; we see Welsh-born, American-raised actor Lawrence Talbot (Benecio Del Toro) playing a scene from William Shakespeare's "Hamlet" as the melancholy title character. Now THAT was cool! Very different from the original, 1941 "Wolf Man", yet a very apropos approach to the story of a man conflicted with unbearable inner turmoil.

Later in the film, Scotland Yard Inspector Abberline (Hugo Weaving), challenges Talbot, "You've played Hamlet, Richard the Third, Macbeth. I wonder how many other beings are running around in that head of yours!" Hamlet was a tragic, melancholy individual, plagued with indecision and inner conflicts regarding morality and revenge, he even remarks to other characters that there is more to him than meets the eye. And Hamlet was even falsely accused of insanity to explain his erratic behavior, much like Larry Talbot. "The Wolfman" could have really explored this fascinating idea vis-a-vis the life of Lawrence Talbot as it implied with parallels to Hamlet, but… alas, t’was not to be. They sort of present it, don't develop it, then drop it. Evidently there were more important, and more easily understood by their target audience, story elements Walker and Self wanted to put across; like ridiculous-looking, computer-generated bears. Not to mention; the Hollywood staple cliché - fast, loud, exploding car chase scene, is just not going to work in this late 19th century period piece, not even with this audience. So they had to think of something else fast, loud and explosive to hold their demographic’s attention. Thus, the ridiculous, “epic” monster fight previously alluded to.

And Benecio Del Toro, arguably the greatest pure actor of his generation, looks indifferent. His performance is, due to a very mediocre script and equally mediocre direction, most unfortunately one-dimensional and uninspired.

Now, having said all of this; I am, in some ways, as conflicted as Larry Talbot. I didn’t hate the film, as I feared I would, yet I can’t give it five starts, either. After waiting, how long did we wait – three years? four years? – to see "The Wolfman" after numerous delays by Universal, I was terrified that the titular iconic character would be a farcical, computer-generated discombobulation, much like the werewolf in that godforsaken “Van Helsing”. (Sheesh, even typing that movie title makes me nauseous.) But, I was pleasantly surprised beyond words! Makeup effects genius Rick Baker single-handedly saved this film from near-disaster. He created a Wolfman that is superb, memorable, and… genuinely SCARY! As a werewolf aficionado, I submit that this Wolfman is, after the ground-breaking creation of Jack Pierce in the 1941 “Wolf Man”, the second greatest screen werewolf EVER! Far superior to the numerous, boring werewolves in “Dog Soldiers”, cooler and scarier than the werewolves of “Ginger Snaps”, “The Company of Wolves”, “Wolf”, and yes, even “The Howling”. And I even like him better than the more-canine-less-human werewolf of “An American Werewolf in London”.

The one thing I feared would be the worst about this film (the Wolfman himself) is the best, and the one thing I was sure would be the best (the performances by Benecio Del Tor and Anthony Hopkins), were lackluster, at best. The great Anthony Hopkins looks, I can’t decide which, either bored or embarrassed to be in this film in the first place. And Emily Blunt’s character, Gwen Conliffe, makes one wonder why the Universal brain trust put her in the film. The token love interest? The token gratuitous (seen from the back) topless shot? Her relationship with Lawrence is nebulous and lukewarm at best, and a dispensable token, at worst.

But, that is business as usual at the corporate movie machine that is Universal; first - keep it simple, use the same old clichés over and over, cater to the lowest common denominator to put as many butts in seats as humanly possible, second – create good, relevant cinema. Something is indeed rotten in the state of Universal.