Wolf Man, 2025.

Directed by Leigh Whannell.
Starring Christopher Abbott, Julia Garner, Matilda Firth, Sam Jaeger, Ben Prendergast, Benedict Hardie, Zac Chandler, Beatriz Romilly, and Milo Cawthorne.

SYNOPSIS:

A family at a remote farmhouse is attacked by an unseen animal, but as the night stretches on, the father begins to transform into something unrecognizable.

While father Grady (Sam Jaeger) and young son Blake (played by Christopher Abbott as an adult following the prologue) are hunting in the Oregon woods, his wisdom is that “dying is the easiest thing to do,” seemingly toughening his boy up mentally and physically to be prepared for anything life throws at him. That’s also a piece of philosophy from the toxic masculinity playbook, with Grady also obsessed with hunting down a man rumored to have contracted a disease resulting in animalistic characteristics, which perhaps isn’t surprising for a film titled Wolf Man.

Roughly 30 years later, Blake is a writer estranged from his father but is now a husband to journalist Charlotte (Julia Garner) and a dad to young daughter Ginger (Matilda Firth), who catches himself falling into the same easily irritable traits of his father, often flying into brief instances of yelling and mild verbal abuse whenever he feels that the latter might be putting herself in danger as a result of not listening to him.

A “spirited exchange” also shows that the love might be burning out in this marriage as Blake grumpily urges Charlotte to take an important call with her editor to another room, conflicted on how to feel upon receiving paperwork informing him that his father is officially deceased. One thing is clear: he loves his family (Ginger also reciprocates that) and wants to make the family dynamic work, perhaps out of fear that he will become estranged from them, too. There is also a question of how much of his father has bled into him and if that can be removed or corrected.

This also might sound like an excessive amount of setup for a creature feature adaptation of a classic monster but worry not, co-writer/director Leigh Whannell (penning the screenplay alongside Corbett Tuck) is efficient in establishing these characterizations and dynamics, quick to funnel the family off to a summer vacation in the Oregon woods Blake grew up in, where a wolf man attacks before they even reach his childhood home. In this suspenseful sequence that amounts to a somewhat inspired take on the otherwise clichéd set piece of a vehicle swerving off the roads and into the woods, the moving truck is left suspended in midair, held together by various tree branches and Blake desperately tries to get his wife and daughter to safety, but not before unknowingly contracting the same aforementioned animalistic disease.

Admittedly, it is undeniably apparent where this is all going, especially with a bluntly delivered central metaphor. Wolf Man is also lacking in the ferocious bite, timeliness, and general wow factor of his universally acclaimed but criminally overlooked during awards season, The Invisible Man, but is well-crafted (complete with firsthand perspectives into what Blake is seeing and hearing throughout the transformation, something that comes with exceptional animalistic and heightened sound design distorting dialogue and audio from household appliances, bugs crawling along the walls, and more.)

The transformation aspect, yielding strong work from Christopher Abbott regarding both physicality and emoting, also boasts some truly impressive practical effects and makeup, playing into a humanized concept. Matilda Firth is also a newcomer highlight, terrified of what’s happening to her father but holding onto that love. There are tender moments here that are naturally cut short for more body horror, effectively working in tandem. It’s a film taking its premise seriously and dramatically but with enough sincerity and visual skill to pull that off. There are also gnarly one-and-one wolf-man battles, so the film delivers what’s to be expected.

103 minutes is a standard running time, but Wolf Man moves fast, functioning as tense theme park horror with solid thematic storytelling and such relentless pacing that it only feels like an hour long. The one downside to that is that, early on, some of that characterization comes to a halt and isn’t developed any further. Some of that nuts and bolts minimalism is appreciated; the film is simultaneously restrained yet embraces its genre roots to gnarly effect with heart at its core.

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★

Robert Kojder is a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association, Critics Choice Association, and Online Film Critics Society. He is also the Flickering Myth Reviews Editor. Check here for new reviews and follow my BlueSky or Letterboxd 



Sirocco and the Kingdom of Winds (trailer) is a 2D children’s animated fantasy film, a Franco-Belgian production released in 2023, directed by Benoît Chieux who co-wrote it with Alain Gagnol. Imdb rates it 7/10.

Carmen and Juliette are sisters, whose mother drops them off with her friend Agnes to babysit for a day. Agnes has forgotten they’d be coming, and asks if they can be quiet for a half-hour while she takes a much-needed nap. She’s the author of a long-running book series called Sirocco, and had been staying up all night writing.

Unable to sit still, Juliette rifles through one of Agnes’ books, weird stuff happens, and the sisters end up in the world of the book, transformed into cats. After Juliette gets them in trouble with the local mayor, they embark on a quest with an avian opera singer named Selma to find the elusive Sirocco, a mysterious, reclusive, and mercurial sorceror.

Story-wise, it’s very light on details; the relationship between the real world and the book isn’t made clear. Agnes is unaware of it, and people in the book appear to have a degree of self-determination. Character-wise, Carmen and Juliette end the film pretty much how they began it. They haven’t grown or learned much.

Even so, they’re good siblings who honestly love each other. Carmen is the older sister by a few years, and is used to having to be the responsible one who tries to keep the other in check. Juliette is the younger sister, impatient, impulsive, and because it’s her 5th birthday, she’s feeling a bit more entitled than usual. Personally I found her mildly annoying, yet written very realistically for her age. Two of her more impulsive moments in the film are pretty funny, too!

For me, the real star of the show was Selma, the opera singer, who’s more than happy to go on a journey to help the kids. I loved her ethereal singing, performed by Aurélie Konaté. Sirocco himself remains largely an enigma. And there’s an additional creature, a cross between the floating polyps from a Jim Woodring comic and those suburban flailing tube guys.

Really, it’s the visual design and the unusual adventure that carry this film. Its subtle uses of shapes and flat colors were really nice to experience! Studio Ghibli was an obvious influence (particularly Spirited Away), and the director has also cited Yellow Submarine and Moebius. Yeah, I can see it in some of the creatures and spires.

Overall I liked Sirocco, but I don’t think it’s a must-watch, except for the curious. It’s extremely light children’s fare with an intriguing artistic style. I had a subtitled version, and there’s an English dub that may be available on Amazon Video, Apple TV, and from Microsoft, distributed by GKids.

To say “Am I Racist?” wasn’t designed to win over Hollywood would be putting it very mildly. Produced by the Daily Wire and fronted by conservative commentator Matt Walsh, the documentary takes a “Borat”-style comedic blowtorch to progressive ideas about systemic racism and diversity training programs. When the film opened in more than 1,500 theaters in September, many mainstream critics simply ignored it, and it received little coverage in traditional media outlets.

Yet in a climate of intense political polarization, “Am I Racist?” managed to strike a chord. Even as many on the left dismissed it as offensive and unfunny, the movie opened in the top five at the box office and went on to earn more than $12 million, making it the highest-grossing documentary of 2024.

The picture’s success was hardly an isolated blip. In recent years, filmmakers catering to conservative audiences have been finding new ways to bypass Hollywood and connect directly with viewers they feel the mainstream has overlooked. Angel Studios’ “Sound of Freedom,” a faith-based thriller centered on sex trafficking in Colombia, cracked the top 10 at the U.S. box office in 2023, grossing $250 million worldwide to become one of the most successful independent films of all time.

More recently, the presidential biopic “Reagan” became a sleeper hit last year, pulling in $30 million — nearly doubling the box office of “The Apprentice,” a scathing drama about the rise of Donald Trump that struggled to find a large audience despite months of buzz and festival screenings. (To be fair, the Dinesh D’Souza documentary “Vindicating Trump” also fizzled, grossing just $1.3 million, suggesting that Trump fatigue may have been a factor.)

Penelope Ann Miller and Dennis Quaid as Nancy and Ronald Reagan in the sleeper hit “Reagan.”

(Ron Batzdorff / Rawhide Pictures)

Mark Joseph, the producer of “Reagan,” sees the success of movies like his as a wake-up call for the traditionally liberal-leaning industry. “Why set out to intentionally leave half the country behind? It makes no sense,” Joseph told The Times via email. The film’s earnest approach to the 40th president, played by Dennis Quaid, garnered little love from critics — “Reagan” earned an 18% rating on Rotten Tomatoes — but its release leaned on alternative marketing strategies, including promotion on podcasts hosted by Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson and Megyn Kelly. “The fundamental question we have to ask ourselves is: Are we making movies for each other or for the audience?” Joseph said.

The Daily Wire has emerged as one of the most ambitious players in this space. Founded in 2015 by right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro and producer Jeremy Boreing, the company expanded into film in 2021 with “Run Hide Fight,” a school-shooting thriller that found an audience through the company’s direct-to-subscriber platform, Daily Wire+.

Since then, the Daily Wire has released projects like “What Is a Woman?,” a documentary challenging progressive views on transgender identity, and “Lady Ballers,” a satirical comedy about sports and gender. Its upcoming fantasy series, “The Pendragon Cycle,” signals its ambitions to expand into new territory, with a focus on epic storytelling rather than overtly political themes.

With Trump preparing to begin his second term as president, the cultural and political winds appear to be shifting in the direction of content that appeals to conservative audiences. At the same time, traditional studios and streamers are already exploring ways to tack toward those right-leaning viewers — or at least avoid alienating them. (Despite Trump’s impending return to office, political speechifying was conspicuously absent at the recent Golden Globes.)

The Times spoke with Boreing, Daily Wire’s co-chief executive and the director of “Lady Ballers” and “The Pendragon Cycle,” about what he sees ahead for the conservative film movement and how Hollywood might respond. The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

“Am I Racist?” became the highest-grossing documentary of 2024 despite being largely ignored by traditional media outlets. What do you think drove its success?

We would have liked some reviews. For one thing, you can’t overstate the power of the Daily Wire machine to market to an underserved audience. We spent millions on [marketing] and leveraged our own promotional channels, which are worth many millions more. We’re the best in the world at talking to our exact audience online. Conservatives have rightly observed that there’s very little of this kind of content for them. If there is a political documentary, it’s almost certainly going to be the other side that puts it forward.

A scene from “Am I Racist?,” the top-performing documentary at the box office in 2024.

(Daily Wire)

Advertisement

People also root for us. They see us taking on forces arrayed against half the country on their own turf, not just putting something on our streaming platform but releasing it in theaters. A lot of people came to see “Am I Racist?” not expecting much but glad that somebody was taking that position. And the film was good. Matt Walsh is an enormous talent. A decade ago, the left had great comedians who could do that kind of work, but victory made them weak. Those muscles atrophied, leaving a huge opportunity for someone like Matt.

When the Daily Wire first decided to enter the entertainment business, what was the driving idea behind that move? How did you see films advancing your mission?

Ben Shapiro and I met on a movie deal, so creating culture was always a part of our vision for the Daily Wire. But we didn’t have a clear road map. We were all L.A. guys from the Andrew Breitbart school of “politics is downstream from culture.” At the time, I was running Friends of Abe, which was an open-secret group of around 2,800 Hollywood conservatives. In 2020, we realized we’d already built much of the infrastructure in terms of production savvy, high-level marketing and an SVOD [subscription video on demand] platform for our podcasts. What we hadn’t done was produce films.

From a philosophical point of view, I’ve always pointed to the fact that Barack Obama couldn’t have been elected in 2008 as a Democrat if he supported gay marriage, and by 2012, he couldn’t have been reelected if he opposed it. Such a radical shift in values wasn’t achieved politically — it happened culturally, largely due to the success of “Will & Grace.” Culture has the power to set the Overton window [range of acceptable discourse] for politics, and we’ve always wanted to be creators, not just critics, of culture.

Some of your projects, like “The Pendragon Cycle,” don’t outwardly appear to be political. Where does politics fit into the vision you’ve laid out?

Politics is a consideration but not the most important one. We’re not afraid to be political. We own our biases very openly. “Lady Ballers” is a comedy, but it’s a very opinionated comedy because I wrote and produced it. But other projects, like “Terror on the Prairie,” “Shut In” or “The Pendragon Cycle,” the biggest bet we’ve ever taken — they’re notable for what they don’t say rather than for what they do. They’re not values-first films.

Daily Wire’s other productions include “Lady Ballers,” pictured.

(Daily Wire)

Obviously, we wouldn’t make content that our audience would oppose on some philosophical grounds. But conservative audiences, like anyone else, don’t just watch things based on philosophy. They don’t want films that spit in the face of their philosophy in the third act, but mostly, they just want to be entertained. That’s what we’re trying to deliver.

Faith-based movies have long been a staple for conservative audiences, but the Daily Wire is carving out a different niche. How do you decide which stories to tell, and what makes something feel like the right fit for your brand and audience?

I would say part of the defining philosophy of the Daily Wire is that we’re not cynical. We try not to make cynical plays. When we do, they always bite us — which, as a religious person, I take as God reminding us, “Hey, remember how you decided not to be cynical?” In our entertainment business, we don’t want to make movies that people want to want to watch; we want to make movies they actually want to watch. We’ve never approached our entertainment as a nonprofit. We’re not saying, “Don’t you want this kind of movie to exist for someone else?” We’re asking, “What do you actually want to see?” If it’s something we’d like to see, that’s usually the most important factor in choosing a project.

How do you see the landscape changing for conservative films under another Trump presidency? Do you see traditional studios and streamers trying harder to compete for these audiences?

I think there are enormous opportunities for companies like the Daily Wire because our audience now feels, for the first time in a long time, like maybe the country isn’t doomed, that history isn’t completely arrayed against them. The Daily Wire has always taken an optimistic position, unlike many conservative media companies. We’ve always said our goal was to fight the left, yes, but also to build the future. Most organizations fighting the left lean toward despair, while most future-building is done by the left. The Daily Wire walks the line between both. The next chapter is ours to write.

Do I think Hollywood studios might try to compete for that audience again? I hope so. I’ve said many times, the best success for the Daily Wire isn’t becoming Disney — it’s for Disney to become Disney again. I’d count it the victory of a lifetime, for the country, my values and our business, if Disney went back to serving the entire audience, not just a faction. Competing for their dollars forces them to be competitive, and we’ve done that.

I do think things will change. The business and our strategy will have to evolve. I’m not trying to plan with Matt Walsh the “next anti-woke documentary.” Woke-ism isn’t gone, but it’s on the ropes. I don’t think that’s where the appetite will be in 24 months. We have to keep surveying the landscape, thinking about the best opportunities to represent our audience and create content they actually want to see.