Reviewing Reviewers: The Hot Button's Wolf Man (2025) Review

Reviewing Reviewers reviews reviewer’s reviews that influence what you watch.

David Poland opens with, “Every great movie is a miracle. And Leigh Whannell’s Wolf Man might make you think that God is dead.”... Starting a review like that is incredible. Bold. Provocative. Rage bait. The only justifiable reason for a reviewer to have that kind of start is to play on a tagline used in marketing the movie (poster, trailer, casting couch, whatever) or Wolf Man really is that sacrilegious to the miracle of cinema. Usually, it’s a cheap tactic to get more engagement in an oversaturated market, who’s film criticism is basic. Not saying this was David Austria’s intention but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s an amateur review.

How’s that for an opening? It’s also bold and provocative. However, mine is dedicated entirely to the piece being reviewed. Unfortunately for David Germany, he starts with several paragraphs that could be ranked alongside TMZ with his focus on the studio’s release history. The quality of a film should speak for itself without external influence. In this case, the review’s excessive discussion on past failures to update the character or the filmography of Blumhouse and how it hasn’t had a solid hit in a few years, runs the risk of tiring the reader. That isn’t to say it can’t work, but it needs purpose. When Heath Ledger died while filming The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, which led to rewrites and recasting, that is potentially useful information for audiences to know going into the movie. The need to watch a previous series/film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe to understand what’s happening is useful information. Blumhouse having a cold streak over the last few years is, at best, material you pepper in when you’re feeling a lil sassy, David.

It's a shame the David Switzerland’s (this joke has overstayed its welcome) opening is apparently his application to Entertainment Tonight, because the review itself is decent. Poland (the real surname for those that lost track) gives us specific examples to reenforce his criticisms. Yet, he doesn’t succumb to synopsis-porn. He offers positives to avoid a review-bombing rant… or manifesto, depending on how some reviewers view their reviews. He uses “his” interpretation and feelings to avoid the arrogance of many reviewers that critique like their subjective opinion is absolute fact. Sure, he mentions An American Werewolf in London, which is about as tired of a werewolf film reference as you can get (where my Wolfen people at!?), but he justifies it by writing about modern filmmakers’ obsession with trying to emulate that film instead of finding a new approach. Like how Whannell (the director) re-envisioned The Invisible Man but didn’t bring that same vigor to updating Wolf Man. Note That was good peppering, David. Was there enough evidence to believe God is dead? If your faith is based on the hyperbole of false promises, then sure. But let’s assume the boy be trolling with a solid bit of engagement bait to get eyes on his work in an oversaturated market.

David Poland knows his way around a review. When he actually gets around to the review. He just needs to save all those long-winded external factors like production/studio history and pop-culture context for a “conversational” four-person movie podcast (3 men, 1 woman). I will end with the acknowledgement that I’m aware this is from the writer’s personal Substack, so he is not held to the same standards as publications. But a review is a review is a review. And I’m in the business of reviewing reviewer’s reviews… Which is unpaid.

Grade: B

If you’d like to read the review yourself: https://davidpoland.substack.com/p/thb-653-wolf-man?r=7wlst&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true