Horror films can range from scary to twisted to gory to thriller. Very rarely does a horror film actually touch on all fronts the genre can touch on, but “Wolfman” does.

The casting is the first part that makes this movie stand out. First up is Academy Award-winner Anthony Hopkins, who has actually gained an even more awe-inspiring, masterful creepiness, with age. He now has a better twisted psychological bent than he did for the Hannibal Lector character, and he gets the bonus of having an even more regal bearing than ever.

Next on the casting list — Academy Award-winner Benicio Del Toro. This guy is an actor straight out of a time warp. The ability his face has to subtly and dramatically show emotional changes is astounding, while his demeanor and approach to the art of acting is, as mentioned above, like the actors of days gone by, when an actor had to prove his worth without the help of a voice — on top of it all Del Toro has a strong acting voice.

To complete the A-list talent comes Hugo Weaving. While not an Academy Award winner, his voice and the characters he has portrayed have already been further immortalized in cinematic history than some Oscar winners have ever dreamed.

Each of these actors becomes their respective characters excellently. The characters have a depth to them, from the first screen appearance that collects and pools out, without any over-dramatization or obvious pushes to “woo” and “wow” the crowd — they do this only through their natural affinity for acting.

As to story, “Wolfman” is one of the only remakes of late to remain an homage to the original tales, rather than tarnishing the original’s reputation. The wolfman legends brought to the silver screen back when movies were still black and white mixed fear with wonder and a human bent that much horror produced today has no idea how to even attempt to touch on due to shoddy and uninspired writing.

This modern remake stays true to the old way of telling a story.

To let it unfold rather than pushing a bloody stump in the audiences’ face or insult moviegoers’ intelligence by “pretending” the ending was anything other than expected.

From the get-go everyone knows the tale of the wolfman ends in tragedy and death, with a whole lot of hatred from the ignorant and intolerant carrying their torches aloft to light the “righteous” path. This is a true tale of terror revolving around man and monster. The wolfman is lost to the greatest, most frightening aspect that man has: the beast within. The unbridled, animalistic mentality that can cloud intellect and makes all of humanity wonder where their breaking point might be.

This is already a more daunting subject than most movies dare to address, and when many do, they butcher the philosophy of the notion through terrible story-telling, superfluous effects and a want for money rather than believing success comes to those who offer something great.

Classic horror was an exercise in understanding what it is to be human, what it is to be a part of society. This idea has been lost thanks to many of the money-grubbing morons who have somehow wandered into the positions of deciding whether a movie should be made.

Now, a little mindless entertainment — madcap action that’s only purpose is to support the action itself, empty stories that are only there to provide a few laughs and the ever-unimpressive story fashioned to showcase emotion that serves only to impress an art house full of pretentious philosopher wannabes — is fine to make, but if the afore mentioned factors should not be the primary selling point to green-light a movie.

“Wolfman” gives audiences almost everything that sells a movie but without compromising its soul — much.

For all the traits of classic filmmaking that can be lauded about this film, there also are the modern influences.

The effects are OK. Available technology is used to create very believable situations, but they suffer from not having the hundreds of millions of dollars needed, apparently, to create the beautiful and artificial scenes audiences appear to crave — I’m looking disgustfully at you “Avatar,” ugh.

The scenes where the wolfman is busy killing and maiming are pretty good, a little too silly at some parts, but good nevertheless, except for toward the ending.

There is a fight scene that should be an emotional ride of fulfillment — both effects and story-wise — for the audience, but that falls flat in its execution.

The meeting between the pseudo-hero of the story, Del Toro, and the original wolfman should be something that makes the story whole.

Instead, some jackass along the chain of command decreed lame fighting akin to a male-soap-opera wrestling match should be employed in order to make the film more like much of the modern crap that is thrown at an audience’s feet today.

Luckily this fight scene lasts for only a couple minutes and is slightly interrupted with an attempt at quality story-telling, but those few minutes truly sour much of the beauty that could have been.

For anyone wanting some simple entertainment, it will do the job.

For anyone wanting to delve deeper into the world of cinematic revelation, it is worthwhile venture. Just remember what “Wolfman” definitely offers: A look into what it means to be the human animal … without having to use teenage werewolves with six-pack abs fighting vampires who sparkle.

Gabriel Stoffa is senior in communication studies and political science from Ottumwa.