“Wolfman” is the second entry in the effort to bring the classic Universal monster franchise into the modern age. While both so far have been directed by Leigh Whanell, 2020’s “Invisible Man” wowed us with plot twists and complicated characters. Despite the illumination of a full moon, those elements are noticeably absent in this film. What “Wolfman” brings to the table is a classic horror plot for fans, but a lack of character development and plot depth ultimately leaves you wanting more.

The prologue reveals that in 1995, a hiker disappeared in the woods and, essentially, turned into a wolf. Native Americans call this phenomenon the “face of the wolf.” This text serves as the sole explanation for the existence of wolfmen in the film. During a hunting trip, a young boy named Blake (played by Zac Chandler) and his father (played by Sam Jaeger) encounter a mysterious man-animal—a being that resembles a wolf, or a wolfman if you will.

Thirty years later, adult Blake (Christopher Abbott) is unemployed in San Francisco. He shares his life with his daughter, Ginger (Matilda Firth), and his wife, Charlotte (Julia Garner). We don’t learn much about these characters or Blake himself other than that Charlotte is a busy journalist and Blake is an unemployed writer. A delivered package reveals that his long-missing father has finally been declared dead, and inside is a pair of keys to the old isolation shack where Blake grew up.

Before we’ve hardly seen the Wolfman, the film reveals significant character development issues. Charlotte enters through a monologue in which she argues with her boss over work details on the phone. Unfortunately, Charlotte never evolves beyond this portrayal; she remains a busy, detached working woman. The story follows her journey to the countryside, where she would end up embracing Christmas and marrying an elf in a typical Hallmark film. Instead, she faces one or more wolfmen in this narrative.

It is hard to say the character development issues are due to the cast. Even though physically tortured with bodily transformation here, Abbott did not have much to work with to show a layered performance the way we saw him do with emotional torture in “On the Count of Three.” The film’s female stars have even less, I’m afraid to say, with their growth mainly constrained to running from the wolves.

Wolfman” struggles to come together thematically. While it has great ingredients that could create an allegory for generational trauma, the nature of the Wolfman curse (or infection) is not sufficiently linked to these themes. If Blake has inherited trauma, why does he have a version of the Wolfman “disease” that anyone could contract? This choice weakens the idea that the curse is passed from generation to generation and thus undermines our allegory. Although we see hints of the grimness of Blake’s father, we lack a deeper backstory to better understand the type of trauma Blake witnessed. In the present day, there is only one scene where Blake behaves sternly, much like his father. However, one scene with somewhat sappy dialogue is not enough to make the allegory resonate. This theme is tenuous throughout the third act and then is perplexingly abandoned in the final scene. Furthermore, it is surprising how readily available this theme was to explore, given its presence in the original 1941 classic.

While the film succeeds in creating tension and action, while I might not have completely understood Blake and his family due to the thin plot, I did feel for them and the danger they were in. The best scenes for me featured direct confrontations with the beast, either inside or outside the family. The fight-or-flight scenes are fast-paced and dynamic, and the monster design is believable enough to be both plausible and frightening.

“Wolfman” is a movie many viewers may struggle to engage with, but it offers a menacing enough monster and body horror to entertain horror enthusiasts.