House of the Wolfman

[The Drunken Severed Head]

Okay, I have seen the film, and--in my opinion-- it's a mixed bag.

Bad news (as I see it) first: the writing, direction, and acting are very uneven. The writing is generally pastiche Universal Gothic, which is a plus. I like my horror old-fashioned, very much so.

But the script reminds me less of The Cat and The Canary, The Old Dark House or any of the Frankenstein and Wolf Man movies, which is what I think it shoots for, than Horror Island and the 1941 The Black Cat (with, wisely, less "comedy relief.") Throughout, the acting ranges from bad to well done; a better consistency in the performances would have helped. Not all of the actors seemed to be experienced professionals. However, the actors playing the young male lead Reed Chapel (Dustin Fitzsimons), the bespectacled brainiac Conrad Sullivan (Jeremie Loncka), and the sexy Elmira Cray (Cheryl Rodes)  showed the most skill as performers, I thought, and I enjoyed watching them work their craft.

I found myself occasionally wishing that the camera moved more. My impression, after one viewing, was that wasn't as much camera movement as in films like Bride of Frankenstein or other classic horror films. Not a huge complaint, but it registered. But there's not a LOT of camera movement in good television series either, and as most people are going to see this on a smaller screen, it's probably not much of a distraction.

The movie includes sly visual references to the original The Wolf Man, and presents a story that would fit into the classic Universal "universe." Some of the script elements indeed honor the best traditions of old Universals. But sometimes, sadly, the worst as well.

For example, there was some not-very-funny comedy relief, and a couple of examples of outright send-up: an African native character actually says "Cowabunga, oomgowa!" at one point, and another African native character sees a monster and we are shown a closeup of him doing a "Buckwheat"-style big-eyed, jaw-dropping take. And in a climactic fight, we see the stone walls of the castle shake three times when hit.

I think these things were included to make the film more "authentic," in a sense--but I feel it was a mistake not to scrap them. Fans can forgive such bad choices and bloopers in old movies, but we don't value them or want them included in a film trying to be like the horror classics of yesteryear. (At least I don't, and my wife felt the same way.) They pushed the film briefly into parody, not pastiche, and as the film is apparently intended as a tribute to the classics, they're out of place. (Again, IMHO--your mileage may vary.)

The scenes of Michael Thomas as Dracula don't make up much more than a cameo, and his last line is the end of the film. Unfortunately, the line isn't very dramatic, and I thought all  the momentum of the film evaporated with his last scene, making for an unsatisfying ending.

Now the good news. The lighting, sets, set decoration and props, costumes, makeup, and fight choreography are all excellent. It looks much better than I expected. (I'm guessing it was shot on hi-def video; it was presented in digital projection.) When there are so very few new movies to see in "glorious black and white", it is wonderful to see one done with such care.

The musical score by Nate Scott is a fantastic asset to the film ; an evocative piece of composition that aids in creating mood and tension.

WARNING: Two small spoilers ahead!

There are two scenes in the film that will stand up to the test of time, and remain in the memories of any lovers of old monster movies that see it. The first one involves a mysterious, badly disfigured character revealed in a hidden room. It was one of the creepiest scenes I've ever seen, and I thought one that Browning would have been proud of. The other is the climactic fight between the Wolf Man and Frankenstein's Monster--it is what the fight in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man SHOULD have been! Great choreography, editing, and camera work come together to make it marvelously memorable. I loved it.

So House of the Wolf Man, if I had to rank it with any of the Universal monster movies, would be somewhere between House of Dracula and Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man in quality. Which is fitting, I suppose, because it mostly goes in for a 1940s Universal flavor. Too bad that was a lesser decade for GREAT horror films! Still, if only for the look of the film, the music, the makeup, and the two scenes I pointed out for special praise, you should go see it.

[Type3Toys]

When can we expect to optain or see this movie? I am really looking forward to it.

[BlackLagoon]

Great looking poster! I want one.

I 2nd that!!!!

[Jscareshock]

I spoke to producer and buddy John McGar when he was at CHiller this past weekend.  He has a meeting with Paramount today (Wednesday) about buying and distributing the film.  He wants to take that offer (Lions Gate is also interested) and go back to Universal one more time--he really wants this to be a Universal monster picture--and see if he can finalize a deal.  Otherwise it looks like Paramount will be handling it and he expects it to be on shelves within 3-6 months after that.

[63monsterkidd]

Great news. I hope Universal take them up on the offer.

63monsterkidd

[raycastile]

Thanks Max for that thoughtful review.  I'm definitely curious to see this movie.  I'll probably buy the DVD when it finally comes out.  I'm walking into it expecting an ambitious "fan film" paying homage to 40s Universal horror.  If I walk out feeling I've actually seen a legit film that stands on its own as a good monster movie, I'll consider that a bonus.  I think the big news here is that the film even exists.  It's not a short film, not on You Tube, not something that will only play in the Old Dark Clubhouse.  It's a feature film playing in actual theaters, it's black and white, and it's about the Wolf Man fighting Frankenstein.  That's pretty cool.

[BlackLagoon]

Thanks Max for that thoughtful review.  I'm definitely curious to see this movie.  I'll probably buy the DVD when it finally comes out.  I'm walking into it expecting an ambitious "fan film" paying homage to 40s Universal horror.  If I walk out feeling I've actually seen a legit film that stands on its own as a good monster movie, I'll consider that a bonus.  I think the big news here is that the film even exists.  It's not a short film, not on You Tube, not something that will only play in the Old Dark Clubhouse.  It's a feature film playing in actual theaters, it's black and white, and it's about the Wolf Man fighting Frankenstein.  That's pretty cool.

That entire statement had me practically salivating. I cant wait to see this!

[BaronLatos35]

I was all ready to see and buy this movie until I read Drunken Severed Head's review. Thank you for a honest review. I will still see it, but the attempts at keeping 1940's humor with the African characters saying junk like "cowabunga" complete with Buckwheat expressions has no place today.

What worries me aside from the cringing when I will see that is this is 2009 not 1941. I fear that the masses will see that and then dismiss our beloved Universals as outdated and silly monster movies with a broad brush, incapable of growth.

I am excited to see a glorious B&W movie on the big screen with Frank fighting the Wolf Man just as I am excited about seeing the new Wolf Man in theaters. They still could have made an excellent film that pays homage to the 1940's Universals without the low class insensitive stereotypes of the past. To make it in today's world with today's experiences is not needed to pay homage to the best of the old Universals.

I appreciate the efforts of the fimmakers to pay homage to our monsters and I will still see it when it comes out on DVD. These are my thoughts and opinions and i mean no disrespect to the filmmakers.

[The Drunken Severed Head]

Thanks Max for that thoughtful review.  I'm definitely curious to see this movie.  I'll probably buy the DVD when it finally comes out.  I'm walking into it expecting an ambitious "fan film" paying homage to 40s Universal horror.  If I walk out feeling I've actually seen a legit film that stands on its own as a good monster movie, I'll consider that a bonus. It's a feature film playing in actual theaters, it's black and white, and it's about the Wolf Man fighting Frankenstein.  That's pretty cool.

Thank YOU, Raymond, and everyone, for your replies. I think it's somewhere between "an ambitious 'fan film'" and "a legit feature." (Raymond, your words remind me that I felt the same way about EQUINOX when I saw it with you at your house.)

Jscareshock--I gather from your post about what John McGar told you that this will go to dvd only, and not a limited run, as in the manner of an independent like THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA. (I'm not counting the appearances in L.A. Ligonier, PA, and at Chiller as a "limited run.")

I believe the screening in L.A. qualifies it for Oscar consideration, and I'd love to see it get a nom for Best Makeup!)

I will certainly buy a copy when it comes out, and would buy the poster, too!

[Moonshadow]

I was all ready to see and buy this movie until I read Drunken Severed Head's review. Thank you for a honest review. I will still see it, but the attempts at keeping 1940's humor with the African characters saying junk like "cowabunga" complete with Buckwheat expressions has no place today.

yeah, those comments kind of disturbed me. I mean, why even go there? It was bad enough when Lucas tried to do similar in "Phantom Menace". There's just no need for that kind of racist stuff. Why emulate something negative from those old films? It doesn't sound like it's a big part of the film, but still disappointing.

That being said, I am still interested in the film, and hope to see it on DVD some day.

[The Creeper]

I am wanting to see it.  Thanks for the info, I will be looking for it in 3 to 6 months.

[Mitchellmania]

I have no problem with that that was part of the 30's and 40's culture. We still pick on people's ethnicity- now it's red neck, Asians, and South Americans. I see no difference.

[Wich2]

"I see no difference."

You're right, there is none - it's all wrong.

(I say that as a guy who is NOT a humorless ultra-PC hack; but though Knowing Insight about our differences is cool, Ignorant Insult never is.)

-Craig

[BaronLatos35]

I have no problem with that that was part of the 30's and 40's culture. We still pick on people's ethnicity- now it's red neck, Asians, and South Americans. I see no difference.

There is a difference. A few thoughts:

- "redneck" is not an ethnicity, its a slur, a slang, a word.

- Today there are jokes galore about people's ethnicity, told across color lines. But the difference being they are not rooted in a hateful Jim Crow era. If you or your family have been on the receiving end of such "jokes", there would be a difference. "Jokes" such as those breed ignorance.

- Just because it was a part of 30's and 40's culture does not absolve it nor does it elevate it to a status that needs to be paid homage. Pay homage to the best of the past, not its sins.

In respect to this thread and this board that I love, I will refrain from further comment as surely such talk will ignite heated discussions that have no place on this board.

Now it's back to monsters, vampires and sexy vampire women!

[The Drunken Severed Head]

Just posted some pics from the Ligonier premiere here:

http://drunkenseveredhead.blogspot.com/2009/11/house-of-wolf-man-premiere-pics.html