House of the Wolf Man

...for sentimental reasons, but that would have been cheating myself and/or future viewers. What we have here is a competently made 'fan' homage too the last of the Universal Horror films of the 2nd generation. HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) and HOUSE OF Dracula (1945). HOUSE OF THE WOLFMAN (2009) has the feel of a film made in 1946. With about the same technical competence. Just above that of MR. B.I.G.

The make-up and physical effects are done too the level of that era. The film stock, degraded, is a nice touch, reflecting its alleged age. The miniature back-drops were in line with movie making at that time. Costuming could have been better. Somebody should have informed Emily Hastings (Costume Design) that Womens Stockings of the 1940s' had a prominent Heel, Seam & Sole. Mary Chapel (Sara Raftery) needed a far better wig, one that fit and blended in. The 'Prop Rifle' was not of the period, having almost 21st Century features. Music score good, reflecting the style of Hans J. Salter.

Where the film falls down was the Acting. Starting with Ron Chaney, his name may have had value, but his acting limitations did not. Sara Raftery also was less then competent. The rest of the cast could at best be described as earnest! Playing their roles with a fans enthusiasm. For that is what the film is, a 'super' fan production. Glad it was made and added too our collection, something to pull out twice a year with the rest of the Universal Legacy series.

So I watched the movie and now I'm choosing to write a proper review. But where to begin? I guess I'll stick to the pros and cons for this film.

Pros: 1) Black and white done right (not grey scale like usual B/W films.

2) stayed true to the orginal franchise 3) The makeup effects (probably done by the late Great Michael R. Thomas) were top notch esp. For modern day.

4) It was short.

5) Ron Chaney 6) fighting scenes

Not the cons: 1) acting was bad.

2) movie was too short 3) Ending was sloppy and unresolved.

So overall, a 5 star movie out of ten but because of the bad acting and terrible ending it loses 1 star; 4 out of 10, and that's my final vote.

The film opens with a thunderstorm as five people arrive at a spooky castle, all wondering if they are to inherit it. They are 'greeted' by Dr Bela Reinhart played with slow scornful menace by Ron Chaney of the monster-playing Chaney family. The guests are warned they will have to endure a thorough examination of their character in order for them to inherit. There is a long steady advance into the mystery as the guests try to fathom whether they truly do have a connection to the Reinhart family. The first hour is more like the 1930s mystery movie classics of 'The Old Dark House' and 'The Cat and the Canary' about family ties and inheritance. After the hour the old Universal monsters take charge starting with Ron Chaney's transformation into Wolfman. Michael R. Thomas, as Dracula, is particularly impressive in his last screen appearance. There is a creepy atmosphere throughout with some ghoulish characters in make-up. The two outstanding are Barlow the monstrous manservant, and the bedridden Vadoma reminding me of the ancient Femm character from 'The Old Dark House.' Fans of 'The Addams Family' and 'The Munsters' and possibly Scooby Doo may go for this although 'House of the Wolfman' is definitely not a spoof of old horror films. There is so much respect for old horror and mystery classics in this which faithfully observes the details of those old movies.

Starring: Ron Chaney,John McGarr and Michael R. Thomas. Written,Directed : Eben McGarr Imagine a completion of the 'HOUSE OF…' movie series begun by Universal and somehow completed by Paramount. We really felt this film nailed the era (Love the cars),Sets (How did John McGarr do them) , And the makeup was perfect. Ron Chaney has a big role,Due to his name or not,He does the evil scientist well. Hey,Did we mention it's in Black & White and the monsters are truly as good as the originals. The music is very much in era, Looking at end credits…They used a full orchestra. So,Not giving away anything…Goes from HALF of 'Ten little Indians' by Agatha Christie to purest points of Universal's Monsters.

It's good to see modern retro productions that mimic the old horror films of the 30s, 40s and 50s. The monsters are very good and their scenes watchable. I did think the main character (the doctor) was mis-cast. He conveyed none of the menace or sense of evil or doom as in the classic horror films of the afore-mentioned decades. The story is decent and many scenes work but the film occasionally drags. Even the Dracula character (an obvious dupe of Lugosi) was nice to see. The women are good, especially the brunette who reminds me of Vampira. The blonde seems to be a good representation of the heroines of the 30s (think Madge Bellamy). Her wig was obvious. Lastly, the director couldn't seem to convey a sense of horror to sustain the entire film. Some scenes were very good, but maybe an experienced horror director could've done a lot more. Sometimes it seemed I was watching a local theater production of a play.