House of the Wolf Man

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.

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.

I saw this movie at the Ligonier screening a few weeks back, and I just wanted to comment on the film. First, I believe the filmmaker's hearts were in the right place, and overall, the movie is entertaining for what it is.

Having said that, the film definitely has its flaws. First,the acting. I understand that working on a small budget won't yield Pacino-like results, but the acting was unnecessarily hammy. I'm not sure if they were directed to be so over-the-top, but it took away from the film, I think. Second, the story. The first 40 minutes or so set up a film that would probably require at least another 50 to properly end, but this ended at a little more than an hour. The ending was too abrupt, and quite frankly, confusing. But that's only my humble opinion. And third, the use of Ron Chaney. Now I've met him several times at conventions, and he's a super-nice guy, but unfortunately, the acting gene wasn't passed down. I think his performance GREATLY took away from the film, and really he was only there for name recognition, so that was unfortunate. Lastly, the monsters. They all made the briefest of appearances, and I think calling the film "House of the Wolf Man" definitely wrote a check the movie didn't cash. Although I thought the makeup for the Wolf Man and the Monster were very well-done.

I really hate to say anything negative about this film, I wanted so bad to like it (including driving 5 hours to the premier). But I want to be honest. Again as a classic monster fan, I truly appreciate the effort of the filmmakers. I just wish that they would've put a little more thought into making a good product, and not so much effort trying to be a period horror film. The horror movies from the 20's to 60's are all great to me, but lately they are mostly terrible. I think a modern, well-done "HotWM" would've sufficed.

Only in the last 15 minutes of the movie you'll see some action, just like in the old movies with the wolf man, Frankenstein and Dracula. Yes, it's a pot or a salad if you prefer, without too many spices, not even some salt or pepper if I think about it better. The first hour of the movie is talk after talk after talk, talk, talk, talk, until you almost want to stop watching. But because you're a respectable, old-fashioned viewer, you stay and watch until the end. And then, you realize that you have wasted another hour and 16 minutes (the YouTube version I've watched) of your life. Nothing really extraordinary in this production and tomorrow is another day and you forgot you watched it.

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.