House of the Wolf Man

House of the Wolf Man (2009)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

In case the title doesn't give it away, this homage was meant to complete the "House" trilogy with the first two films being HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN and HOUSE OF Dracula. The filmmakers did their best to try and make this fit in with those Universal films of the 40s and this includes shooting this film in the 4x3 aspect ratio, in Mono and in B&W. We even get Lon Chaney, Jr.'s son Ron playing the mad doctor. Fans of the classic monsters will certainly have to tip their hat to the filmmakers but in the end the idea was certainly a lot better than the final product.

The story is pretty simple as Dr. Frankenstein (Chaney) invites five people to stay at his creepy mansion for what the people think is a contest. It turns out that Frankenstein, going under a different name, plans on bringing the monsters back to life. There was a lot of hype going into this film as the filmmakers were promising another monster mash like we hadn't seen since those glorious Universal days. The monsters do eventually get into a bash but sadly you have to wait for over sixty-minutes to get to the action. I don't fault any movie for keeping the good stuff until the end but at the same time you have to get everything leading up to it right and HOUSE OF THE WOLF MAN doesn't do that. The first hour is full of annoying characters doing annoying things that no one watching will care about. They fight about the reasons they're at the house. They fight about those mysterious paintings in their rooms. They fight about this and that and this and that and not a single thing is interesting. Even the weakest Universal film at least gave us some sort of monster, mystery or murder but that doesn't happen here. The entire first hour is nothing but these characters barking at one another and one can't help but get bored of it very quickly. The screenplay could have benefited from a re-write because we're left with characters you can't care for and have no reason to be interested in. The performances are for the most part on the decent level but some seem to be playing the characters as if they're some sort of spoof. The sister role is incredibly over the top and the vamp portion doesn't work at all. Chaney certainly isn't as great as his father or grandfather but how could he be, really? When the monsters finally appear they do bring a mild smile but that's about it as the film has simply lost everything up to this point. I'd recommend most people just watch the final fifteen-minutes as a short as this is where most people will be most interested. The wolf man and Frankenstein's monster make-up effects were pretty good and I enjoyed the look of both. They don't try to get the wolf man to look like Chaney, Jr., which I didn't mind and the monster had a few resemblances to the one in Al Adamson's Dracula VS. FRANKENSTEIN. Again, I appreciate what the filmmakers were going for but if you're going to sell a monster bash then you need to deliver something more than bland characters and dialogue hacking away for over an hour. HOUSE OF THE WOLF MAN has a couple good touches and its heart is in the right place but you can't help but see it as a wasted opportunity.

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.

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.

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.

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.