She-Wolf of London

When watching the She – Wolf of London, don't expect to see a female version of the Wolf Man, This should not be classed with the Wolf Man, Frankenstein, Dracula, the Mummy or any of their offshoots. It's an enjoyable movie but it should be considered not so much a horror movie but more of a mystery. If you are looking for a good horror movie, this isn't it. The acting is good, sets are good, plot a bit weak. It's a good chance to see June Lockhart playing a major role early in her career. I found that the movie did keep my interest but the horror factor never really came into play. Although it wasn't what I expected, I still enjoyed it. It certainly isn't a must see movie, but it isn't a waste of your time either.

As it is always marketed as a horror film, and part of the Universal Classic Horror Films, the disappointment it causes in horror fans is very understandable. "She-Wolf of London" is not, despite its name, a horror movie in the classic sense of the word, it is more a typical "whodunit" mystery and an ancestor to the psychological thrillers of today.

In London, a mysterious series of murders is creating fear in the population and confusion in the police department as people speak of a killer werewolf. The news create shock in young Phyllis Allenby (a beautiful young June Lockhart), who beliefs she is the responsible as an ancient family legend states that the Allenby clan is cursed with Lycanthropy, the werewolf's curse. She isolates herself and denies watching everyone, even breaking her relationship with her boyfriend Barry Lanfield (Don Porter). Her aunt Marta Withrop (Sara Haden) takes advantage of this and tries to force her daughter Carol (Jan Wiley) to marry the wealthy Barry.

All this interesting plot gives room to a lot of development, sadly, the movie doesn't move too far away from the established formula and therefore we don't have a lot of chance to get empathy for the characters. This is its main problem, since what we have are two-dimensional characters and a lot of potential wasted.

The sets are outstanding and the movie is brilliantly photographed, the trademark of the Universal Studios at that time without a doubt; nevertheless, this technical features does not help to improve a movie that feels incomplete or undeveloped. The pacing is slow and the very few things happen making the experience boring and tiresome at times.

The acting is above average, but with so few development there are not many things to do with that material. June Lockhart looks amazing and beautiful, but her character is not fully explored in the script and she has no real chances of showing her talents. A real shame, since she as the main character should be the focal point of the movie.

Don Porter is unconvincing as the hero and his performance feels a bit wooden. Same thing with Jan Wiley. Nevertheless, Sara Haden does an outstanding job and truly gives a lesson of acting in her performance. Along the technical aspects, her acting is probably what makes the movie worthy.

Overall an average movie that also suffers from bad marketing, since it is really not a horror movie, but a classic "whudunit" mystery that while entertaining, it is really nothing impressive. 5/10. Quite average time killer.

There's not a whole lot to recommend about this film. It is a Universal Horror...though at the end of all the major horror series at the studio. It does have June Lockhart in an early role...along with Martin Kosleck in a ambivalent rather than evil role, and Dennis Hoey playing a surprisingly adept Scotland Yard inspector (he must have finally won a bet with a studio executive and got away from the bumbling Lestrade of the Rathbone/Bruce Sherlock Holme's movies). The movie has great sets, though I assume they are redressed from some other Universal horror film...they do look somewhat familiar.

On the other hand, this movie is dull...and the plot is easy to figure out after about fifteen minutes. If you've seen Curse of the Cat People, you've got a start on the plot of this movie.

A young woman comes to believe she is responsible for a series of gruesome murders due to a family curse. Disappointing mystery film from Universal falsely advertised as a horror movie. It's even included on their Wolf Man Legacy DVD set. The movie is not a horror film and features no werewolves or other supernatural occurrences. I can excuse the disappointment over the misleading title and judge the movie on its own merits. What I can't excuse is that, as a mystery, it's decidedly predictable and unexciting. There's no suspense and if you can't predict who the killer is, congratulations on seeing your first movie ever.

June Lockhart, years from being immortalized as one of the great TV moms, plays the lead character as doe-eyed and dull-witted. Her childish belief that she is a serial killer is backed up by no reason. So the audience neither feels tension that she might be the killer (we know she's not) nor sympathy for her since she's so dense. The supporting cast is nice, as it almost always was with Universal in the '40s. Don Porter, Dennis Hoey, Sara Haden, Lloyd Corrigan, Jan Wiley are all fine. The Universal "look," as well as a nice supporting cast, make it watchable for fans. But I doubt casual viewers will find much of interest here.

Apart from excellent settings and costumes, not to mention the always reliable pulchritude and charm of June Lockhart, this Val Lewton wannabe is mainly a misfire.

More's the pity too, since it abounds in shadowy night scenes, fog, and much cloak and daggery, including a final act complete with tilted camera angles, and poisoned milk, (a la Hichcock's "Suspicion").

But there is no real grue and no real tension, and what we are left with is a lame, (though slickly produced) thriller whose main interest accrues from its interesting cast and glossy staging.

Still, given the paucity of Victorian melodramas at your local cineplex--you could do much worse.