The She-Wolf of London (1946)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 8 out of 10

Director: Jean Yarbrough

Starring: Don Porter, June Lockhart, Sara Haden

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Mystery, Crime, Horror

Runtime: 61 minutes

Life for Barry Lanfield (Porter) and Phyllis Allenby (Lockhart) is quite simply wonderful.  The two are engaged to be married, and they could not be happier with the thought of spending the rest of their lives together.  Tragedy strikes, however, in the form of a string of gruesome murders at the local park; all the victims have their throats ripped out, and it is suspected that a wolf or other large animal is behind the killings.  Phyllis, suspects the worst, as she follows a trail of clues that point to her as the murderer, thanks to the horrible Allenby curse, which has plagued her family for generations.

Before I say anything else, I do just want to warn you all that this is not your average werewolf movie.  What I mean is, you never actually see the she-wolf of London, a woman with fur, fangs, claws, and a menacing growl.  She's always covered up by a cloak. Mysterious?  Yes.  Monstrous?  No.  So, in that respect, I guess you could say that She-Wolf of London is more of a mystery/crime film than a moster movie.  However, the plot is thrilling and engaging.  I was hooked until the very end, just wanting to figure out what was going to happen in this drama-packed film.

June Lockhart is adorable.  And her character is adorable, too.  Phyllis seems to be a female Larry Talbot (The Wolf Man), sweet, innocent, and sickened to the core over what they have become.  And just one look at Phyllis, and your heart just melts with pity.  Sadly, I felt that Don Porter slipped into the background as one of the many anonymous boyfriends from these sorts of movies that no one really remembers.  I felt the character wasn't super developed; rather, he filled a role but nothing more.  Although, to be honest, I feel as though the love interest character in most of these classic movies comes out a bit two-dimensional.  It must just be a flaw within the genre, to make the main, afflicted character more interesting, forcing them into the spotlight and giving them more dimension.

The best part of this movie (for me) had to be all the opportunities for silly interpretation.  Watch it for the first time when you're slap-happy, and it'll be hilariously funny, even the parts that are supposed to be super serious.  I have a feeling that this film, like The Werewolf of London is one of those movies that is honestly trying to be serious and dramatic (and probably was back in the 1940s), but is more silly today.  Still, all in all, it's a very good movie. I'd like to watch it again when I'm in a more sober mood.  Slap happy is fun, too, though.

This is a good film for anyone who enjoys mysteries, crime movies, or the classic Universal horror films.

The Werewolf of London (1935)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 7.5 out of 10

Director: Stuart Walker

Starring: Henry Hull, Walker Oland, Valerie Hobson

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Horror

Runtime: 75 minutes

Dr. Glendon (Hull) is a botanist travelling through Tibet in search of a rare flower that only grows when under the light of the moon.  After ignoring the pleas of the peasants to avoid a certain mountain top which is believed to be guarded by demons, Glendon finds his flower, and is attacked by a wolf-like creature which bites his arm.  Upon returning to London, he makes the acquaintance of Dr. Yogami (Oland), who claims to have made his acquaintance one night in Tibet (although Glendon does not recall their meeting).  Yogami warns Glendon about the curse of the werewolf, and tells him that the strange flower that he found in the mountains is the only antidote.  Glendon ignores him, having far more issues to deal with.  First, he cannot get the strange flower to bloom.  Second his wife has recently become reacquainted with her childhood sweetheart.

Those of you who have been reading my blog recently will know that I really love classic horror films.  Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Mummy...I can't get enough of them!  My favorite monster has always been the werewolf, though.  I've always been fascinated by the thought that in so many myths and legends, it is believed that a man can be turned into a wolf.  Besides that, I've always found werewolves to be the most human of the monsters.  True, they change into evil beasts with fur and fangs, but unlike Dracula and his vampiric brood, werewolves do not choose to act out the way they do.  For this reason, Dracula is evil, whereas Larry Talbot (The Wolf Man) is not.

Werewolf of London is rather different from the werewolf movies Universal horror fans have to expect after watching films such as The Wolf Man, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, or Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein.  The most notable difference is the fact that while The Wolf Man series is about the supernatural, Werewolf of London focuses more on the scientific aspects of lycanthropy.  For example, Dr. Glendon is able to use a plant to ward off his symptoms, while Larry Talbot has to use a medallion.  Also, for an added twist, the victims of werewolf attacks are not always random, but the beast will attack whatever matters the most to him.  In this case, Glendon's wife, Lisa (Hobson).  And to make matters worse, not only does his wolf-self want to kill his wife, but he cannot use the flower's juice for an antidote, because someone is stealing the blooms from the laboratory!

I think the funniest part of this film had to be the transformations.  Not only does he grow fur and fangs (and it does look really cool), but before running out of the house to go and rip some throats out, he makes sure to stop at the coat rack and bundle up.  And yes, that means hat, coat, and a scarf!  What??  Furthermore, the ending (even though I'm sure it was supposed to be depressing or emotional) made me simply laugh out loud. I'm not going to tell you what happens, but I thought it was pretty funny, simply because it was so unrealistic.

All in all, a decent movie.  Not the best I've seen from the werewolf canon, or Universal horror films, but entertaining nonetheless.

Vampires Suck (2010)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 9 out of 10

Director: Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer

Starring: Jenn Proske, Matt Lanter, Diedrich Bader

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Comedy

Runtime: 82 minutes

I’m sure all of you have heard about the Twilight series in one way or another.  Either you watch the movies; read the books; obsess about sparkly vampires and hot, shirtless werewolves; or you have a sister, aunt, mother, or girlfriend who does.  Either way, terms like Team Edward and the Cullens have become pretty engrained in all of our minds.  And, for many of us, the Twilight craze is becoming a little too much.  (I sincerely apologize to all the Twi-hards (oh god I just said it!) that I have offended with that last statement).  So, if you’re a real hard-core fan of Twilight, you might want to look for a different movie.  This does not glamorize the image of a sexy vampire and a too-hot-to-touch werewolf.  In fact, I’d say that it fairly rips the film apart.

Becca Crane (Proske) is a sullen teenager who is sent to live with her father, Frank (Bader) up in Sporks, Washington, after a long absence.  Once there, she finds herself entrenched in a world of vampires, but, oblivious as she is, cannot figure out what is so unusual about the town.  She falls for the handsome but brooding Edward Sullen (Lanter), a vampire who is afraid he won’t be able to control his urges to kill her (which of course does nothing to prevent him from creeping around her house at night).  At the same time, Becca finds herself the love interest of Jacob White (Chris Riggi), who claims that ever since puberty set in, he’s been feeling a bit different (which might account for all the excessive body hair, tail, and sudden urges to chase cats).  As she struggles to win Edward’s heart and friend-zone Jacob, Becca must also fight to stay alive as she’s pursued by three other vampires who want to eat her.  Things all come to a head at her vampire-themed prom (yeah, I know).

Most of the time, these spoof movies are often looked at as B-grade crap.  However, I thought that Vampires Suck was tremendously funny, leaving me belly-laughing so badly that I could barely breath.  Diedrich Bader is hilarious as Becca’s dad Frank.  His misplaced concern and screwed up priorities could only be humorous in the venue of the film spoof, but are nevertheless more than enjoyable to watch.  After having seen Bader in Meet the Spartans (2008), I was expecting something pretty sweet from him in this film, and was not disappointed.  In fact, I think he made me laugh in every scene he appeared in!

Matt Lanter and Chris Riggi managed to pull off the difficult task of being both funny and adorable at the same time.  No offense to Twilight fangirls, but Pattinson and Lautner just do not compare!  Lanter and Riggi, on the other hand, had me and my gal pals not only laughing until our sides hurt, but also fantasizing about these two adorable young men.  They were wonderful!  Co-star Jenn Proske also managed to bring a certain depth to her character that was not found in Kristen Stewart’s Bella Swan.  This actress can actually act, and she’s funny!  A star cast all around!

Vampires Suck is a great film for anyone who is sick to death of the whole Twilight craze, anyone who has enjoyed past spoofs from Friedburg and Seltzer such as Scary Movie (2000), Disaster Movie (2008), Meet the Spartans (2008), and Epic Movie (2007).  Also, if you’re just looking for a good, side-splitting comedy that doesn’t require you to think too hard, then this is just what you’re looking for!  (Perfect for unwinding with some friends after a long, stressful week).