Main Menu

Chainsawmidget and the Universal Monsters.

Started by chainsaw midget, September 01, 2025, 10:58:37 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

chainsaw midget

Werewolf of London. 


This one is an unusual one. It doesn't have any of the familiar cast we've seen in the previous movies.  It doesn't have any really familiar characters.  It predates the Wolfman, so all the typically werewolf cliches haven't been established yet.  This lets it go some unusual directions.  For example, werewolfism is treated more of as a medical disease than a curse.  It doesn't take silver to kill a werewolf.  There's actually an antidote, but it only lasts for a single night.  After transforming intoa  werewolf, the guy is still intelligent enough to take a coat and a hat to disguise himself.  Most interestingly though, is the idea that a werewolf MUST kill every night they're transformed or the transformation is permanent.  They never really go into detail with this though or confirm it.  Considering one of the TWO werewolves (!) in this movie has been a werewolf for years ... well... he must have killed a lot of people. 

The movie leans hard into the ideas of jealousy and bad marriages.  There's also an odd bit at the start of the movie with a plant that has moving tentacles and eats a live frog.  It's a weird and interesting little thing, but it never becomes important to the plot and is forgotten after the one scene it's in. 

Most disappointingly of all though, is that we never once see a werewolf drinking a pino colada at Trader Vic's. 

M.10rda

Quote from: chainsaw midget on September 12, 2025, 10:36:18 PMConsidering one of the TWO werewolves (!) in this movie has been a werewolf for years ... well... he must have killed a lot of people. 

Little old lady got mutilated late last night...
Werewolves of London again!


Warren Z really did his research!  :teddyr:

lester1/2jr

Quote from: chainsaw midget on September 09, 2025, 08:28:09 PMThe Invisible Man

For the first time we move away from gothic setting, creepy tombs, and into something more modern.  (It was modern when they made it anyway.)  The move makes up for the lack of atmosphere from the previous films by being a lot faster paced and generally energetic.  While some off comic relief is more apparent here, Claude Rains manages to make up for it with a very wonderfully sinister and egomanical performance.  I can only imagine how breath taking the effects must have been back then, because even now they don't look that bad (for the most part.  There's a few instances where they don't quite work.)  This is also the deadliest of the monsters so far, with a confirmed body count over over 120 people killed. 

It's kind of a shame that typically the big monster actors of the era are considered Karloff, Lugosi, and the Chaneys because Rains deserves more recognition.



I used to study at the Boston Public Library in college and they would show movies in the big hall in the basement. I took a break from studying and watched this one night. It was me and a fair amount of homeless people. It seemed to go over very well, especially when he starts to lose his marbles.

RCMerchant

You don't see any of the Acquanetta "Wild Women" films ever mentioned with the other big name monsters. Not that their all that good, but at least as good as some of the Lon Chaney Mummy movies.

Supernatural?...perhaps. Baloney?...Perhaps not!" Bela Lugosi-the BLACK CAT (1934)
Interviewer-"Does Dracula ever end for you?
Lugosi-"No. Dracula-never ends."
Slobber, Drool, Drip!
https://www.tumblr.com/ronmerchant