10 years after ‘Dracula’ and ‘Frankenstein’ took to theater screens, the groundwork for what is considered ‘Classic’ Universal Horror was cemented and running fine, and in 1941, that momentum would go from strength to strength with ‘The Wolf Man’

The plot?, Focusses around the tragic circumstances surrounding Larry Talbot, Larry has returned to his estate on hearing the news of the death of his brother in a hunting accident, and while reacquainting himself with his estranged family members he discovers a beautiful young lady working in the antiques shop across the way. after schmoozing her into going out on a date, the pair walk back through the foggy moors where Larry and his date are set upon by a wolf. Larry kills the wolf, but gets bitten in the process and on waking from being knocked unconcious, he finds that life isnt quite the same, and that sightings of a killer werewolf are beginning to come to light, could Larry and the killings be connected?! well…this is one of lon cheyney jrs most well known roles…so yes. yes he is responsible…he’s the wolf man.

I’ve always had a soft spot for not only this film, but the films that make up the tale of Larry Talbot, they play him as a very tragic figure, desperate for a solution to his troubles, but here, theres still at least SOME semblence of hope to Larrys character, which I think adds a nice contrast to his character, being thrown into a past he spent 18 years running away from.

To me? ‘The Wolfman’ feels like a refinement of Universals processes…and while I cant say its perfect, the polish is definitely there. The script is a little slow burn, but balances tone and substance about right, it paces out the action to help keep things fairly evenly distributed. while it is slow across the runtime, I cant personally say any one part was TOO slow for its own good. and the tone, while striving for straight laced macabre horror, finds itself constantly on the precipice of camp horror comedy (the LGBTQ symbolism and overtones are MORE than present here). Its not exactly subtle with its messaging or coding. But I appreciate that this is a film trying to do something that breaks away from the VERY repetative plotlines of the universal horrors that came before it.

The direction is atmospheric, engaging and interesting. they play with a more toned down take on the german expressionist work established in ‘Dracula’ and ‘Frankenstein’ its probably closer in tone to ‘The Mummy’ but there are almost noir elements present here throughout also which kind of help mark a shift in the Universal monster movies away from european expressionism and more towards a US driven noir/thriller aesthetic. I can take or leave either honestly, but this seems to be the line in the sand in the transition between eras.

Non the less direction of the cast is solid, if not a little stiff at times, the action scenes are very well choreographed for the time, the set designs are moody, smokey and the lower lighting is very much welcome, though I do wish there was a touch more experimentation thrown into the mix, just to really help elevate things to the next level.

The cine is fine, as mentioned theres a clear progression from the early to mid 30s work here, shots are much less unique visually, but much more coherent in terms of sequence building and they utilise quite a bit more B-roll shots than previous entries. the shadow and texture work here is honestly some of Universals best outside of maybe ‘Dracula’ or ‘Bride of Frankenstein’ and the edit, while maybe a little TOO speedy on the cut front, feels fresher and more modern than its contemporaries.

Performance wise, while this is the role Lon Cheyney Jr. is often held in regards for, and I dont think his performance is BAD here, I feel like the character really fleshes out over the sequels to this movie. Here? his performance is fine, but its largely bewildered…and while I know thats what they’re going for. It leaves very little room for range in the performance, and does cause things to sag a little for me…Like I say, he’s GOOD at bewildered…and his wolfman performance is superb. I just wish they’d given him a bit more range, Claude Ranes as Sir John Talbot has a warmth to him at times that masks the more complex character underneith, I think he was a perfect choice for the role, and Bela Lugosi as ‘Bela’ is a brief, but equally wonderful cameo that I feel REALLY adds to the tone and atmosphere of the piece.

Ignoring that the backbone of this film is built on racism towards the ‘travelling’ community (because, this film is SUPER racist on stereotyping in hindsight) I really kind of like this one. I feel the wolfman sometimes has to fight for 3rd place in the Universal monster contest between ‘The Mummy’ and ‘The Creature from the black lagoon’ But at least on his first outing, I found ‘The Wolfman’ to be an engaging and interesting slowburn horror with some wondeful visuals and a fairly engaging script. its imperfect, but I enjoyed it, i’d recommend it, and I think if your getting into older horror, this is as good a place as any to build up your reference points.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-wolf-man-1941/1/