The Curse of the Werewolf (1961)

"In Spain, Leon is born on Christmas day to a mute servant girl who was raped by a beggar. His mother dies giving birth and he is looked after by Don Alfredo..."

One of the things which I never realised about Hammer until I started blogging was that all they really did was remake the Universal monster movies in colour with better actors and more boobies. Okay, so that's a bit of an over simplification, but Hammer were essentially still quite a low-budget operation who, apart from being extremely lucky with their talent both in front of and behind the camera, tended to stick to more traditional horror characters rather than invent any new icons or more modern storylines. Ultimately, it was their downfall, but in their heyday, everyone apart from the critics loved Hammer.

There's just something cosy and familiar about Hammer movies especially if you're British which makes them great for Hallowe'en. There are even some scares along the way if you are willing to suspend your disbelief and focus on the acting rather than the effects. With "The Curse of the Werewolf", you really do have to try to ignore the effects as much as possible because they are more likely to make a modern audience laugh than appreciate the work which went into them at the time.

Based on the novel "The Werewolf of Paris" by Guy Endore, the screenplay was actually written by Anthony Hinds who later wrote Tyburn Film's "Legend of the Werewolf" (1975). It's fairly easy to get the two movies confused not only because of the changes to the book's setting but also because Hammer, Amicus and Tyburn productions tended to share the same casts and crews. If you remember that "The Curse of the Werewolf" is set in 16th century Spain and "Legend of the Werewolf" is set in 19th century France, it helps. Lets face it though, if you've seen one werewolf movie, you've seen them all, and the plots are still likely to get jumbled together. I actually prefer "Legend of the Werewolf" to "The Curse of the Werewolf" even though, technically and stylistically, "The Curse of the Werewolf" is the better film.

If you are a big Oliver Reed fan (or even if you're not), you'll love that a big chunk of "The Curse of the Werewolf" is comprised of him acting his heart out in period costume and, basically, giving one of the best performances of his entire career. His character goes through every emotion in the book and, while not always all that likeable, he's certainly a lot more convincing than Lon Chaney Jr. in "The Wolfman" (1941).

Strangely, "The Curse of the Werewolf" was Hammer's only werewolf film. I'm sure that the difficulties involved in making a werewolf transformation which wouldn't have the cinema audiences rolling in the aisles with laughter was the reason they never made another. The "Hammer House of Horror" TV series did return to the werewolf subgenre for its "Children of the Full Moon" episode, but that wasn't until 1980 and, of course, it was a vastly different story which very wisely saved its werewolf make-up for the very end where it could do the least amount of damage.

The small problem I have with "The Curse of the Werewolf" is that it over ambitiously goes through several time periods which aren't equally interesting. The first, featuring Yvonne Romain as a mute servant girl who gets raped by a beggar, is actually the most horrific and exploitative part of the story. Several scenes were deemed either too violent or disgusting and were cut prior to the theatrical release, but they were restored in 1994. One of the previously censored moments is still really quite sickening unless you are one of those freaks who likes to look for similar nastiness on YouTube. I'm not going to spoil it for you by telling you what it is, but you may not want to eat any pork rinds while you watch this film.

The later story is kind of uneven, doesn't really fit the setting or have as much atmosphere as Hammer's more German-looking period pieces do, but Oliver Reed's charisma makes up for a lot of the other failings. The attempt at an ill-fated romance has some horribly dated dialogue and doesn't work so well, but when things start getting hairy, "The Curse of the Werewolf" is fantastic. If there was ever a perfectly cast "wild man", it was Olly.

The werewolf action is quite sparse, pretty obvious and predictable, but that's exactly what it's supposed to be. It's nice to get a horror movie which delivers few surprises when you are in the mood for a certain subgenre. The seriousness of the acting and the cinematography lifts everything up several notches, but nobody watches a movie called "The Curse of the Werewolf" if they are expecting highbrow entertainment.

I could have recommended a couple of other equally famous werewolf movies instead of "The Curse of the Werewolf", but they would only be further clones of the same subject matter. "The Curse of the Werewolf" has several very original changes to the established mythology and all the tragedy which goes with them.

Ginger Snaps (2000)

"When beautiful but reclusive goth teenager Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) is attacked by a monstrous wolf on the eve of her first period, her body starts changing in a big way, as do her suddenly lusty, feral appetites."

Nine days into October, it's time for a change of horror subgenre again. We've already had ghosts and vampires, so how about a couple of days of werewolves? Following the vampiric "girl power" of "Daughters of Darkness" (1971), I decided to yank "Ginger Snaps" out of The Vault to reappraise how a more modern supernatural story would deal with feminine horror.

Although both "Daughters of Darkness" and "Ginger Snaps" superficially play around the misogynistic horror cliché that all women are dangerous monsters, "Ginger Snaps" is possibly a little bit more feminist, even though it was still directed and co-written by a man. I'm not a woman either, so I've always watched "Ginger Snaps" in the wrong kind of exploitative way.

A lot has always been made out of how "Ginger Snaps" is a metaphor for puberty. Although I'm tempted to agree, the coming of age or sexual awakening themes have always been intrinsic to werewolf mythology, so puberty is merely a trait. Even going back to the tale of "Little Red Riding Hood" and its classical origin in the myth of Kore, girls reaching puberty and straying from the masculine sphere of protection have always brought a load of trouble down on themselves. In fairness, if you ever read Ovid's "Metamorphoses", young men often come to a far worse end in most of the ancient myths according to however many rules about hubris, ethnocentrism, or morality are being highlighted on the way.

One of the more difficult aspects of "Ginger Snaps" to fit into any kind of generic moral fable, however, is that the two sisters, Brigitte (Emily Perkins) and Ginger Fitzgerald (Katharine Isabelle), are outsiders to begin with. They aren't popular girls in school, their interest in photographing fake crime scenes is kind of weird, and they are both extremely late developers physically. In the majority of werewolf movies a fairly normal person is traumatically forced into "otherness" rather than already being there. Usually a quite innocent male protagonist ends up in a battle for his immortal soul. "Ginger Snaps" not only changes the gender of the protagonist but also becomes more complex than that. Ginger Fitzgerald may technically also be innocent, but she is an accident waiting to happen and the odds are not in her favour.

I'm not an expert on teenage girls by any stretch of the imagination, but whereas it is easy to accept how the Fitzgerald sisters resort to some very odd ways of entertaining themselves in the days before broadband internet and social networking sites took off, the puberty aspect still feels quite contrived. It is, of course, possible for teenagers to not reach puberty until sixteen, but it's easy to argue that there was something more sinister and exploitative to this plot point.

Basically, Katharine Isabelle was 19 years old when she made "Ginger Snaps" and quite legally able to be a possible "lust object" rather than "jail bait" for the potential audience. Yes, I'm being cynical, but you have to ask yourself why she was cast as a character who becomes increasingly hotter as the movie progresses rather than her slightly weird-looking, less attractive (and, in real life, older) on screen sister. The simplest answer is that sex sells a movie like this. The intention was never to make a movie which was really only for girls at all in spite of having extremely strong female leads. There's no doubt that Emily Perkins is the stronger actress of the two or that she has more lines, more character development, and more time on screen, but whenever Ginger appears who, honestly, even cares about Brigitte?

Don't get me wrong, I think that Emily Perkins is great in "Ginger Snaps", but it's not until the sequel that she really gets a chance to blossom into a rather attractive character herself. In "Ginger Snaps", Brigitte is there to appeal to the female audience and Ginger, even when she gets hairy and grows a phallic-looking tail, is most certainly the eyecandy for the boys. Well played, John Fawcett, well played indeed.

With "Ginger Snaps" being an obvious template for "Jennifer's Body", if you've already seen and loved the latter, you probably won't like "Ginger Snaps" as much. The effects in "Ginger Snaps" are a bit dated now and the dialogue isn't so hip. I think both movies have a lot of merits, but whatever criticism you throw at the plot of one can also be thrown at the other since they are essentially the same story with different monsters. Ultimately, both owe a lot to Stephen King's "Carrie" (1976).

"Ginger Snaps", the best selling Canadian movie of 2001, is still one of the greatest werewolf movies ever made, and it definitely has enough blood and gore to appeal to the hardcore horror fans as well as the first timers. It's not a very scary movie, and many people who enjoy it aren't even horror fans, so if you looking for something a little bit classier to introduce your girlfriend (or wussypants boyfriend) to the horror genre on Hallowe'en, this is the movie for you.

Dark Shadows (2012)

"An imprisoned vampire, Barnabas Collins, is set free and returns to his ancestral home, where his dysfunctional descendants are in need of his protection."

There are some films which you have to be bored out of your mind to watch, and, unfortunately, I was that bored enough today to see if I could find anything enjoyable in Tim Burton's version of "Dark Shadows".

I'm glad that I have no sense of humour because "Dark Shadows" failed completely as a comedy. It also failed to be anything other than an all-star cast playing dress-up. If the intention was simply to destroy any nostalgic admiration anyone could have for the original Dan Curtis series with a load of silliness and superficiality, it certainly succeeded there.

I've only ever seen a few episodes of the TV series and one of the films (I forget which one), but they were a lot more entertaining than this hack job. Although Johnny Depp was slightly comical, Eva Green was sexy as Hell, and I now know what happened to Jonny Lee Miller, it was just a lot of high production values layered over a weak script.

Having watched a lot of these over-produced and under-written movies this week, I'm beginning to wonder if this is the thing now. Nobody seems to care about providing any kind of engrossing or cohesive story as long as they can stick a few big name actors in costumes up on screen and grab some quick cash from the kids who don't know any better.

Even if I was the right age to be part of the targeted PG-13 audience, I'm sure I would still have been disappointed with "Dark Shadows". It started off too fast, then wasted a lot of time on unnecessary details and characters who didn't really do anything, while, at the same time, it badly mixed fish-out-of-water, "Austin Powers"-style humour with a feeble attempt at a Gothic love story.

After sitting through nearly two hours of this dreck, I really don't want to waste any more time talking about it. "Dark Shadows" looked extremely good, the 1970's music was better, the couple of surprise cameos were okay, but it was a whole load of nothing really.

Red Riding Hood (2011)

"Set in a medieval village that is haunted by a werewolf, a young girl falls for an orphaned woodcutter, much to her family's displeasure.

With the final part of "The Twilight Saga" getting nearer every day, I thought I'd better have a look at some of the spin-offs before reviewing "Breaking Dawn Part 1" and, eventually, "Breaking Dawn Part 2". I know that "Red Riding Hood" came out over a year ago, but I had no great interest in watching it until earlier today.

Despite being directed by Catherine Hardwicke and having a kind of "Twilight"-style love triangle, boys baring their chests, and, of course, Billy Burke playing another father, this wasn't even half as good as "Twilight". It didn't even enough cringeworthy moments for haters to poke fun at. "Red Riding Hood" was just bland.

Even though it was beautifully filmed and the village in the woods started off looking a little bit like the one in Neil Jordan's "The Company of Wolves" (1984), it simply didn't have the same attention to detail. The costumes were nice, but modern American accents never work well in European fairytales for some reason.

Obviously sharing the same fairytale at the heart of the story would cause anyone who had seen "The Company of Wolves" to notice several similarities, but, with "Red Riding Hood" really being just another PG-13 rated werewolf story, it wasn't nearly as interesting as its slightly more adult predecessor. With hardly any werewolf action, I found it to be quite a struggle to stay awake through.

I know a lot of people would only have watched this because they fancy Amanda Seyfried. I can assure you that that she wasn't the attraction for me since I think she looks like a blonde frog with her bulgy eyes, tiny chin and constantly bowed head which makes her look up all the time. I suppose she's pretty in an odd way, but she does nothing for me. I didn't like her in "Jennifer's Body" (2009), and I don't even remember her from "In Time" (2011). As Valerie in "Red Riding Hood", she was hardly my idea of the famous fairytale character who I've always thought of as being a lot younger than a twenty-six year old pretending to be a teenager.

I can't really say that Amanda Seyfried did a bad job in the movie as the script undoubtedly killed any desire to act for everyone involved. Like most of these "period" fantasies, it was just another chance to play dress-up, say a few lines, and take the paycheck for doing so.

Only Gary Oldman tried to do something with his part, but he came across as inconsistent with it. I'm sure he realised exactly what a mess he'd got himself into by accepting the role of a werewolf-hunter in a movie meant for little kids and just didn't know what to do for the best other than play it straight. I could see in his eyes that he wanted to make the character more unhinged, but the words weren't there for him to play with.

The two "boys" in the love triangle with Valerie, Shiloh Fernandez as Peter and Max Irons as Henry, could really only be described as "Dull and Duller". I have to give Jeremy Irons credit though for giving his son such a great porn star name should he ever realise that real acting isn't exactly his forte. Joking aside, Shiloh Fernandez was slightly more interesting than Jacob or Edward from "Twilight", but there wasn't much in it.

It was nice to see Virginia Madsen from "Candyman" (1992) in her small role as Valerie's mother. She was easily the best looking woman in this movie, and I can't believe that she's over fifty now! Time flies, doesn't it?

It's not even worth more than just mentioning Lukas Haas as Father Auguste or Julie Christie as Valerie's grandmother because they were barely on screen long enough to register their presence. I think Julie Christie only had three lines.

There was nothing exciting in "Red Riding Hood" whatsoever. The CGI werewolf looked really good and fitted into its surroundings extremely well, but there simply weren't enough interactions with it. Even when it killed a few villagers, there was only the aftermath to see and not even that much blood at the scene of the crimes. This was hardly a horror movie.

The mystery of the werewolf's identity was revealed in more of a "Scooby Doo" way than something you could ever guess at from clues in the story so "Red Riding Hood" failed to deliver a basket of goodies there either.

"Red Riding Hood" failed as a romance, a horror movie, a mystery or even any kind of decent retelling of the fairytale. I wish I hadn't wasted my time watching it now, but at least I have the pleasure of hurling it into "The Dungeon".

My Top Ten Werewolf Films

Since you all seem to enjoy my top ten lists so much, here's another one that I've thrown together for your entertainment. I think the results may surprise you though as werewolf movies are far from being my favourite part of the horror genre.


1. An American Werewolf in London (1981)

"Two American tourists in Britain are attacked by a werewolf that none of the locals will admit exists."

This one is a really obvious choice as it's the horror film that sends me into a nice comfortable sleep the easiest. I don't know why but I find this witty amalgam of previous werewolf movies and fully fledged horror very relaxing. It's still the best werewolf movie to date though. Rick Baker's special effects won an Oscar but the real thrills for me come from Jenny Agutter's steamy shower scene.


2. Ginger Snaps (2000)

"This film uses werewolfism as a metaphor for puberty. One of the Fitzgerald sisters, suburban goth girl outcasts, gets bitten by something in the woods (and it ain't a neighborhood dog)."

Just like a low-budget Canadian werewolf version of "Carrie" in many ways but made so much better by having the great looking Katharine Isabelle who gets even sexier as the film progresses, especially when compared to her very odd looking sister. It's a refreshing change to the usual run-of-the-mill werewolf stories as this is from a girls' perspective.


3. The Curse of the Werewolf (1960)

"In Spain, Leon is born on Christmas day to a mute servant girl who was raped by a beggar. His mother dies giving birth and he is looked after by Don Alfredo. As a child Leon becomes a werewolf after having been taken hunting."

I like this film enormously. The opening scenes of the werewolf's conception and birth are a bit nasty even for a hardened old horror pro like me. The late Oliver Reed gives such a stunning performance as the wolf man that it's obvious that only a true wild man such as himself could have made this role work.


4. Dog Soldiers (2001)

"A routine military exercise turns into a nightmare in the Scotland [sic] wilderness." (Terrible grammar from the IMDb there.)

Pretty routine stuff all round but it came out during the survival horror video games peak and fitted in quite nicely between bouts of "Resident Evil". This would only get an entry level score ordinarily but it's on this list for being British and for having a really good first hour which feels like an episode of "Soldier, Soldier" (which I became quite addicted to watching). Soldiers fighting monsters is not an original idea though.


5. Full Eclipse (1993)

"The LA police department have a special team of officers with a talent for reducing big-time crime. The team leader has an excellent track record for crime reduction in other big cities, but his methods are unconventional, and so is he - he's a werewolf."

The movie may start well with lots of guns, guns, guns etc., but this is no howling success. Mario Van Peebles, Patsy Kensit, and Paula Marshall are all talented individuals whose talent went to waste in this film. The storyline of crime busting werewolves must have seemed a great idea at the time, but, quite frankly, it needed a better script to make it happen. Still good fun though and Patsy Kensit doing it doggy (or should that be "wolfy"?) style in black leather is enough to keep anyone's interest.


6. The Company of Wolves (1984)

"A bag full of symbolic folklore about werewolves, or, rather, their sexual connotation. Granny tells her granddaughter Rosaleen strange, disturbing tales about innocent maidens falling in love with handsome, heavily eyebrowed strangers with a smouldering look in their eyes."

Although made more horrible by the participation of the hateful Angela Lansbury, this is supposed to be a fantasy rather than a horror film. That said, it is gory and unnerving in places and, all in all, is a bloody good collection of werewolves. Sarah Patterson as "Rosaleen" is the most gorgeous piece of jailbait to ever grace our screens. I wonder whatever happened to her?


7. The Howling (1981)

"After a bizarre and near fatal encounter with a serial killer, a newswoman is sent to a rehabilitation centre whose inhabitants may not be what they seem."

Once the best werewolf movie ever made but now the special effects lose out to "An American Werewolf in London". Based loosely on Gary Brandner's book of the same name, this is still much better than any of its appalling sequels. Joe Dante provides plenty of thrills, but the script could have been better in places, and for the most part it isn't really scary.


8. Legend of the Werewolf (1974)

"A baby is brought up by wolves after they kill his parents. As a lad he is taken in by a second-rate travelling show, but one night when he is older he kills one of the troupe and runs away to Paris."

Amicus' attempt at a werewolf movie is not quite as good as Hammer's "The Curse of the Werewolf", but it isn't too far from it by any means and has great performances all round. The scene where the wolf man wakes up back in human form in the zoo was later used in "An American Werewolf in London", but here there is more reason for it to happen since the wolf man works as a zoo keeper.


9. Silver Bullet (1985)

"Werewolf terrorizes small city where lives Marty Coslaw, - a paralytic boy - his uncle and his sister - the narrator of the story."

Probably one of the first werewolf films that a lot of people watched in the 80s. This adaptation of one of Stephen King's novellas, has a nice feel to it but the certification is all wrong. This should be a PG! It's about really little kids discovering a werewolf and does not deserve the 18 certification in Britain for anything. I have no idea what the rating for it is in the US as I've never seen it on sale anywhere.


10. The Wolf Man (1941)

"A practical man returns to his homeland, is attacked by a creature of folklore, and infected with a horrific disease his disciplined mind tells him can not possibly exist."

The original and best werewolf film apart from "American Werewolf in London". This film made a star of Lon Chaney, jnr., created all the myths about werewolves that would be used throughout Hollywood ever after, and spawned a succession of Universal Monster movies uniting the wolf man often incongruously with the other Universal Monsters. Why is it at the bottom of the list? The poem which gets repeated ad nauseum throughout. If I hear it one more time, I'll smash the TV in with a silver-topped cane.


There are no runners-up this time as the only alternatives are the TV miniseries called "Wilderness" (1996) which was cut so badly for a US DVD release that it's unbearable, "Blood and Chocolate" (2007) which is about as entertaining as "Twilight", and "Wolf" (1994) which I can't ever watch again because of my irrational dislike of James Spader.

Of course, werewolves appear in a lot of other horror movies (and even some comedies), but usually it's with more unintentional humour than the filmmakers imagined.

So there you have it. Agree or disagree? What are your favourite werewolf films?

Moon of the Wolf (1972)

"After several locals are viciously murdered, a Louisiana sheriff starts to suspect he may be dealing with a werewolf."

"Moon of the Wolf" is yet another public domain staple that turns up in nearly every budget horror DVD pack. I have this on several Mill Creek DVDs and a quite nicely produced EastWestDVD "Double Feature" with "Snowbeast" (1977). The only difference on the EastWestDVD is that Geoffrey Lewis gets the third place credit instead of Bradford Dillman which is only fair since he is the much more internationally recognisable star thanks to "Salem's Lot" and many Clint Eastwood movies.

All the actors in this TV movie were pretty famous at the time. If you ever watch reruns of American TV shows from the '60s and '70s, you'll see their faces cropping up all over the place in a variety of roles. Some of them are still going today.

I've only seen the late David Janssen in various cowboy, police and soldier roles before and he always seemed to play the same part. He could be in any uniform and still be all grumbly and mumbly. I'm not sure that he was dressed appropriately with his shirt unbuttoned nearly all the way to his navel in every scene but I was grateful that his voice was the most decipherable when the poor sound quality of this obviously VHS to DVD transfer made parts of the murder investigation hard to follow. Since his character doesn't really deserve anything further than the routine performance he gives here, I'd have to say that he was still pretty convincing in the sheriff role.

Barbara Rush, on the other hand, ranges from quite exceptional to absolutely awful to watch. She's very, very pretty in spite of her massive, uncomfortable-looking hair and hideously unattractive '70s clothes that make her look pear-shaped. She also doesn't seem to be able to run in those "old lady clothes" either. She has some of the worst reactions and annoying line delivery that I've witnessed outside of a soap opera. I'm assuming that she must have been a soap star at some point since I really don't know that much about her. Soap stars and good acting just don't really go together very often though. I'm not sure if there is supposed to be some kind of romantic thing going on between her character and David Janssen's since there is no chemistry there whatsoever.

As for the others, Bradford Dillman doesn't really convince me either of his class or as being a werewolf though his make-up for the latter part is truly terrible. Geoffrey Lewis is the same as always and no different to his character in "Salem's Lot". I think he was often typecast.

A lot of time is spent on all their characterisation though as the story is 99% police thriller with 1% werewolf. It's a murder mystery more than a horror movie but it just turns out that the killer is a werewolf. There isn't even any action apart from 2 minutes before the end and that is only to fire off some silver bullets and burn a barn down. It's no more boring than an episode of "Murder She Wrote" but it won't satisfy a horror fan.

Even though a story like this might not have been out of place with something like "Kolchak, the Night Stalker" it still wouldn't have been a very memorable episode. I don't think you could even say that there was a real twist to the ending either which is pretty much necessary even for TV.

It's all very predictable stuff and if you can't guess who the werewolf will be from the moment you first see him then there really is something wrong with you. It is so telegraphed that the killer might as well have a glowing sign attached to him saying, "I'm the werewolf, please shoot me at the end of the movie!"

I don't think this a completely terrible movie though. If I had been born at least a decade earlier then I probably would have enjoyed watching this myself one night as a youngster. Unfortunately I am of the age where "Thriller", "Beasts", and "Salem's Lot" are more fondly remembered especially since they were all actually scary. "Moon of the Wolf", unfortunately, is not scary or memorable in any way.

An American Werewolf in London (1981)

"Two American tourists in Britain are attacked by a werewolf that none of the locals will admit exists."

Do I really need to review "An American Werewolf in London"? Well, just on the off chance that there may be at least one person on the planet who has never even heard of it, I'll ramble about it anyway.

I haven't rewatched "An American Werewolf in London" for almost three months now, which is probably the longest that I haven't seen it since I moved. I really can't count the number of times that I've used this film to enter my "happy place", but it's been a lot. Some people might find it weird that a horror movie forms a huge part of my comfort zone which I have very little desire to ever leave, but it does.

I don't know what it is exactly about "An American Werewolf in London" which makes me feel all snuggly and cosy inside, since when I've tried to analyse it before, all I could pin it down to were the rainy, opening scenes set on the Yorkshire moors.

David Kessler and Jack Goodman arriving on the moors in the back of truck filled with sheep isn't a totally happy event. In fact, it's a huge piece of symbolism which gives away that they are just lambs for the slaughter, and the name of the pub that they then visit repeats it. But socially awkward as the fish out of water that they may be, the pair are so instantly likeable that you feel like you've known them forever, and that makes what follows even more tragic.

If you had some idea in your head that "An American Werewolf in London" was going to be a comedy based on its witty script then seeing Jack get brutally torn apart will change that pretty drastically. When David initially runs away from the first werewolf attack, it makes you wish that there was some way of saving him, but like the original "Wolf Man" starring Lon Chaney, Jr., you already know that he's been doomed from the very beginning.

Geographically speaking, "An American Werewolf in London" is somewhat flawed considering that the Yorkshire moors are over 200 miles away from London and the nearest hospital that David should wake up in after the attack would be much closer. Even taking into account the often maligned National Health Service system (which I miss more than you could possibly imagine) making some huge mistake, it's a huge plot hole which nobody has ever properly explained. But since the scenes on the moors were filmed in Wales, I suppose it's a moot point anyway.

A lot of people refer to "An American Werewolf in London" as a horror-comedy, and it's really annoying, especially for the director John Landis. It's a horror film with some moments of black humour, but it's primarily a horror film with a tragic ending. If it was a comedy then everything would be played for laughs, and there would be an upbeat happy ending.

"An American Werewolf in London" is probably best known for having one of the best human to werewolf transformation scenes in cinematic history. Make-up artist Rick Baker won an Oscar for it, and it's one time that you can actually trust a result from the Academy Awards. The transformation of David Kessler into a big, hairy, snarling beast was groundbreaking at the time and looks really painful. If there's any doubt in your mind that this film is a comedy rather than a real horror movie, that should be the moment that you realise your mistake.

"An American Werewolf in London" really only has a few moments of comic relief which, strangely, serve as a device to make the full-on horror scenes which follow them to be even more horrific. Giving the audience a false sense of security and then shocking the hell out of them is what makes "An American Werewolf in London" still a valid horror film today as it was when it was first released.

Of course, I'm a bit biased when it comes to the merits of "An American Werewolf in London". Not only do I view most of it through rose-tinted glasses, but it was one of the first films on VHS that I ever bought albeit on the "4 Front" label. I still don't have the "Full Moon" edition on DVD, just the regular "Collector's Edition", but I might upgrade soon to just to see "Tall Paul" Davis' "Beware the Moon" documentary which I know he spent years putting together.

Because no movie is ever perfect, there are obviously a number of flaws in "An American Werewolf in London" which I wish weren't there. For instance, David's bad dream sequences are messily placed and are more annoying than revelatory, and if they were cut entirely, it wouldn't make much difference as far as I'm concerned. Of course, some people like seeing David Naughton running around with his cash and prizes on show, and film buffs love discussing the ghoulish German soldiers who butcher his Jewish family, but I didn't think these surreal scenes were very well done.

Another thing which I've never liked is that the werewolf attack scenes are too short and you don't really get to see anything. I know a lot of that was to do with keeping the werewolf hidden as much as possible until the end, especially since as good as the design is, it's still animatronic and the animal's eyes are lifeless and dead. The same thing can be said of Griffin Dunne's puppet in the movie theatre scene. Maybe a CGI makeover would help these creatures to look alive, and I know from the documentaries on the "Special Features" that Rick Baker would definitely be willing to see it happen.

The best horror scene in "An American Werewolf in London" is, undoubtedly, the one where the guy gets stalked and killed in the Tottenham Court underground station. There is absolutely no humour involved at all, even the poster for the spoof porno film "See You Next Wednesday" seen on one of the corridor walls won't mean anything at this point. I wish that the rest of the film had more tension-filled scenes like this, but it is what it is.

My only big problem with "An American Werewolf in London", however, is the ending. Since everybody who watches this film really likes the love story between David and Alex, played by Jenny Agutter (just in case you thought that this story went into same sex relationships beyond the friendship of David and Jack), the tragic ending is not only saddening, but it's quite annoyingly rushed too. When the "bom diddy bom" from "Blue Moon" starts playing almost immediately over the end credits, the whole moment is lost. I blame John Landis for trying to fit every single song with "Moon" in the title into this without putting enough thought about where to strategically place them.

In closing, I may as well mention that I'm still amazed at how hot Jenny Agutter looks as Alex, and despite her very dated use of the English language, it's one of the few roles that I can stand watching her in. It may not be everybody's wish fulfilment to see one of "The Railway Children" get banged by the "Dr. Pepper" guy, but I'm sick like that, as you know. The shower and sex scenes are pretty racy even for 1981, plus there's a "film within a film" piece of soft porn which spices things up a bit too.

Incidentally, I've got Jenny Agutter's autograph, although not on a still from "An American Werewolf in London". I have no idea what movie it's from, so feel free to let me know. She looks a lot prettier than this in "An American Werewolf in London".

It's no surprise that I'm going to recommend "An American Werewolf in London" to you as probably the greatest werewolf film that's ever been made. The sequel "An American Werewolf in Paris" (1997) was a horrible disappointment, so you can forget about watching that. The Universal classic "The Wolf Man" (1941) isn't all it's cracked up to be either unless you like badly dated movies. One that gets mentioned by Jenny Agutter's character, Hammer's "The Curse of the Werewolf (1961), and the copycat Tyburn production "Legend of the Werewolf" (1975), would be my other recommendations.

For some people who absolutely hate werewolf movies, "An American Werewolf in London" may seem overrated, but as someone who has watched it a couple of hundred times over, I can assure you that it's not. Add it to your collection now!

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

"As a string of mysterious killings grips Seattle, Bella, whose high school graduation is fast approaching, is forced to choose between her love for vampire Edward and her friendship with werewolf Jacob."

Well, I'm pleased to say that "Eclipse" was actually better than "New Moon". Despite most people telling me that none of the Twilight films belong in the horror genre even though they have vampires and werewolves in them, I can now say for sure that they do.

Yes, this is a horror movie, rather than a horrible movie, with a teenage love triangle at the heart of it all and I'll tell you why. It has a full on "werewolves versus vampires" war in it! War is horror, death is horror, and giant CGI werewolves ripping pretty teenage vampires to pieces is horror!

So it probably won't go into anybody over the age of thirteen's top ten movies but this was a pretty decent offering for the intended audience. Even those of us who it wasn't really intended for can tune out of the awful soap opera dialogue and revel in the beauty of Rosalie (Nikki Reed) and Alice (Ashley Greene). I think we are all over Bella now even though Kristen Stewart was great as Joan Jett in "The Runaways" recently too.

I really don't care what women think of the boys in the film since I'm not wired that way. I am, however, glad that, even though the werewolves still seem incapable of owning a shirt when they are together, nobody has to see Jacob's chest or abs until well over an hour into the film. If that's all you want to see then I suggest arriving late.

None of them apart from Bella's father can actually act, of course, and there's still very little chemistry between any of them especially in the love triangle itself. Edward (Robert Pattinson) still looks miserable most of the time and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) just seems to be angry. I would probably be angry too if I'd chosen such a totally awful girl as Bella to be in love with rather than one of the pretty vampiresses. She's still hardly the kind of girl that most people would go for and so I suppose it's only fair that two supernatural monsters are the only ones competing for her attention.

Once again Bella is all confused about who she loves most and it's all talk and/or glib comments for nearly an hour. There are a couple of flashback stories for some of the seemingly unimportant characters at this point (just to vainly try to put Bella off wanting to be a vampire herself for five minutes) plus a couple of moments where Edward and Jacob stand really close to each other angrily. The camera stands even closer to everybody though as I don't think I've ever seen so many headshots and close-ups since the last Clearasil advert I saw on TV.

But then things start getting good. No, I don't mean Jacob getting punched in the face when he tries to kiss Bella. Yes, that does happen and I did enjoy it. The Volturi bit part players have turned up and the gang of newborns is homing in on Bella so you just know that big trouble is about to kick off left, right and centre... or as many camera angles, slow-mos and quick cuts as the director, David Slade, can work in.

Of course, before any of this happens, we just have to have one of the most embarrassing and non-erotic teenage fumbles on a bed ever filmed. Nothing really happens of course because Edward wants to wait until they are married even though Bella wants to be diddled before she becomes a vampire. How sweet yet very lame. Better to keep on begging Bella to marry him while the werewolf keeps pushing himself on her too than to give her the good seeing to that she needs. The kiss between the evil vampiress Victoria and whoever the other guy was (Riley?) a few minutes later was twenty times hotter and lasted all of a few seconds.

I probably should also mention the 20 minute three-in-a-tent scene where Edward had to call a still shirtless Jacob in because he didn't have any body heat to keep Bella warm. Yeah, that was his excuse. It all turned into a bit too much of a male bonding session for my liking. Oh, if only this had been an adult film! It did remind me of that really bad "Blair Witch Project" porn parody even down to Bella's woolly hat but I digressed. Yes, once again Edward's idea of keeping Bella safe is to take her where it's most dangerous, on top of a freezing cold snowy mountain. No wonder she decides to give Jacob a proper snog before he goes off trying to kill himself in battle because she agreed to marry the vampire after all.

But, yes, it's all out war from then on. Cullens, werewolves, bad vamps and Uncle Tom Cobbly all run at each other swiping heads off, biting, clawing, pulling off arms and breaking necks. For a PG-rated film this was pretty good!!!

Aw, but I'm giving away the plot. It's not as if you are going to see this anyway since you are reading this review on a horror film blog. Suffice it to say that the final battle between Edward and Victoria is good but nothing to lose your head over. It is amusing how the vampires seem to be made of bone china though and the only blood involved is Bella's.

Jacob manages to get himself injured in another epic CGI werewolf battle and, since there's nothing like kicking a big smelly dog when he's had his back broken and is down, Bella tells him that she has finally chosen Edward over him. There I just saved you $10 which you can donate to my cat food fund on the right if you really want to.

Everything ends with a scene that mirrors the start but now there's a promise of a wedding and some hanky panky to look forward to next time.

So there you have it. Did five minutes of brutal horror action justify nearly two hours of boring teenagers angsting over who they fancied? Well, if you use the same ratio of soap opera to violence that "Wolf Creek" used to qualify as a horror film then yes.

I'm standing by my original statement. "Eclipse" is a horror movie. Not a very horrific horror movie I grant you but it does belong in the genre.

The Wolfman (2010)

"Upon his return to his ancestral homeland, an American man is bitten, and subsequently cursed by, a werewolf."

Before I begin, I just have to mention that this review is based on the "Unrated Director's Cut" rather than the theatrical release which sucked.

Now, although werewolf films usually suck almost as much as your average vampire and with this being a remake as well, I really thought I was going to hate "The Wolfman" even more than I already despise the over recurring poem in the original. I didn't. It really is much better than the original in many ways and "The Director's Cut" adds a lot more gore.

I do realise that gory special effects aren't everything in a horror movie but, when you are dealing with werewolves in particular, there really isn't much else you can use to sell the idea of their animal ferocity to the audience. We've all seen the heightened senses part done to death and transformations made to look more and more painful. What we all wanted, and what we all now have, are some savage kills wrapped up in neat little werewolf myth.

The theatrical release was so toned down in this regard that I pretty much wrote "The Wolfman" off as just another shitty child-safe remake. I wanted bloodshed, madness and some hairy bestiality like in Charles Band's "Phantoms" (Meridian) only with a big budget. Although I didn't quite get that with this "Director's Cut", Emily Blunt (even with her annoying accent) was pretty damned sexy and the slayings even sexier.

It's still the same story, more or less, as the 1941 original with the same names for the characters and all that good stuff. Well, it is an official Universal remake so you can't expect anything else. Everything is set in Victorian times of course with some rather strange additions to the character list such as Abberline (Hugo Weaving) from the "Jack the Ripper" story. You could probably splice big chunks of the latest Sherlock Holmes movie in there if you were a film editor and I don't think anyone would notice either. There are a few anachronisms but not enough to throw you out of the story entirely. Just a bit of work on the language and accents used may have helped but none of it is as bad as Keanu Reeves in "Bram Stoker's Dracula".

One of the biggest flaws was the casting. In spite of being miserable, Benicio Del Toro just didn't seem to have the brooding ability of Lon Chaney and I think we've all seen enough of Anthony Hopkins churning out the same role too. Both can be fantastic actors when they want to be but I found them to be a very mismatched pair in terms of their relationship to each other and I didn't think they really gave anything but routine performances. But what would I know? I'm not an actor, I just watch a lot of films. They didn't really entertain me as much as they normally do.

A massive change to the original story was the "Teen Wolf" twist which I won't spoil for you but you will be able to predict for yourself soon into the film. I don't know why they went that way instead of keeping the original werewolf as a gypsy but I'm sure it's something to do with political correctness gone mad. Perhaps there have been too many cursed gypsies over the years and they decided not to play to the stereotype. Cutting them down to only minor roles wasn't the greatest decision in my opinion although it did get rid of having to hear "the poem" half a dozen times.

"Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright." Yeah, I just did it for you to make up for it. Aaargh!

Actually the wolfbane does actually play a real part this time which I was glad of. That really did add something a bit different to the story in a good way though obviously not for the characters affected by it.

I think I need to say something about the special effects. Rick Baker was involved so the practical stuff was as good as "An American Werewolf in London" to some extent. It just wasn't groundbreaking anymore and most of the additional CGI was quite good on its own. Just don't look at the bear too closely! I really don't care how the effects are done as long as they look good. All the make-up and wardrobe people seemed to do a pretty good job too.

Danny Elfman's music in the film sounded a lot like "Bram Stoker's Dracula" to me which was kind of interesting especially as Anthony Hopkins was in that one too. I don't know it actually added a link to that remake or detracted a bit from this one. Either way it's a done deal.

The Victorian setting is something that I'm still trying to get my head around. On the one hand, it looks quite good but, on the other, the actors don't really get into it. I just found them all to be very modern. Again I need to mention the recent Robert Downey "Sherlock Holmes" movie as it suffers from the same thing. Maybe it's the pacing or lack of atmosphere. Both can be tarred with the same brush and both are just sort of "there". You just can't get into the "world" of these films because it is just dressing and doesn't have any substance to it. Period pieces need to have a lot more to them than just costumes and locations. "Superficial" is the word I'm struggling for. You can also add "shallow", "vacuous", or just plain "empty" to the list. Even the low-budget Hammer films from the 50s did Victorian England so much better.

Anyway, I actually enjoyed "The Wolfman" overall. It's not perfect but it wasn't a bad remake. It's sort of pointless and won't be remembered except by people who prefer Francis Ford Coppola's "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" movies to the originals. I just wish that it had been the most incredible werewolf movie ever made but it sadly wasn't.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

"Edward leaves Bella after an attack that nearly claimed her life, and in her depression she falls into yet another paranormal relationship - this time with werewolf Jacob Black."

What a disappointment. With a change of directors from Catherine Hardwick to Chris Weitz and with what must have been a larger budget after the success of "Twilight", "New Moon" was actually worse not better.

The writers remained the same with Melissa Rosenberg adapting Stephanie Meyer's novel for the big screen but this still wasn't what anybody expected. The pacing of "New Moon" was just far too slow. At over two hours long (actually 130 minutes), it just dragged on and on and was probably worse than reading the book if this was the best that could be made of it.

It seems that fans of the book were again divided with some really pleased that so much was included and others moaning about it being butchered but, honestly, who has the patience for all that? There was just far too much talk which led to absolutely nothing at all apart from more brooding and moping.

The acting was pretty bad this time too so there appeared to be no chemistry between any of the characters. That's a bit of a failure for a romance, I think.

With Edward absent for most of the story, this was Jacob's chance to take over but, having spoiled it all for myself by asking other people who have read the books what happens, I knew it would all be in vain.

All I cared about were the action scenes but there were too few of them. The fight scenes were good but over too quickly and the CGI wolves were actually quite well done too even though they were still obviously CGI.

Cinematically, "New Moon" was filmed well and although it looked a bit different to "Twilight", it was actually easier to watch. There were way to many close-ups which got annoying even if Kristen Stewart is flawless and expressionless enough to stand them. Her constant blinking and twitching was very distracting.

Towards the end, things picked up a little bit with the Volturi but it all seemed to be somewhat rushed. Michael Sheen stood out as Aro but I was so glad that the film was coming to an end by this point, especially after being so bored, that I didn't really even care.

I'm rating "New Moon" as 3 out of 10. If all you want to see is Taylor Lautner's chest then you won't be disappointed.

Oh well, at least I enjoyed my trip to Burger King.

Twilight (2008)

Although hardcore fans of Stephanie Meyer were a bit nonplussed, to say the least, over this movie adaptation of her bestselling vampire novel, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I can imagine that I'm going to take a lot of flak for my opinion, especially as "Twilight" is a movie meant primarily for teenage girls, but I'm willing to take that risk since the story and chemistry between the leading actors is so beautifully done that, if you are willing to overlook some minor flaws, you can't help but fall in love with this film too.

Yes, this film has flaws. Some of the camerawork early on is a bit amateur and some of the stunts are a bit cheesy but, even if this was to be judged by bad movie standards, it was still very entertaining.

I really didn't notice any major goofs though as the relationship between the incredibly strong leads of Kristen Stewart (as Bella) and Robert Pattinson (as Edward) really drew me into the fantasy in ways that only fans of something like "Buffy" or "Angel" could truly appreciate. Yes, this is all very much like a more serious and romantic version of the relationship between Buffy and Angel in the TV series but with a bit more of a "Romeo and Juliet" feel to it. "Star-crossed lovers" is, I believe, the correct expression for this situation.

Underlying the dominant love story though is also a subplot of good vampires against bad vampires and even the hint of werewolves on the horizon. With at least one sequel about to occur pretty soon, it's obvious that as much was being packed into this film as possible to create hooks. It all worked too. There wasn't too much given away but just enough to leave this as a stand alone movie while making the viewer wish there was more. A delicate balance has been achieved and this makes it such a commercial masterpiece that it has the potential to outsell "Harry Potter" now that the original audience of those books and films has grown up and moved on.

I'll mention again that what really drew me in was the acting. The vampire actors are all beautiful rather than just attractive while the humans are shown to be a lot more unkempt and immature even though everyone looks about the same age. Kristen Stewart is the middle ground between these two polarities as she is beautiful yet not quite fully formed as a woman. Her performance was exceptional albeit with some moments of unrealistic dialogue. The character of Bella was just such a paradox that she had to stand out as an attraction for Edward the vampire. She was a lot more controlled and mature than any of her peers yet still awkward enough to be one of them at times too so her reactions were realistic even if her words were not.

At 122 minutes, "Twilight" is a long film which, due to slow pacing, feels even longer. For once though this isn't a bad thing as if it had been trimmed then it could have ended up as just another MTV style teen flick. The added length adds some substance to things and allows the greater character development which will undoubtedly continue into the sequels.

Cinematically, it is a beautiful film to watch. Only one rough piece of camerawork on the beach distracted me for a moment. Everything else was framed perfectly and all the aerial shots, zooms and pans were done effectively. A baseball game used to show the speed and strength of the vampires was a moment of almost comic relief which didn't really work out too well, but at least it is possible to see what was intended. The director, Catherine Hardwicke (of "Lords of Dogtown" fame), still seems to be learning about what works and what doesn't but, since no movie is ever perfect, the pros outweigh the cons especially considering the length.

The biggest problem with this film for horror fans, of course, is not the technical achievements or production values, but like every other vampire film in recent years, it just isn't scary. I can't honestly remember a vampire film apart from certain scenes in "Salem's Lot" ever being scary though. When a lot of Edward Cullen's lines consist of the question, "Are you scared?", it does tend to provoke the audience, in this case me, to say "No" instead of waiting for Bella's equal response.

Really though, "Twilight" is more of a romantic drama with some action rather a real horror genre movie. The potential was never even there in the books, it seems, to make this into anything other than a kind of "Dark Shadows" for the 21st Century. You can't honestly go into this expecting another "30 Days of Night" because it's not going to happen.

There isn't a lot of blood in this considering it's a vampire movie, and any death scenes are pretty much off-camera. I imagine that this was done intentionally to keep it within the PG-13 rating more than anything else. For my tastes, it could have used some harder and more gritty bloodletting, but the target audience should be more than satisfied with what is there.

I've rated "Twilight" as 8 out of 10 based mainly on its value as an entertaining movie. As a horror movie, it is only worth half that score. I still recommend that you watch it though.

Night Shadow (1989)

"Alex is an up and coming TV journalist, but travels to her home town for a vacation because she has insecurities about her chosen career. A mass murdering werewolf follows her from L.A to Danford. We see her kickboxer brother and her semi-boyfriend, the Sheriff, puzzle over the recent spluge of murders, fight and then kill the man-wolf."

It seems I was cursed with blandness as I watched probably the most uninspired werewolf movie ever made known as "Night Shadow". It's only real claim to fame nowadays is that it stars a mulletted Kato Kaelin from the O.J. Simpson trial and really that isn't enough to make it interesting to anybody who, like me, doesn't even know who Kato Kaelin or O.J. Simpson are anyway.

The start of "Night Shadow" had such insipid and incongruous background music that I wondered if this would even be a horror movie at all. It was even worse than porn film music! But I persevered just to see if it was some kind of comedic in-joke from the director. It wasn't. Neither the music or the overall sound quality improved at all.

In fact, everything was all very, very below average. It's supposed to be a werewolf film yet not once does the word "werewolf" even get mentioned as far as I remember. Certainly there are no standard werewolfy things like torturous moonlit transformations, howling or being shot by silver bullets. FFS, the werewolf eventually gets killed by being run over in a car!

The werewolf itself just looks like a someone with a giant furry carpet thrown over them and is probably the most unconvincing lycanthrope I've seen outside of "The Beast of Bray Road". Not that you'll see much of it anyway as the padded middle section of the film is enough to make you switch it off with boredom long before the denouement where everything is predictably revealed.

I hate to use the word "boring" as it really doesn't tell anyone a lot, but if a film deserved to be labelled with just one word then "boring" sums up "Night Shadow" perfectly.

There's nothing scary, the gore is less than you'd get in a Sunday afternoon TV movie, and there's nothing sexy either. Brenda Vance, the girl who plays the heroine Alex Jung, is pretty in a 1980s' kind of way (well, it was made in 1989!) but she's wasted in the film anyway. Laura Graham who plays Beth had the best performance though as it really takes some guts to act the part of a pretty girl when you are as plain as she is.

I'm rating it as 1 out of 10. It only gets that for the crappy kung-fu scene and Kato Kaelin's awful mullet (which I shouldn't laugh about at all with the state of my own hair at the moment).