Despite the title, this isn't a horror film at all; the werewolf elements are only introduced three-quarters of the way in which are, in any case, merely suggested through the lead character's hallucinations but these obviously constitute the film's highlight (though rugged, pasty-faced star and co-director Chesebro isn't exactly Lon Chaney Jr.); still, the transformation-by-transfusion is an interesting concept, one which I don't think has been done in subsequent films. However, while the forest locations are certainly nice, the unexciting main narrative involving rival logging companies and the unavoidable love triangle really drown the interest; a subplot involves a villainous moonshiner who's a dead ringer for Walter Brennan and, for the record, there's even an interminable "Jazz Age" party sequence towards the beginning! The soundtrack accompanying the print I watched features a classical piece which was also used to much greater effect in Luis Bunuel's L'AGE D'OR (1930).
13 Reviews
You'll remember the photography more then the plot
dbborroughs29 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Beautiful silent film set in a wilderness logging camp. I really wish that I had seen this on a big screen in a good print instead of on video with a lousy video source. The title comes from a man who gets a transfusion of wolf blood and begins to think he's a wolf. Its not a wolf man story despite what the material on the DVD box says. The rest (most) of the plot has to do with a new owner for the logging company and what happens when a young woman ends up in the woods and in the middle of a romantic triangle. Its not a bad film, but its nothing spectacular. What I'm going to remember is the outdoor photography which is absolutely stunning. I'm in awe of how silent films have such great cinema verite shots of life that were often dropped into films. I know that the disappearance of the real life shot disappeared with the coming of sound because of the sound equipment was too bulky, but at the same time documentary filming like that was never the same. Worth a look for the photography. The plot is just okay.
The First Werewolf Movie?
gavin694227 April 2015
After a wolf blood transfusion, a man (George Chesebro) thinks he is becoming a wolf.
This film came to my attention as being "the first werewolf movie". Strictly speaking, that is not correct. The first werewolf movie is The Werewolf" (1913). However, as that film is considered to be lost, ore "Wolf Blood" can be called the earliest surviving werewolf film, which is the next best thing.
Although George Chesebro (who both stars and directs) is not a well-known name, perhaps he should be. The Minnesota-born film star appeared in more than 400 films between 1915 and 1954, which is nothing to sneeze at! Oddly, it gets to the wolf part until halfway through, first focusing on 1920s dance parties and lumber companies (reminding me of Howard Hawks' "Come and Get It"). Much of the werewolf part is told through possible hallucinations, and we are never completely convinced that he has joined the pack.
Interesting for what it is, but probably not a must-see.
This film came to my attention as being "the first werewolf movie". Strictly speaking, that is not correct. The first werewolf movie is The Werewolf" (1913). However, as that film is considered to be lost, ore "Wolf Blood" can be called the earliest surviving werewolf film, which is the next best thing.
Although George Chesebro (who both stars and directs) is not a well-known name, perhaps he should be. The Minnesota-born film star appeared in more than 400 films between 1915 and 1954, which is nothing to sneeze at! Oddly, it gets to the wolf part until halfway through, first focusing on 1920s dance parties and lumber companies (reminding me of Howard Hawks' "Come and Get It"). Much of the werewolf part is told through possible hallucinations, and we are never completely convinced that he has joined the pack.
Interesting for what it is, but probably not a must-see.
Be advised--this really is NOT a horror film despite the title. Plus, it's just not very good.
planktonrules24 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Be advised that this film was released by Alpha Video--a company that ever seems to do any restoration on their films. This is especially problematic for old silent films like this one, as the print is so poor it's almost not worth seeing the film. But, in many cases, there are no other companies releasing that particular video, so you either take it or leave it! As I am a nut about silents, I realized the print would totally suck--so it wasn't any surprise that it did. As for the other full-length film on the same DVD ("The Haunted Castle"), its quality was a lot worse--much, much worse.
The film is set in a logging camp in the rugged wilderness. Dick is trying to keep the project going, but someone is shooting at his men! Who and why isn't clear, but they need to get the owner involved as well as a good doctor to patch up the men. The company is owned by a rich society lady (Edith) who agrees to come to the middle of nowhere with her fiancé--who is also a doctor.
After some scrappin' and punchin' and other manly stuff, Dick is hurt and possibly dying. With him needing a transfusion quickly, the doctor tries something REAAALLLY weird--gives him a transfusion of wolf blood! Dick is back to his old self in a few days--during which time the fair Edith cares for him--and falls for him.
When Dick is up and about, everything seems peachy and he is blissfully unaware of the canine blood within him. But, a jerk (who happens to be a TERRIBLE actor) who knows the truth begins spreading the story about the wolf blood and people in the camp all begin acting strangely whenever Dick is about. Soon, he, too, hears about the blood and he begins to believe the silly tales about him becoming a were-wolf! Only after he is saved from killing himself by Edith does he and the audience learn the truth--through a very long exposition! Not exactly a terrific way to end a film, huh?!
This film has a decent story idea and it would have been better had it been made featuring competent actors and director. So, although there should be suspense, there really is none. The story comes off as silly and the occasionally bad acting of a few of the cast sure didn't help. Often with silents I cut them some slack--after all, they are early films and so I compare them to other films of the same era. And, compared to other silents of 1925 (by which time the quality of films had become excellent), it was poor all around and aside from an interesting plot idea, the film has little to offer--particularly as the print is just awful.
The film is set in a logging camp in the rugged wilderness. Dick is trying to keep the project going, but someone is shooting at his men! Who and why isn't clear, but they need to get the owner involved as well as a good doctor to patch up the men. The company is owned by a rich society lady (Edith) who agrees to come to the middle of nowhere with her fiancé--who is also a doctor.
After some scrappin' and punchin' and other manly stuff, Dick is hurt and possibly dying. With him needing a transfusion quickly, the doctor tries something REAAALLLY weird--gives him a transfusion of wolf blood! Dick is back to his old self in a few days--during which time the fair Edith cares for him--and falls for him.
When Dick is up and about, everything seems peachy and he is blissfully unaware of the canine blood within him. But, a jerk (who happens to be a TERRIBLE actor) who knows the truth begins spreading the story about the wolf blood and people in the camp all begin acting strangely whenever Dick is about. Soon, he, too, hears about the blood and he begins to believe the silly tales about him becoming a were-wolf! Only after he is saved from killing himself by Edith does he and the audience learn the truth--through a very long exposition! Not exactly a terrific way to end a film, huh?!
This film has a decent story idea and it would have been better had it been made featuring competent actors and director. So, although there should be suspense, there really is none. The story comes off as silly and the occasionally bad acting of a few of the cast sure didn't help. Often with silents I cut them some slack--after all, they are early films and so I compare them to other films of the same era. And, compared to other silents of 1925 (by which time the quality of films had become excellent), it was poor all around and aside from an interesting plot idea, the film has little to offer--particularly as the print is just awful.
Fascinating early werewolf movie.
Teknofobe706 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Already seen all of Universal's "Wolf Man" movies? Want something more? Well, here's a little piece of werewolf movie history you probably never even knew about.
It's really more of a romance story than a werewolf story, but it's definitely the werewolf aspect that makes it interesting. Two logging companies are rivals with one another, and Dick Bannister, played by George Chesebro, is the head of one of them. When the other company starts shooting and wounding his men, he telephones the city and sends his boss and a surgeon. It just so happens that his boss is a young woman, played by Marguerite Clayton, and she is engaged to a surgeon. Bannister instantly falls in love with her when she arrives.
Later, the rival logging company begins to build a dam across a vital river. When Bannister confronts them, they attack him and leave him for dead ... but he is saved by the surgeon and taken to a nearby cabin. The owner of the cabin refuses to give his blood for a transfusion to save Bannister, as they have previously argued about him selling alcohol to the loggers, but suggests that he can use the blood of his she-wolf instead. He does, and Bannister lives.
But when word gets out that he has wolf's blood in his veins, his superstitious employees begin to fear that he is no longer human, but some kind of man-beast. Bannister himself also begins to fear that this is the case, and his fears become deepened when the head of the rival logging company is torn apart by a pack of wolves. He starts to go slowly insane, hallucinating that he is part of a pack of phantom ghost wolves running through the woods nearby ... but when the girl returns his love, he snaps out of it and all is well. Yipee! "Wolf Blood" is the only time George Chesebro ever directed, but he has acted in over four hundred movies. Ouch! He gives a good silent performance here, and it seems fairly well-directed for it's time. The acting is pretty much what you expect from this period of film history -- melodramatic and stagey, with every movement and facial expression emphasised. It has it's dull moments, but the last ten minutes or so are particularly memorable.
While it's certainly not a classic, this is a fairly interesting and entertaining silent movie, and notable as George Chesebro's single directorial project.
It's really more of a romance story than a werewolf story, but it's definitely the werewolf aspect that makes it interesting. Two logging companies are rivals with one another, and Dick Bannister, played by George Chesebro, is the head of one of them. When the other company starts shooting and wounding his men, he telephones the city and sends his boss and a surgeon. It just so happens that his boss is a young woman, played by Marguerite Clayton, and she is engaged to a surgeon. Bannister instantly falls in love with her when she arrives.
Later, the rival logging company begins to build a dam across a vital river. When Bannister confronts them, they attack him and leave him for dead ... but he is saved by the surgeon and taken to a nearby cabin. The owner of the cabin refuses to give his blood for a transfusion to save Bannister, as they have previously argued about him selling alcohol to the loggers, but suggests that he can use the blood of his she-wolf instead. He does, and Bannister lives.
But when word gets out that he has wolf's blood in his veins, his superstitious employees begin to fear that he is no longer human, but some kind of man-beast. Bannister himself also begins to fear that this is the case, and his fears become deepened when the head of the rival logging company is torn apart by a pack of wolves. He starts to go slowly insane, hallucinating that he is part of a pack of phantom ghost wolves running through the woods nearby ... but when the girl returns his love, he snaps out of it and all is well. Yipee! "Wolf Blood" is the only time George Chesebro ever directed, but he has acted in over four hundred movies. Ouch! He gives a good silent performance here, and it seems fairly well-directed for it's time. The acting is pretty much what you expect from this period of film history -- melodramatic and stagey, with every movement and facial expression emphasised. It has it's dull moments, but the last ten minutes or so are particularly memorable.
While it's certainly not a classic, this is a fairly interesting and entertaining silent movie, and notable as George Chesebro's single directorial project.
Travelogue for the Lumber Industry of 1925
Hitchcoc1 July 2015
Half the film involves trees falling down and the same stock footage of the lumber industry. There are two warring camps. One is sending men to shoot the workers in the other camp. It is getting ugly. There are so many injuries that the foreman (a sort of Nelson Eddy kind of guy) gets in touch with the owner (who happens to be a rich flapper, engaged to a surgeon). She goes to the camp with her fiancé. He will do the doctoring while she assesses the situation. There is no reason for her to be there other than to advance the plot and get her to fall in love with the handsome foreman. At some point, the guy (who acts before thinking) finds that the opposing camp is about to dam up the river and ruin their business. After a confrontation with a couple of lumberjacks, he is knocked unconscious and thrown in a ravine. He is later found by the surgeon who is put in a position of using wolf blood to save his life. Of course, he now begins to act wolf-like. Some say this was the first werewolf movie. There are some fun moments, but, over all, it is just quite moronic.
Not a werewolf in sight, but a charming picture nonetheless!
JohnHowardReid25 January 2008
A nascent werewolf picture which, despite its promising premise, carefully avoids a descent into lycanthropy, this "tale of the forest" will disappoint most horror fans. However, it does have other points of interest including its attractively tinted location photography and its fascinating cast headed by the famous silent star, the charming Marguerite Clayton, here nearing the end of her 180-movies career!
Doubtless for reasons of economy, George Chesebro was handed the reins to direct many of his own scenes. Unfortunately, he opted to adopt the clownish make-up he sported in the 1920 serial, "The Lost City", and he looks a real sight with his ghost-white face, black-rimmed eyes and painted smile. And this is before he thinks he might turn into a werewolf!
Chesebro is joined by his sidekick pal from "The Lost City", Frank Clark, but it's prolific character actor Milburn Morante who easily steals this picture from both of them.
The scenes directed by Bruce Mitchell are much smoother and far more natural than the Chesebro footage. And in his delightfully foot-tapping, jazz party sequence, the beautifully tinted images often give the lustrous impression of early two-strip Technicolor.
Doubtless for reasons of economy, George Chesebro was handed the reins to direct many of his own scenes. Unfortunately, he opted to adopt the clownish make-up he sported in the 1920 serial, "The Lost City", and he looks a real sight with his ghost-white face, black-rimmed eyes and painted smile. And this is before he thinks he might turn into a werewolf!
Chesebro is joined by his sidekick pal from "The Lost City", Frank Clark, but it's prolific character actor Milburn Morante who easily steals this picture from both of them.
The scenes directed by Bruce Mitchell are much smoother and far more natural than the Chesebro footage. And in his delightfully foot-tapping, jazz party sequence, the beautifully tinted images often give the lustrous impression of early two-strip Technicolor.
The Myth Begins
Michael_Elliott29 February 2008
Wolf Blood (1925)
** (out of 4)
In the Canadian wilderness, a logger is injured and near death when a doctor gives him a blood transfusion from a wolf. The man eventually lives but soon he begins to fear he's turning into a wolf. Well, I guess Werewolf of London wasn't the first "werewolf" movie. There aren't any transformation scenes here but it's very clear to see that the final fifteen minutes of this influenced the screenplay of The Wolf Man. The film runs a quick 68-minutes but the wolf action really doesn't start until the very end. Up until that point, we've got a pretty over-dramatic love story that doesn't work at all. None of the actors are that interesting and the technical style looks like 1910 and not what we'd expect from 1925. Those interested in the wolf aspect might want to check it out for a historical purpose but others stay clear.
** (out of 4)
In the Canadian wilderness, a logger is injured and near death when a doctor gives him a blood transfusion from a wolf. The man eventually lives but soon he begins to fear he's turning into a wolf. Well, I guess Werewolf of London wasn't the first "werewolf" movie. There aren't any transformation scenes here but it's very clear to see that the final fifteen minutes of this influenced the screenplay of The Wolf Man. The film runs a quick 68-minutes but the wolf action really doesn't start until the very end. Up until that point, we've got a pretty over-dramatic love story that doesn't work at all. None of the actors are that interesting and the technical style looks like 1910 and not what we'd expect from 1925. Those interested in the wolf aspect might want to check it out for a historical purpose but others stay clear.
A sadly lacklustre silent movie
Red-Barracuda4 September 2013
Somewhere in a Canadian forest there are two competing lumber camps - one good, one evil - the owner of the latter hires thugs to attack folks from the former to try and put them out of business. This course of action results in one such victim being given an emergency transfusion of wolf's blood leading him to believe he is a wolf, including hallucinations of phantom wolves.
The above synopsis probably makes Wolf Blood seem a lot more interesting than it actually is. Unfortunately, despite how it is marketed nowadays, it's not a werewolf film. It isn't even a horror movie at all. Instead it's a melodrama with a little bit of fantasy elements added towards the end. Sadly, the narrative is somewhat dull and the wolf material is only introduced three quarters of the way in. It's here where the film has some potential but it's too little too late. And so, despite some great location photography, the result is one of the most lacking silents I have seen.
The above synopsis probably makes Wolf Blood seem a lot more interesting than it actually is. Unfortunately, despite how it is marketed nowadays, it's not a werewolf film. It isn't even a horror movie at all. Instead it's a melodrama with a little bit of fantasy elements added towards the end. Sadly, the narrative is somewhat dull and the wolf material is only introduced three quarters of the way in. It's here where the film has some potential but it's too little too late. And so, despite some great location photography, the result is one of the most lacking silents I have seen.
A Interesting Silent Film
Rainey-Dawn19 December 2014
Wolf Blood (1925) is NOT the first werewolf film - that title goes to Universal's long lost film "The Werewolf" (1913). BUT it might be fair to say that Wolf Blood (1925) is the first surviving film concerning lycanthropy and second werewolf film made.
Fun note: It is said that most film historians say that it is Universal's "Werewolf of London" (1935) that is the first werewolf film - yet we have "Wolf Blood (1925) that deals with the subject and before that the long lost film "The Werewolf" (1913).
My problem with Wolf Blood (1925) is that they took too much time to get to the point - it took the first 35 minutes (out of 107 minutes) to get to our "werewolf". We did not need 35 minutes worth of background on "romance" and two rival logging companies because the film's focus is suppose to be on the wolf's blood in the man's veins. We really only needed about 10 to 15 minutes for the background NOT 35 minutes worth - they could have used the extra time to build suspense surrounding the wolf's blood in the man's vein and how it was effecting him psychologically, local superstitions concerning werewolves etc.
Now once we finally got to our "werewolf" the film was pretty good.... just not enough focus on the reason people would want to see the film: lycanthropy - even if it is only in a person's mind.
The movie is however worth watching just because it is the first surviving film on the subject and the second film ever made about it. I do not consider this a horror film - just a drama.
6/10
Fun note: It is said that most film historians say that it is Universal's "Werewolf of London" (1935) that is the first werewolf film - yet we have "Wolf Blood (1925) that deals with the subject and before that the long lost film "The Werewolf" (1913).
My problem with Wolf Blood (1925) is that they took too much time to get to the point - it took the first 35 minutes (out of 107 minutes) to get to our "werewolf". We did not need 35 minutes worth of background on "romance" and two rival logging companies because the film's focus is suppose to be on the wolf's blood in the man's veins. We really only needed about 10 to 15 minutes for the background NOT 35 minutes worth - they could have used the extra time to build suspense surrounding the wolf's blood in the man's vein and how it was effecting him psychologically, local superstitions concerning werewolves etc.
Now once we finally got to our "werewolf" the film was pretty good.... just not enough focus on the reason people would want to see the film: lycanthropy - even if it is only in a person's mind.
The movie is however worth watching just because it is the first surviving film on the subject and the second film ever made about it. I do not consider this a horror film - just a drama.
6/10
Misleading labels hamstring a drama that's already only passable
I_Ailurophile6 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Fully half of 'Wolf blood' is filled with scenes that can scarcely be described as plot, serving little to no purpose except as crude, excessive exposition. Once meaningful narrative does begin, around the 30-minute mark, the story still mostly plods along lackadaisically, with no care for having any impact. Minimal and uncomplicated as this tale is, plot progression is piecemeal, and largely saved for at best the last 20 minutes. Hints of humor in some intertitles are far outweighed by direly tawdry ham-handedness, in dialogue and narration alike, and overall narrative.
And as to that plot: If you want a drama flavored with romance, this is the movie for you. If you've been drawn in owing to the feature's description as an early example of horror in cinema, I fear you've been misled. Nearly 100 years removed, I don't suppose any material still remains that could illuminate how 'Wolf blood' was marketed to audiences. In retrospect it's hailed as, accordingly, the "earliest surviving werewolf film." But the nearest the picture gets to realizing that notion is in the mere suggestion that the indicated character is "neither man nor beast."
I readily acknowledge that this could be an instance in which expectations unfairly color my opinion of a feature. To regard 'Wolf blood' as a lycanthrope story is to guarantee disappointment. The only way in which the movie could be described as horror generally - very loosely and generously, and perhaps in terms relevant to early genre pieces - is insofar as the character of Dick Bannister is somewhat isolated as an outcast, and experiences a night of seeming maddening delirium as he ponders his circumstances. Yet even this constitutes only a marginal fraction of the runtime. The picture can be more accurately described as a straightforward drama, though even through that lens, about an entire half of the length remains superfluous, and the questionable writing still stands. There are admirable themes on hand to one extent or another including superstition, stigma, and prejudice, but these also get buried within the inelegant screenplay.
It's not altogether bad, but the film is dubious without the added burden of labels that misrepresent the content. On the one hand I feel like I'm being too kind, and on the other, too harsh; this equivocation is itself a poor sign. There are worse movies you could find yourself watching, but also so many more that are much better. Unless one is a devotee of the silent era and eager to absorb all the style has to offer, I can't especially imagine recommending 'Wolf blood.' It's passable, but only just, and I don't think that is quite enough.
And as to that plot: If you want a drama flavored with romance, this is the movie for you. If you've been drawn in owing to the feature's description as an early example of horror in cinema, I fear you've been misled. Nearly 100 years removed, I don't suppose any material still remains that could illuminate how 'Wolf blood' was marketed to audiences. In retrospect it's hailed as, accordingly, the "earliest surviving werewolf film." But the nearest the picture gets to realizing that notion is in the mere suggestion that the indicated character is "neither man nor beast."
I readily acknowledge that this could be an instance in which expectations unfairly color my opinion of a feature. To regard 'Wolf blood' as a lycanthrope story is to guarantee disappointment. The only way in which the movie could be described as horror generally - very loosely and generously, and perhaps in terms relevant to early genre pieces - is insofar as the character of Dick Bannister is somewhat isolated as an outcast, and experiences a night of seeming maddening delirium as he ponders his circumstances. Yet even this constitutes only a marginal fraction of the runtime. The picture can be more accurately described as a straightforward drama, though even through that lens, about an entire half of the length remains superfluous, and the questionable writing still stands. There are admirable themes on hand to one extent or another including superstition, stigma, and prejudice, but these also get buried within the inelegant screenplay.
It's not altogether bad, but the film is dubious without the added burden of labels that misrepresent the content. On the one hand I feel like I'm being too kind, and on the other, too harsh; this equivocation is itself a poor sign. There are worse movies you could find yourself watching, but also so many more that are much better. Unless one is a devotee of the silent era and eager to absorb all the style has to offer, I can't especially imagine recommending 'Wolf blood.' It's passable, but only just, and I don't think that is quite enough.
Good movie
atinder12 July 2015
This was really good decent drama , someone told me it was a horror.
As it was the first, kind of werewolf movie however there are no actually werewolf in this.
A man thinks, he is turning into a werewolf after being injected by wolf blood.
After he was beaten up and left for death but start to thing he belongs with the pack of wolves.
After hearing that people, who attacked him, have been killed and mauled by a animal.
7 out of 10
As it was the first, kind of werewolf movie however there are no actually werewolf in this.
A man thinks, he is turning into a werewolf after being injected by wolf blood.
After he was beaten up and left for death but start to thing he belongs with the pack of wolves.
After hearing that people, who attacked him, have been killed and mauled by a animal.
7 out of 10
Interesting yarn of the 20s
RDenial23 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Possible spoilers. This is an unusual story set in a lumber camp in Canada. It concerns rival lumber camps at war. When the head foreman of the one camp is beaten and left for dead, a surgeon is forced to use the blood of a wolf for a transfusion. Like many movies of the 20s this one is filled with long boring stretches and a couple of intriguing scenes. One chilling scene has the man who has been transfused with the wolf blood following after a pack of phantom wolves towards the edge of a cliff where the wolves jump off one by one. There is also a scene of a Roaring 20s party in full swing that has little to do with the rest of the movie but is of interest to fans of flappers and the culture of the 20s. One thing that always cracks me up watching silent films is the actors in them. Many of them are so ordinary looking that they could not possibly star in a Hollywood film today. The star here, George Chesebro, looks like a mechanic at a gas station but turns in a good performance nonetheless. Considered a forerunner of the Wolfman movies of the 40s, but the Wolfman is only hinted at in this one.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
