When watching the She Wolf of London, don't expect to see a female version of the Wolf Man, This should not be classed with the Wolf Man, Frankenstein, Dracula, the Mummy or any of their offshoots. It's an enjoyable movie but it should be considered not so much a horror movie but more of a mystery. If you are looking for a good horror movie, this isn't it. The acting is good, sets are good, plot a bit weak. It's a good chance to see June Lockhart playing a major role early in her career. I found that the movie did keep my interest but the horror factor never really came into play. Although it wasn't what I expected, I still enjoyed it. It certainly isn't a must see movie, but it isn't a waste of your time either.
67 Reviews
Owes More to "Gaslight" and Hitchcock than to "The Wolf Man"
Rob-12020 July 2009
"She-Wolf of London" is an okay film for what it is. I imagine that horror fans were disappointed, asking "Where's the Werewolf?" (Why Jack Pierce is credited as the makeup man in the opening credits I don't know, since I can't see any place in the film where his special makeup talents were employed.) The story: In Victorian London, a series of murders takes place in a public park, where the survivors report being attacked by a female werewolf. A young woman, Phyllis Allenby (June Lockhart), suspects that she might be a werewolf in question. Supposedly, it is a family curse, "the curse of the Allenbys." Phyllis wakes up in the morning to find blood on her clothes and dirt tracks on the floor of her bedroom.
More, I won't say, since it will spoil the mystery for those who haven't seen the movie.
"She-Wolf" is more of a Gothic thriller than a monster movie. It has elements of George Cukor's "Gaslight," and Hitchcock's "Rebecca" and "Suspicion." If they had spent a bit more exposition time on the plot, it might have been a classic thriller. Nevertheless, it still does okay as a nice, eerie, foggy-gaslit melodrama.
More, I won't say, since it will spoil the mystery for those who haven't seen the movie.
"She-Wolf" is more of a Gothic thriller than a monster movie. It has elements of George Cukor's "Gaslight," and Hitchcock's "Rebecca" and "Suspicion." If they had spent a bit more exposition time on the plot, it might have been a classic thriller. Nevertheless, it still does okay as a nice, eerie, foggy-gaslit melodrama.
Not a horror film, but an average film of mystery
jluis19846 January 2006
As it is always marketed as a horror film, and part of the Universal Classic Horror Films, the disappointment it causes in horror fans is very understandable. "She-Wolf of London" is not, despite its name, a horror movie in the classic sense of the word, it is more a typical "whodunit" mystery and an ancestor to the psychological thrillers of today.
In London, a mysterious series of murders is creating fear in the population and confusion in the police department as people speak of a killer werewolf. The news create shock in young Phyllis Allenby (a beautiful young June Lockhart), who beliefs she is the responsible as an ancient family legend states that the Allenby clan is cursed with Lycanthropy, the werewolf's curse. She isolates herself and denies watching everyone, even breaking her relationship with her boyfriend Barry Lanfield (Don Porter). Her aunt Marta Withrop (Sara Haden) takes advantage of this and tries to force her daughter Carol (Jan Wiley) to marry the wealthy Barry.
All this interesting plot gives room to a lot of development, sadly, the movie doesn't move too far away from the established formula and therefore we don't have a lot of chance to get empathy for the characters. This is its main problem, since what we have are two-dimensional characters and a lot of potential wasted.
The sets are outstanding and the movie is brilliantly photographed, the trademark of the Universal Studios at that time without a doubt; nevertheless, this technical features does not help to improve a movie that feels incomplete or undeveloped. The pacing is slow and the very few things happen making the experience boring and tiresome at times.
The acting is above average, but with so few development there are not many things to do with that material. June Lockhart looks amazing and beautiful, but her character is not fully explored in the script and she has no real chances of showing her talents. A real shame, since she as the main character should be the focal point of the movie.
Don Porter is unconvincing as the hero and his performance feels a bit wooden. Same thing with Jan Wiley. Nevertheless, Sara Haden does an outstanding job and truly gives a lesson of acting in her performance. Along the technical aspects, her acting is probably what makes the movie worthy.
Overall an average movie that also suffers from bad marketing, since it is really not a horror movie, but a classic "whudunit" mystery that while entertaining, it is really nothing impressive. 5/10. Quite average time killer.
In London, a mysterious series of murders is creating fear in the population and confusion in the police department as people speak of a killer werewolf. The news create shock in young Phyllis Allenby (a beautiful young June Lockhart), who beliefs she is the responsible as an ancient family legend states that the Allenby clan is cursed with Lycanthropy, the werewolf's curse. She isolates herself and denies watching everyone, even breaking her relationship with her boyfriend Barry Lanfield (Don Porter). Her aunt Marta Withrop (Sara Haden) takes advantage of this and tries to force her daughter Carol (Jan Wiley) to marry the wealthy Barry.
All this interesting plot gives room to a lot of development, sadly, the movie doesn't move too far away from the established formula and therefore we don't have a lot of chance to get empathy for the characters. This is its main problem, since what we have are two-dimensional characters and a lot of potential wasted.
The sets are outstanding and the movie is brilliantly photographed, the trademark of the Universal Studios at that time without a doubt; nevertheless, this technical features does not help to improve a movie that feels incomplete or undeveloped. The pacing is slow and the very few things happen making the experience boring and tiresome at times.
The acting is above average, but with so few development there are not many things to do with that material. June Lockhart looks amazing and beautiful, but her character is not fully explored in the script and she has no real chances of showing her talents. A real shame, since she as the main character should be the focal point of the movie.
Don Porter is unconvincing as the hero and his performance feels a bit wooden. Same thing with Jan Wiley. Nevertheless, Sara Haden does an outstanding job and truly gives a lesson of acting in her performance. Along the technical aspects, her acting is probably what makes the movie worthy.
Overall an average movie that also suffers from bad marketing, since it is really not a horror movie, but a classic "whudunit" mystery that while entertaining, it is really nothing impressive. 5/10. Quite average time killer.
Miss Lockhart alone justifies the effort.
BrentCarleton9 June 2007
Apart from excellent settings and costumes, not to mention the always reliable pulchritude and charm of June Lockhart, this Val Lewton wannabe is mainly a misfire.
More's the pity too, since it abounds in shadowy night scenes, fog, and much cloak and daggery, including a final act complete with tilted camera angles, and poisoned milk, (a la Hichcock's "Suspicion").
But there is no real grue and no real tension, and what we are left with is a lame, (though slickly produced) thriller whose main interest accrues from its interesting cast and glossy staging.
Still, given the paucity of Victorian melodramas at your local cineplex--you could do much worse.
More's the pity too, since it abounds in shadowy night scenes, fog, and much cloak and daggery, including a final act complete with tilted camera angles, and poisoned milk, (a la Hichcock's "Suspicion").
But there is no real grue and no real tension, and what we are left with is a lame, (though slickly produced) thriller whose main interest accrues from its interesting cast and glossy staging.
Still, given the paucity of Victorian melodramas at your local cineplex--you could do much worse.
Strange happenings in foggy London
chris_gaskin1232 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Despite its title, She-Wolf of London contains no werewolves, but I still enjoyed this movie. It is more of a mystery than a horror.
A series of murders take place, all at night, around London. The nature of these murders suggest they have been committed by a werewolf. A young woman thinks she is responsible as her family has connections with werewolves and thinks she is one herself. But she certainly isn't the murderer as she nearly becomes a victim herself...
The movie is nicely shot in black and white and some of the foggy night scenes are very atmospheric.
The cast includes a young June Lockhart (who went on to play Maureen Robinson in Lost In Space), Don Porter and Sara Haden.
Watching She-Wolf of London is an ideal way to spend an hour one dark evening.
Rating: 3 stars out of 5.
A series of murders take place, all at night, around London. The nature of these murders suggest they have been committed by a werewolf. A young woman thinks she is responsible as her family has connections with werewolves and thinks she is one herself. But she certainly isn't the murderer as she nearly becomes a victim herself...
The movie is nicely shot in black and white and some of the foggy night scenes are very atmospheric.
The cast includes a young June Lockhart (who went on to play Maureen Robinson in Lost In Space), Don Porter and Sara Haden.
Watching She-Wolf of London is an ideal way to spend an hour one dark evening.
Rating: 3 stars out of 5.
Not much to howl about
Vigilante-4078 March 1999
There's not a whole lot to recommend about this film. It is a Universal Horror...though at the end of all the major horror series at the studio. It does have June Lockhart in an early role...along with Martin Kosleck in a ambivalent rather than evil role, and Dennis Hoey playing a surprisingly adept Scotland Yard inspector (he must have finally won a bet with a studio executive and got away from the bumbling Lestrade of the Rathbone/Bruce Sherlock Holme's movies). The movie has great sets, though I assume they are redressed from some other Universal horror film...they do look somewhat familiar.
On the other hand, this movie is dull...and the plot is easy to figure out after about fifteen minutes. If you've seen Curse of the Cat People, you've got a start on the plot of this movie.
On the other hand, this movie is dull...and the plot is easy to figure out after about fifteen minutes. If you've seen Curse of the Cat People, you've got a start on the plot of this movie.
It's more of a mystery than a horror film...
AlsExGal25 March 2023
... that was released at the tail end of the Universal horror film cycle, from director Jean Yarbrough.
Wealthy heiress Phyllis Allenby (June Lockhart) thinks she might be a werewolf when people start getting murdered at night in the park across from her home. She believes this because of the legendary "Allenby Curse" that says the Allenbys are cursed to walk the earth as werewolves. What survivors there are talk of a woman in the form of a wolf who attacked them. Phyllis takes to her bed, refusing to see her fiance, wealthy attorney Barry Lanfield (Don Porter). Phyllis tries all sorts of things to keep awake all night so that she can't "fall into a trance" and attack people, but she always does fall asleep and awakens the next morning with muddy slippers and even blood on her hands at times, with stories in the newspapers of yet another attack in the park. Her fiance gets tired of being kept away from her and decides to watch Phyllis' house to see what is happening. He sees a a woman come out the front door, walk to the park, and shortly thereafter a man is attacked, but the woman gets away. It might not be Phyllis - three other women live in that house besides her. So what goes on here? Watch and find out.
There are all kinds of "tells" in this one that makes the course of the film not much of a surprise, and June Lockhart plays this much too passive to be an effective possible killer. Also, I will tell you that you never actually see this creature on the loose. Don't expect Lon Chaney Jr.'s Wolf Man.
What this film does well is make good use of Sara Haden. She spent years on contract at MGM playing the spinster aunt in the Andy Hardy series and other similar roles. This movie gives her a chance to break out of that.
The other good thing this film does is explore the concept of regret, in middle age, of not marrying for practical reasons in one's youth versus going for the guy who gives you a hormonal rush and is perhaps penniless. The thing is, if you went for the sturdy practical guy you did not love, you'd wind up calling the mailman by his first name and you'd still have a tragedy on your hands.
I'd mildly recommend this one. There are worse ways to spend your time.
Wealthy heiress Phyllis Allenby (June Lockhart) thinks she might be a werewolf when people start getting murdered at night in the park across from her home. She believes this because of the legendary "Allenby Curse" that says the Allenbys are cursed to walk the earth as werewolves. What survivors there are talk of a woman in the form of a wolf who attacked them. Phyllis takes to her bed, refusing to see her fiance, wealthy attorney Barry Lanfield (Don Porter). Phyllis tries all sorts of things to keep awake all night so that she can't "fall into a trance" and attack people, but she always does fall asleep and awakens the next morning with muddy slippers and even blood on her hands at times, with stories in the newspapers of yet another attack in the park. Her fiance gets tired of being kept away from her and decides to watch Phyllis' house to see what is happening. He sees a a woman come out the front door, walk to the park, and shortly thereafter a man is attacked, but the woman gets away. It might not be Phyllis - three other women live in that house besides her. So what goes on here? Watch and find out.
There are all kinds of "tells" in this one that makes the course of the film not much of a surprise, and June Lockhart plays this much too passive to be an effective possible killer. Also, I will tell you that you never actually see this creature on the loose. Don't expect Lon Chaney Jr.'s Wolf Man.
What this film does well is make good use of Sara Haden. She spent years on contract at MGM playing the spinster aunt in the Andy Hardy series and other similar roles. This movie gives her a chance to break out of that.
The other good thing this film does is explore the concept of regret, in middle age, of not marrying for practical reasons in one's youth versus going for the guy who gives you a hormonal rush and is perhaps penniless. The thing is, if you went for the sturdy practical guy you did not love, you'd wind up calling the mailman by his first name and you'd still have a tragedy on your hands.
I'd mildly recommend this one. There are worse ways to spend your time.
She wolf is pretty fun
tamstrat24 May 2005
This is certainly not a great movie but is not bad for the Universal movies back in the 1940s. June Lockhart plays a young heiress who believes a series of murders in London is her fault, seems there is a family history of family members turning into werewolves. There is lots of atmosphere and the black and white photography sets the mood for this movie. Not the best I have ever seen, but certainly far from the worst. The ending came as somewhat of a surprise and the characters drew me in. I would recommend anyone who is a fan of the old Universal horror films to see this. June Lockhart is lovely as the young heroine. She went on to play the mom on the Lassie series and also the mom on Lost in Space.
The Allenby Curse
hitchcockthelegend20 October 2009
London at the turn of the century---The legend of the Allenby Curse was almost forgotten until------
She-Wolf of London is produced by that bastion of classic horror, Universal Pictures. Directed by Jean Yarbrough and starring June Lockhart and Don Porter, the title clearly evokes the earlier Werewolf of London (1935) and conjures up images of either a girlfriend of Larry Talbot or Wilfred Glendon running amok. As history now tells us, She-Wolf of London is more concerned with mystery and suspense than the supernatural themes that ran thru other Universal wolf based movies.
Running at a brisk 61 minutes, She-Wolf feels more like a Sherlock Holmes picture minus that particularly intrepid sleuth actually being in it. Grizzly murders are being committed and it's all pointing to poor Phyllis Allenby, who herself is convinced that she is turning lycanthropic at nights due to the family curse. But is it her? If not her then who? These are the key issues asked as the film evolves amid swirling fog and lamp lighted parks and streets. The production is very good, the set designs adds to the atmosphere and the cast by and large are safe as houses. The ending also has a nice little trick up its sleeve.
It's not a bad picture at all, and being armed with the prior knowledge of its mystery over horror heart will aid any new prospective viewers. Best to view it as a standalone Universal picture rather than a classic horror entry. On reflection if it had been called The Allenby Curse or some other such name then that surely would have helped. But one gets the feeling that someone at Universal sniffed an opportunity to get people into the cinema on the back of its already garnered Wolfie reputation. 6/10
She-Wolf of London is produced by that bastion of classic horror, Universal Pictures. Directed by Jean Yarbrough and starring June Lockhart and Don Porter, the title clearly evokes the earlier Werewolf of London (1935) and conjures up images of either a girlfriend of Larry Talbot or Wilfred Glendon running amok. As history now tells us, She-Wolf of London is more concerned with mystery and suspense than the supernatural themes that ran thru other Universal wolf based movies.
Running at a brisk 61 minutes, She-Wolf feels more like a Sherlock Holmes picture minus that particularly intrepid sleuth actually being in it. Grizzly murders are being committed and it's all pointing to poor Phyllis Allenby, who herself is convinced that she is turning lycanthropic at nights due to the family curse. But is it her? If not her then who? These are the key issues asked as the film evolves amid swirling fog and lamp lighted parks and streets. The production is very good, the set designs adds to the atmosphere and the cast by and large are safe as houses. The ending also has a nice little trick up its sleeve.
It's not a bad picture at all, and being armed with the prior knowledge of its mystery over horror heart will aid any new prospective viewers. Best to view it as a standalone Universal picture rather than a classic horror entry. On reflection if it had been called The Allenby Curse or some other such name then that surely would have helped. But one gets the feeling that someone at Universal sniffed an opportunity to get people into the cinema on the back of its already garnered Wolfie reputation. 6/10
Lacking in any suspense
utgard144 March 2014
A young woman comes to believe she is responsible for a series of gruesome murders due to a family curse. Disappointing mystery film from Universal falsely advertised as a horror movie. It's even included on their Wolf Man Legacy DVD set. The movie is not a horror film and features no werewolves or other supernatural occurrences. I can excuse the disappointment over the misleading title and judge the movie on its own merits. What I can't excuse is that, as a mystery, it's decidedly predictable and unexciting. There's no suspense and if you can't predict who the killer is, congratulations on seeing your first movie ever.
June Lockhart, years from being immortalized as one of the great TV moms, plays the lead character as doe-eyed and dull-witted. Her childish belief that she is a serial killer is backed up by no reason. So the audience neither feels tension that she might be the killer (we know she's not) nor sympathy for her since she's so dense. The supporting cast is nice, as it almost always was with Universal in the '40s. Don Porter, Dennis Hoey, Sara Haden, Lloyd Corrigan, Jan Wiley are all fine. The Universal "look," as well as a nice supporting cast, make it watchable for fans. But I doubt casual viewers will find much of interest here.
June Lockhart, years from being immortalized as one of the great TV moms, plays the lead character as doe-eyed and dull-witted. Her childish belief that she is a serial killer is backed up by no reason. So the audience neither feels tension that she might be the killer (we know she's not) nor sympathy for her since she's so dense. The supporting cast is nice, as it almost always was with Universal in the '40s. Don Porter, Dennis Hoey, Sara Haden, Lloyd Corrigan, Jan Wiley are all fine. The Universal "look," as well as a nice supporting cast, make it watchable for fans. But I doubt casual viewers will find much of interest here.
A Vastly Under-Rated, Very Well Done Suspense Movie
sddavis632 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I was quite surprised to see the relatively low rating this movie receives here, and the only explanation I can come up with for that is the likelihood of unrealized expectations. The title leads one to believe that this is going to be a horror movie - I watched it myself as part of a collection of classic Universal werewolf movies (its inclusion in that collection leads to that expectation) and thought that the concept of a female werewolf (there really haven't been many that I can think of) would be an interesting twist to the usual werewolf stories. As it turns out, this isn't a werewolf movie. It's a psychological suspense/thriller type of story about a young woman (played by June Lockhart) who believes she's a werewolf and thinks she's responsible for a series of murders in a local park - and, frankly, if you can let go of the werewolf expectation and rate this movie on its own merits, it's really quite well done.
You do wonder throughout if there is a werewolf, and the identity of the killer was never really clear to me until it was brought out into the open near the end. There are a variety of possibilities; the only thing you can be sure of is that not everything is as clear as it seems to be.
There are a couple of plot holes to this. The police seemed to suggest that the killer would have had to had immense strength to have perpetrated the attacks. Frankly, Martha (Sara Haden) didn't seem to be overly strong. At her confession, Martha also seems to indicate that her killing spree began with the young boy, and yet there were killings before the boy was killed. Given the strange attacks that were happening in this park, it also seemed to me to be passing strange that so many people still hung out there at night! Plot holes aside, though, I thought this was very well done and deserves to be thought more highly of. 8/10
You do wonder throughout if there is a werewolf, and the identity of the killer was never really clear to me until it was brought out into the open near the end. There are a variety of possibilities; the only thing you can be sure of is that not everything is as clear as it seems to be.
There are a couple of plot holes to this. The police seemed to suggest that the killer would have had to had immense strength to have perpetrated the attacks. Frankly, Martha (Sara Haden) didn't seem to be overly strong. At her confession, Martha also seems to indicate that her killing spree began with the young boy, and yet there were killings before the boy was killed. Given the strange attacks that were happening in this park, it also seemed to me to be passing strange that so many people still hung out there at night! Plot holes aside, though, I thought this was very well done and deserves to be thought more highly of. 8/10
Entertaining Mystery Movie but with neither Horror nor She-Wolf
claudio_carvalho20 November 2013
In the turn of the century in London, the aristocratic lawyer Barry Lanfield (Don Porter) proposes to marry the heiress Phyllis Allenby (June Lockhart) and she accepts. Phyllis lives in the family manor with her "aunt" Martha Winthrop (Sara Haden), her pseudo-niece Carol Winthrop (Jan Wiley) and the housemaid Hannah (Eily Malyon).
Out of the blue, dreadful murders happen in a nearby park and Detective Latham (Eily Malyon) believes that they are victims of a werewolf or a she-wolf, but his superior Inspector Pierce (Dennis Hoey) says that they are victims of an animal. Meanwhile, Phyllis finds blood on her hands, and her shoes and clothing dirty and she believes that she may be killing people under the influence of a family curse. Who might be the serial-killer?
"She-Wolf of London" is an entertaining mystery movie but with neither horror nor she-wolf as the title suggests. The dramatic story is not bad but frustrates fans of horror movies. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "A Mulher-Lobo de Londres" ("The She-Wolf of London")
Out of the blue, dreadful murders happen in a nearby park and Detective Latham (Eily Malyon) believes that they are victims of a werewolf or a she-wolf, but his superior Inspector Pierce (Dennis Hoey) says that they are victims of an animal. Meanwhile, Phyllis finds blood on her hands, and her shoes and clothing dirty and she believes that she may be killing people under the influence of a family curse. Who might be the serial-killer?
"She-Wolf of London" is an entertaining mystery movie but with neither horror nor she-wolf as the title suggests. The dramatic story is not bad but frustrates fans of horror movies. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "A Mulher-Lobo de Londres" ("The She-Wolf of London")
An American non-she-wolf not in London.
BA_Harrison15 April 2016
What a swizz! Not only does this film clearly not take place in London, but there isn't a she-wolf to be seen. Instead, this creaky potboiler utilises a plot that must have seemed trite even way back in 1946: a pretty young heiress, Phyllis Allenby (June Lockhart), believes that she has fallen victim to the lycanthropic Allenby curse unaware that her 'aunt' Martha (Sara Haden) is actually trying to drive her insane so that she can a) lay claim to the family fortune, and b) set up her own daughter Carol (Jan Wiley) with Phyllis's fiancé Barry (Don Porter).
If you can't guess what is happening after Martha has given Phyllis her umpteenth warm drink to help her sleep, then you really should consider giving up watching films and take up something less taxing on the brain, like basket weaving perhaps. As mysteries go, this one is pretty easy to solve, and offers little in the way of genuine excitement or tension. Thankfully, the lovely June Lockhart (who would go onto play Maureen Robinson on the classic sci-fi series Lost in Space) is easy on the eye and helps the time pass a lot less painfully than it might otherwise have.
If you can't guess what is happening after Martha has given Phyllis her umpteenth warm drink to help her sleep, then you really should consider giving up watching films and take up something less taxing on the brain, like basket weaving perhaps. As mysteries go, this one is pretty easy to solve, and offers little in the way of genuine excitement or tension. Thankfully, the lovely June Lockhart (who would go onto play Maureen Robinson on the classic sci-fi series Lost in Space) is easy on the eye and helps the time pass a lot less painfully than it might otherwise have.
Were-Wolf? Where?
sbibb124 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I was expecting this film to be a Werewolf film in the same vein as the other Universal Studios horror films. This movie is not a werewolf film, but a mystery film. I will admit though, that despite being disappointed in the film and what I thought it was going to be, the plot turn at the end had me surprised.
Sara Haden plays very well the nasty step-mother, and I have to admit that I was waiting for her to be among the first killed by the Were-Wolf, but to no avail.
June Lockhart plays the main character, and she does a good job with one of her early and starring roles. The sets in this film are great, especially the estate where the main characters live.
Sara Haden plays very well the nasty step-mother, and I have to admit that I was waiting for her to be among the first killed by the Were-Wolf, but to no avail.
June Lockhart plays the main character, and she does a good job with one of her early and starring roles. The sets in this film are great, especially the estate where the main characters live.
She-Wolf of London
Scarecrow-8817 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Phyllis Allenby(June Lockhart, oh how young she is!)believes she has her family's supposed curse of lycanthropy when a series of murders occurs in a London park near her mansion estate, where the victims' throats are mangled. Evidence found at her bedside after she awakens in the morning point towards possible guilt(..muddy shoes, wet robe, bloody hands)but her "aunt" Martha Winthrop(Sara Haden)sternly refuses to allow Phyllis to tell anyone. Phyllis' gentleman caller, Barry Lanfield(Don Porter)begins to worry about her when Martha insists she's too ill and uneasy to see him. Meanwhile, Scotland Yard police are searching the park at night for a possible wolf or deranged person prowling for a fresh victim. A sub-plot has Martha's beautiful daughter Carol(Jan Wiley), forbidden by her mother to see a poor artist Dwight Severn(Martin Kosleck), meeting him at night in the very park where possible danger could be waiting..or could she actually be the wolf-woman killing innocents? Or, could the curse actually be true regarding Phyllis' being a she-wolf? After SY Detective Latham(Lloyd Corrigan)is murdered by a woman(..whose face is hidden, and growling as he screams)in the park as the police are combing for any possible prowler, the man hunt will certainly be motivated more than ever before. The film shows Phyllis slowly growing mad with fear and anxiety regarding the possibility of committing those grisly acts in the park and Barry searching for who might be the real culprit.
I'll get this out before ranting..the film has wonderful sets. The park and Allensby mansion are superb set-pieces and director Jean Yarbrough's camera-work and lighting is expertly brought to the screen. Even the acting is decent enough. If this mystery thriller had been retitled and repackaged as a stand-alone film released through Universal completely untied to "The Wolf Man" series, it'd probably come across less a disappointment. But, when you have a title like "She-Wolf of London" and a make-up genius, an extraordinary artist, Jack Pierce, who could've given the audience a female werewolf prowling London park(how cool would THAT have been!)then you can't possibly expect us to not be let down! How frustrating..I mean, not even a female werewolf in Phyllis' nightmares, with how often speaks about them haunting her every night. There's a great tragic romance to be damned that'd been perfectly realized here..imagine if Phyllis actually was cursed with the malady of lycanthropy with the upcoming marriage to her beloved Barry. Imagine Phyllis(..or anyone else for that matter)turning into a female werewolf in her bed, breaking through her bedroom window, with sharp, snarling teeth and fur pouncing on poor helpless victims. That'd been something to see. Yet, sigh, we get a red herring in a mystery where the murders are committed by a garden tool by someone pretending to be somebody she isn't. So much potential wasted. This film isn't a bad one, but when you have an opportunity to create a she-wolf and Pierce on your payroll then take advantage for chrissake!
I'll get this out before ranting..the film has wonderful sets. The park and Allensby mansion are superb set-pieces and director Jean Yarbrough's camera-work and lighting is expertly brought to the screen. Even the acting is decent enough. If this mystery thriller had been retitled and repackaged as a stand-alone film released through Universal completely untied to "The Wolf Man" series, it'd probably come across less a disappointment. But, when you have a title like "She-Wolf of London" and a make-up genius, an extraordinary artist, Jack Pierce, who could've given the audience a female werewolf prowling London park(how cool would THAT have been!)then you can't possibly expect us to not be let down! How frustrating..I mean, not even a female werewolf in Phyllis' nightmares, with how often speaks about them haunting her every night. There's a great tragic romance to be damned that'd been perfectly realized here..imagine if Phyllis actually was cursed with the malady of lycanthropy with the upcoming marriage to her beloved Barry. Imagine Phyllis(..or anyone else for that matter)turning into a female werewolf in her bed, breaking through her bedroom window, with sharp, snarling teeth and fur pouncing on poor helpless victims. That'd been something to see. Yet, sigh, we get a red herring in a mystery where the murders are committed by a garden tool by someone pretending to be somebody she isn't. So much potential wasted. This film isn't a bad one, but when you have an opportunity to create a she-wolf and Pierce on your payroll then take advantage for chrissake!
Really good...but not exactly a werewolf film
planktonrules2 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is an odd little horror film from the tail end of Universal Pictures' long series of monster movies. Odd because although the title would indicate that it's a monster film, it's really more of a mystery. In fact, if you are watching just to see the werewolf, don't--there isn't any! But that's not necessarily a bad thing, as the story itself is fascinating and involves an evil woman who is trying to convince a young lady that she is a werewolf. That's because IF she can drive the young lady crazy, she and her daughter stand to inherit a fortune.
While the story is excellent and the ending works very well, I must say that June Lockhart's performance is a weak link. She too often is very "doe-eyed" and seemed way too passive and zombie-like in the film. Still, it wasn't had enough to harm the film very much and it's well worth seeing.
While the story is excellent and the ending works very well, I must say that June Lockhart's performance is a weak link. She too often is very "doe-eyed" and seemed way too passive and zombie-like in the film. Still, it wasn't had enough to harm the film very much and it's well worth seeing.
A Different Kind of "Wolf" Story
Rainey-Dawn6 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The film isn't all that bad but it's not superb. It's more of a dramatic-mystery than that of a horror film. I liked the film but it's far from being a favorite Universal flick for me.
The movie does have it's place in the Universal Classic Horror films collection but it's just not one of their better films. The film is better to view as a stand alone film instead of trying to think of it in the context of the "Wolf-man" family of films - because it is not.
***********Spoiler***********
This is a film where lycanthropy is forced into the mind of a young woman and not a physical transformation.
*****************************
Over all, not too bad of a film to watch but it's not a movie I would recommend as a "must see" Universal film.
5.5/10
The movie does have it's place in the Universal Classic Horror films collection but it's just not one of their better films. The film is better to view as a stand alone film instead of trying to think of it in the context of the "Wolf-man" family of films - because it is not.
***********Spoiler***********
This is a film where lycanthropy is forced into the mind of a young woman and not a physical transformation.
*****************************
Over all, not too bad of a film to watch but it's not a movie I would recommend as a "must see" Universal film.
5.5/10
I can understand the disappointment
teleadm-persson30 March 2007
Since this movie turned up on the Universal Monster Legacy Boxes, a movie that probably would have been forgotten forever suddenly turns up, It has a Wolf in the title and there is an old curse. Offcourse it's always fun to see a movie That I've never seen before (at least I think so), and after all it's just around an hour so, so it's not that bad.
I have a feeling that if this story was made in the 50's it would be on one of those early TV Theatric shows, that was popular in the 50s, it could even have worked in a 30 minutes Alfred Hitchcock serial,, or why not go a few steps longer and say it would have been an acceptable episode in Angela Lansbury's Murder She Wrote episodes.
Anyway She-Wolf is according to the old edition of The Universal Story "A Thriller that wanted to be a Chiller that turned out to be a Filler".
The movie is OK as a Filler! but offcouse has no place in a Monster Legacy Collection.
A few funny Notes: - Sara Haden who at the time was popular in the Andy Hardy serials at MGM,plays a very different persona.
If you take a movie like this, not expecting much, and 60minutes flows buy fast.
I have a feeling that if this story was made in the 50's it would be on one of those early TV Theatric shows, that was popular in the 50s, it could even have worked in a 30 minutes Alfred Hitchcock serial,, or why not go a few steps longer and say it would have been an acceptable episode in Angela Lansbury's Murder She Wrote episodes.
Anyway She-Wolf is according to the old edition of The Universal Story "A Thriller that wanted to be a Chiller that turned out to be a Filler".
The movie is OK as a Filler! but offcouse has no place in a Monster Legacy Collection.
A few funny Notes: - Sara Haden who at the time was popular in the Andy Hardy serials at MGM,plays a very different persona.
- Joan Caulfield, still around apparing as late in 2006 in "Gray's Anatomy " - If the London fog was ever this thick and a madman was on the loose, the uniformed guys have to go 2 by 2, or in pairs, yet the highest police officer can say a line like "I stroll around the park too for awhile!" so Uniformed policemen has to go around in pairs, but a civilied clothed superior can walk around alone "just to take a stroll". HELLO HELLO! a mad person who even kills children, will only be antagonizing policemen if they walk in pairs, and never superior officers who walks alone, in the foggiest London parks???.
If you take a movie like this, not expecting much, and 60minutes flows buy fast.
She-Wolf of where, exactly?
rob_colling4 February 2008
Much has been said elsewhere in these comments about the silliness of this film, the campy dialogue and the distinct lack of werewolves. And for that matter of plot. All this is true - She-Wolf of London is so ridiculous it's quite entertaining, the cast and atmosphere are very good, but there isn't much else to recommend it.
The one aspect that hasn't been commented on yet is the movie's utter lack of authenticity. Presumably this just wasn't a priority for the filmmakers (or maybe for the audiences) of the time, but boy, does it look outrageous today! It's very clear, for a start, that nobody involved in this film had ever been near London. The sets and locations, while reasonably impressive, look patently American and not at all like a British city. It's about as convincing as filming in Jamaica and calling it New York. Then the dialogue contains words that just don't exist in British English, and phrases that no English person would ever have used at that time. Virtually none of the dialogue sounds even close to convincing. With the exception of Hoey's, all the accents are Dick Van Dyke awful, in those few places they are even attempted. The props and sets are clearly made of 1940s materials rather than 19th-century ones - things like teapots and door knockers are very obviously the wrong weight, being made of cheap mazak or whatever. And best of all there are bizarre anachronisms - the police routinely travelling in what seems to be a very wealthy person's carriage, the heroine constantly leaving her window wide open despite the foggy, cold night (hello? ever been to the UK? Er, it's cold here, folks!), the police constantly wearing soaking wet raincoats although everyone else is wearing a perfectly dry lounge suit with no coat... I could go on and on. Suffice to say the movie never runs for more than 20 seconds at a time without letting out some clattering great inauthenticity that makes it impossible to take seriously. Whether that makes it fun or terrible, I'll leave for you to decide.
The one aspect that hasn't been commented on yet is the movie's utter lack of authenticity. Presumably this just wasn't a priority for the filmmakers (or maybe for the audiences) of the time, but boy, does it look outrageous today! It's very clear, for a start, that nobody involved in this film had ever been near London. The sets and locations, while reasonably impressive, look patently American and not at all like a British city. It's about as convincing as filming in Jamaica and calling it New York. Then the dialogue contains words that just don't exist in British English, and phrases that no English person would ever have used at that time. Virtually none of the dialogue sounds even close to convincing. With the exception of Hoey's, all the accents are Dick Van Dyke awful, in those few places they are even attempted. The props and sets are clearly made of 1940s materials rather than 19th-century ones - things like teapots and door knockers are very obviously the wrong weight, being made of cheap mazak or whatever. And best of all there are bizarre anachronisms - the police routinely travelling in what seems to be a very wealthy person's carriage, the heroine constantly leaving her window wide open despite the foggy, cold night (hello? ever been to the UK? Er, it's cold here, folks!), the police constantly wearing soaking wet raincoats although everyone else is wearing a perfectly dry lounge suit with no coat... I could go on and on. Suffice to say the movie never runs for more than 20 seconds at a time without letting out some clattering great inauthenticity that makes it impossible to take seriously. Whether that makes it fun or terrible, I'll leave for you to decide.
Film Noir/Thriller
stellag200822 April 2018
This film is not a horror story but a good old fashioned thriller. I found it to be a fun film to watch on a dark foggy night. It's worth it just to see a young June Lockhart give a great performance as a young heiress who is convinced she is a Werewolf.
As a horror film it fails, as a mystery film it fares a little better but still bland
TheLittleSongbird8 February 2015
The Curse of the Allenbys(aka. She-Wolf of London) is not a terrible film but it's not particularly great either and one of Universal's weakest overall.
It's the production values that makes The Curse of the Allenbys watchable, the sets are truly beautiful and rich in Gothic atmosphere, especially the fog-shrouded park, and the photography is equally handsome. William Lava's music score is appropriately haunting, the style of it fits well within the film and doesn't intrude with the atmosphere at all, this viewer associates Lava with his scores for some of the Looney Tunes cartoons but his music here is different and is effective. Some scenes do have a spooky atmosphere that does evoke some tension, but not really in a nail-biting way. A couple of performances are also decent, Sara Haden being excellent even while Dennis Hoey is in the Inspector role again but with a different and more subtle and intelligent approach to his Lestrade in the Sherlock Holmes Universal series.
June Lockhart was a highly dependable actress but while she is entrancing in the looks department this is really not one of her best roles, it's a blandly written character to begin with but Lockhart acts with too much doe-eyed passivity. Don Porter also is rather wooden. The dialogue is clunky and sometimes talky froth and the direction is technically accomplished but too staid, but it's the story that brings the film down the most. It's not helped by the misleading advertising and title, giving the sense that it was going to be a horror film with a she-wolf. As a horror film though The Curse of the Allenbys fails, if anything the film's more a mystery thriller-like one and even in that respect it doesn't rise above average. It's not scary or even remotely creepy, and the lack of suspense, draggy pacing, that not an awful lot happens and that it's rather predictable(the perpetrator and ending to me weren't that hard to figure out) are the reasons for that.
Overall, disappointing and not Universal at their best. A failure as a horror and blandly average as a mystery. 5/10 Bethany Cox
It's the production values that makes The Curse of the Allenbys watchable, the sets are truly beautiful and rich in Gothic atmosphere, especially the fog-shrouded park, and the photography is equally handsome. William Lava's music score is appropriately haunting, the style of it fits well within the film and doesn't intrude with the atmosphere at all, this viewer associates Lava with his scores for some of the Looney Tunes cartoons but his music here is different and is effective. Some scenes do have a spooky atmosphere that does evoke some tension, but not really in a nail-biting way. A couple of performances are also decent, Sara Haden being excellent even while Dennis Hoey is in the Inspector role again but with a different and more subtle and intelligent approach to his Lestrade in the Sherlock Holmes Universal series.
June Lockhart was a highly dependable actress but while she is entrancing in the looks department this is really not one of her best roles, it's a blandly written character to begin with but Lockhart acts with too much doe-eyed passivity. Don Porter also is rather wooden. The dialogue is clunky and sometimes talky froth and the direction is technically accomplished but too staid, but it's the story that brings the film down the most. It's not helped by the misleading advertising and title, giving the sense that it was going to be a horror film with a she-wolf. As a horror film though The Curse of the Allenbys fails, if anything the film's more a mystery thriller-like one and even in that respect it doesn't rise above average. It's not scary or even remotely creepy, and the lack of suspense, draggy pacing, that not an awful lot happens and that it's rather predictable(the perpetrator and ending to me weren't that hard to figure out) are the reasons for that.
Overall, disappointing and not Universal at their best. A failure as a horror and blandly average as a mystery. 5/10 Bethany Cox
June Lockhart acts better than in "Lost in Space".
Bernie444427 January 2024
"London at the turn of the century---The legend of the Allenby Curse was almost forgotten until---"
This is more of a psychological thriller on the line of "The Curse of the Cat People", where everyone waits for fuzzy creatures so bad that they miss the whole movie.
Don Porter is not bad himself as Barry Lanfield, the suitor of the maybe fuzzy Phyllis Allenby (June Lockhart.)
Phillis refuses to marry Barry (Don Porter) because she has the curse. Not that curse, the Allenby Curse. And for proof several people are dispatched.
Will it turn out to be true?
After we find out it is time to see June Lockhart in a more natural setting. Out There (1995).
This is more of a psychological thriller on the line of "The Curse of the Cat People", where everyone waits for fuzzy creatures so bad that they miss the whole movie.
Don Porter is not bad himself as Barry Lanfield, the suitor of the maybe fuzzy Phyllis Allenby (June Lockhart.)
Phillis refuses to marry Barry (Don Porter) because she has the curse. Not that curse, the Allenby Curse. And for proof several people are dispatched.
Will it turn out to be true?
After we find out it is time to see June Lockhart in a more natural setting. Out There (1995).
She-Wolf of London is a misleading title if you take it literally but is still enjoyable despite that
tavm24 June 2018
This is quite an enjoyable obscure thriller though perhaps not the kind you'd expect if you just go by the title. June Lockhart-years before appearing in TV series like "Lassie" and the original "Lost in Space"-plays a young woman who thinks she's responsible for some murders at night because of a family curse. Sara Haden-yes, Aunt Milly from the Andy Hardy film series-is her aunt. I'll stop there and just say there are some good twists that make this quite an enjoyable movie to watch. Though it's now considered a cliché when the one who's revealed as the villain reveals everything before his/her fate comes. But despite the not-so-accurate title, She-Wolf of London is worth a look.
First seen on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater in 1966
kevinolzak8 January 2014
1946's "She-Wolf of London," bringing up the rear of Universal's lucrative wartime horror boom (1939-1946), offers only a few foggy sets to indicate its intention as a mystery (it was included in the SHOCK! package of classic Universals issued to television in 1957). As such, its villain is so painfully obvious that audiences weren't fooled by all its talk of werewolves, as obvious a cheat as 1956's "Curucu, Beast of the Amazon." The attacks feature a killer wearing a veil, faithfully followed by the vicious dogs that dislike our simpering heroine, a clear indication that she's not the guilty party (this odd detail about the dogs goes nowhere). Even the climax is botched, as the two principals merely talk quietly about who's going to die, as unexciting as everything that's come before; and while the killer confesses to the two on screen murders, just who was responsible for the previous deaths that Scotland Yard was so concerned about during the opening scene, and why do the papers insist it's a werewolf? (heavy sigh). Neither related to "Werewolf of London" (an actual monster or two) nor even "Cat People" (psychosexual frustrations), just an old fashioned plot of greed and false suspicions, which saw a great deal of repetition over the following years - "Devil Bat's Daughter," "Son of Dr. Jekyll," even Edgar G. Ulmer's "Daughter of Dr. Jekyll." As our heroine, the young and attractive June Lockhart fails to overcome her simpering character's deficiencies, while top billed Don Porter can do little but look concerned as her fiancée (actress Jan Wiley made only two more films before calling it quits, three more for Eily Malyon). The actual werewolf curse is never adequately explained, just a hoary plot device to justify the ripoff title. Worst of all is the wasted casting of screen villain Martin Kosleck, enjoying a bit of real stardom at Universal, thrown away on the innocuous role of impoverished artist Dwight Severn, only a couple minutes screen time (sadly, this was his final film for the studio). Lloyd Corrigan's fate at least is unexpected, while Dennis Hoey once again echoes Inspector Lestrade, as he previously did in "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" (other constables are played by David Thursby, Olaf Hytten, Frederic Worlock, and James Finlayson, perennial Laurel and Hardy sidekick). This May 17 1946 double bill with "The Cat Creeps" marked the last gasp for Universal's reign as top horror studio, an undistinguished ending for such a prolific era. Curiously, while "WereWolf of London" aired eight times on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater, "She-Wolf of London" was only a step behind with seven.
Not much to see here ...
Teknofobe7016 August 2005
Having seemingly ended the 'Wolf Man' franchise with the previous year's heavily flawed "House of Dracula", Universal Studios set their sights on a different kind of werewolf altogether ...
A series of horrible murders have been occurring in London, and many suspect a 'wolf woman' is to blame. Phyllis Allenby, having heard about an ancient family curse of hers, suspects that she might be responsible for the attacks after she wakes up one morning with blood on her hands. Slowly she begins to go insane as she attempts to hide her secret from those around her, confiding only in her cold, distant step-mother.
There's really not much to say about this movie. It's dull, predictable, poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed, and it's nothing like the other Universal horror movies. But to be honest, this is really more of a drama than a horror movie, and shouldn't really be connected at all with the "Wolf Man" series. It stars a young June Lockhart, who went on to fame playing Mrs Robinson in the sci-fi TV series "Lost in Space". For many people this alone may be a reason to watch and enjoy it, but along with the rest of the cast Lockhart unfortunately doesn't show a whole lot of spark in this particular outing.
On the other hand, the movie is mercifully short. But when you're fifty minutes into the movie, just ten minutes to go, and you realise that hardly anything has actually happened, then you'd be right to be a bit concerned. There is a twist at the end, that you'll probably see coming, but it's nothing that you couldn't see done much, much better in a Hitchcock movie. Some amusement can come from the dialogue ("She's done me in!"), but aside from that it's dull, dull, dull. However, it's interesting that Universal chose to produce a 'serious' movie about werewolves once it's 'Wolf Man' franchise had almost come to an end (only "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" followed). It probably could have worked, but it didn't. And if you don't see this one, you won't miss much.
A series of horrible murders have been occurring in London, and many suspect a 'wolf woman' is to blame. Phyllis Allenby, having heard about an ancient family curse of hers, suspects that she might be responsible for the attacks after she wakes up one morning with blood on her hands. Slowly she begins to go insane as she attempts to hide her secret from those around her, confiding only in her cold, distant step-mother.
There's really not much to say about this movie. It's dull, predictable, poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed, and it's nothing like the other Universal horror movies. But to be honest, this is really more of a drama than a horror movie, and shouldn't really be connected at all with the "Wolf Man" series. It stars a young June Lockhart, who went on to fame playing Mrs Robinson in the sci-fi TV series "Lost in Space". For many people this alone may be a reason to watch and enjoy it, but along with the rest of the cast Lockhart unfortunately doesn't show a whole lot of spark in this particular outing.
On the other hand, the movie is mercifully short. But when you're fifty minutes into the movie, just ten minutes to go, and you realise that hardly anything has actually happened, then you'd be right to be a bit concerned. There is a twist at the end, that you'll probably see coming, but it's nothing that you couldn't see done much, much better in a Hitchcock movie. Some amusement can come from the dialogue ("She's done me in!"), but aside from that it's dull, dull, dull. However, it's interesting that Universal chose to produce a 'serious' movie about werewolves once it's 'Wolf Man' franchise had almost come to an end (only "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" followed). It probably could have worked, but it didn't. And if you don't see this one, you won't miss much.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
