seance-64749 Hi, I'd like to make known I'm not into Werewolf films. However 3 titles of such are a exception. Won't give titles here though in this review. Very recently I viewed Cry of the werewolf (1944). Re plot other users have mentioned.,so I won't go into plot of film. Found film easy to view as it keeps your attention. 5 out of 10 I've given it, that may seem low but 'hey' I'm not knocking it! For me various scenes lighting and shadows etc remind me of The Cat People (1942). Something of Val Lewton effect. Nina Foch I thought played her part effectively. Would like to see Cry of the werewolf on DVD in UK on general release. Like I say not into Werewolf films but make a exception here! By Seance223.

snicewanger I really liked this film as a kid and it's still fun to watch as a grownup.The idea of a female werewolf was a totally different horror concept in 1944 and Nina Foch was quite effective in her portrayal of the character. This movie boasts one of the most solid casts of any horror film of the 1940's with talented actors such as the wonderful Blanche Yurka, John Abbott, Fritz Leiber, Barton MacLane, and the delightfully ghoulish Milton Parson uplifting the proceedings. Osa Massen is eye catching if not a bit overwrought as the damsel in distress. The whole thing is shot down by Stephen Crane's inept attempt to play the leading man. He defines the cliché of the bland, boring, and ineffectual pretty boy and his performance is amateurish. Screenwriter Griffin Jay was a craftsman and quite dependable at providing screenplays for these hour long chillers and his script is economical with no frills. Director Henry Levin was an old pro at mysteries, drama, and adventure films but this was his only foray into the horror genre and he filmed it as more of a mystery and suspense piece the a true horror film. The special effects are minimal and were created more by the editor then the make up or camera crews. During WWII, the Hollywood Studio's were cranking out movies at a factory assembly line pace. Most films were produced with an eye towards keeping on schedule and within budget. The also kept the studio film makers busy and earning their paychecks. If they turned out to be well done, so much the better.Cry of the Werewolf was a film that was intended to be a neighborhood theater crowd pleaser that would be released and spend a few weeks making the rounds and move on.It's not a great film but it's a fun one to watch.

slayrrr666 "Cry of the Werewolf" is a decent enough entry in the genre, and is pretty entertaining.**SPOILERS**In a museum tour, guide Peter, (John Abbott) explains about local legends involving vampires and werewolves. After the last one, he and Dr. Charles Morris, (Fritz Leiber) retire for the night, only for Bob Morris, (Stephan Crane) and his girlfriend Elsa Chauvet, (Osa Massen) to find that the museum had fallen under a series of mysterious events. Starting to investigate what happened, a very long legal battle over the culprit resolves with nothing accomplished. When they find that a local gypsy tribe has a way of explaining what happened, they quickly race to stop the creature that has been attacking those nearby.The Good News: This here is actually rather fun. The fact that this one is a predominant mystery makes it really good. There's a lot of back-and-forth over what is going on and that is rather entertaining. This also has a really believable one for this, since it manages to mix in a story about how the ancestors handled it and some rather intelligent areas explored in the back-story. That back-story allows for a bit of mystery concerning what has happened, which is done with the mixing together of a gypsy legend and that of a distorted family version. The huge museum also looks rather creepy, which is perfect for setting up an air of suspense and dread with it. The last big positive is that there's a lot more action than expected. This one has several really nice scenes , including a spectacular chase through the museum at the end, which has some great moments inside it and an earlier sequence where a character is stalked through a mausoleum by a large shadow across the wall. It's a great scene, but can't compare to how great the final museum chase sequence is. That is quite fun, and is the film's really good points.The Bad News: This one doesn't have a whole lot wrong, and is a mildly flawed film. The biggest flaw is that there's a rather large chunk of time taken up with the impossibly long courtroom scene. This drags on forever and takes quite a long time to get through. This is also time consuming with a large segment without drawing anything with it. The case is concluded with only a few little pieces captured about the background but doesn't do anything else. This never says anything about what might've or could've helped, and that would've been a justifiable reason for keeping it there. It's a useless scene that only serves to eat up time. Another pretty big flaw is that this one's werewolf is played by dogs or wolves dressed up to look like werewolves. This really takes away from the creature when they're obviously completely against the norm. seeing a grown man do a horribly-choreographed shoving contest with a dog while others are screaming at him to avoid the werewolf is beyond ridiculous. These are the films with the film, and are responsible for lowering this one.The Final Verdict: With a fair amount of both strengths and negatives, this one comes out as being rather decent overall. It's not mind-blowing spectacular, but serves just good enough for fans of the horror from the time period or those into the earliest werewolf movies to give this much of a look.Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence

MartinHafer In the 1940s, Columbia Pictures decided to try to cash in on Universal's horror films by creating a few of their own (such as RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE and this film)--with generally poor results. The biggest reason was that although the atmosphere and acting were pretty good in these films, the adherence to the lore surrounding the monsters was mostly ignored--leaving the audiences confused and irritated--especially in the case of CRY OF THE WEREWOLF.Here is just a partial list of the inconsistencies that completely violated accepted notions of werewolf films. First, no one actually becomes a part-person/part-wolf in this film. The leading lady is either a lady or a wolf--nothing in between. Also, there's NOTHING about a full moon and instead the lady can change herself at will. And this wolf is easy to kill as would be the lady--just shoot it with ordinary bullets! And finally, instead of the nice and kind gypsy played by Maria Ouspenskaya and her tortured son played by Bela Lugosi in the original WOLF MAN (1941), here the gypsies are evil Devil-cult members!! Now if you ignore the fact that this film bears NO RESEMBLANCE to prior wolf-man films like WEREWOLF OF London (1935) and WOLF MAN (1941), then perhaps you'll find this film enjoyable. But, since I am a rabid fan (get it?) of the films, I felt this one had contempt for the audience and wonder if any of the writers had even seen a werewolf film before writing this silly film.