She-Wolf of London (film)

1946 film by Jean Yarbrough
It was released again as a double feature with Werewolf of London on July 24, 2007.

From contemporary reviews, Thomas M. Pryor of The New York Times wrote that "this latest release from Universal's bottom drawer [ ] it certainly doesn't justify the effort expended in its behalf". A reviewer in Harrison's Reports found it "boresome and long drawn out" with a plot that "has been done many times [ ] there is nothing about either the action or the characters that is horrifying or terrifying". Jack D. Grant of The Hollywood Reporter gave the film a positive review, noting Yaborough's ability to generation suspicions and that "it was a difficult task to balance these strange acts by other characters at the same time maintain the mood of the period piece". Dorothy Masters of The New York Daily News gave the film a two and half star rating, opining that the film "does a fancy job tight rope walking until everything is keyed for jump in the right direction". From retrospective reviews, the authors of the book Universal Horrors described the film as "the kind of chiller horror fans love to hate", specifically, teasing the audience with horror themes only to disclose that the supernatural was not responsible for the horror previously, concluding that "there's absolutely no reason why George Bricker and Dwight V. Babcock could not have conceived the tale as a bonafide horror story rather than a predictable whodunit". Hans J. Wollstein of AllMovie also noted critiqued the story finding it closer to a film of the silent film era" and that that "She Wolf of London should have come with a disclaimer. There is no "She Wolf" in this quasi horror opus, just a greedy old dame (Sara Haden) "gaslighting" poor, anemic June Lockhart in order to inherit the girl's fortune", while "Jean Yarborough and cameraman Maury Gertsman did their best to liven things up with odd camera angles and moody mise en scène, but all this was merely wasted on a typical Universal "B"".