Post by someoldguy on Dec 2, 2019 19:17:36 GMT -5
And a myriad of other titles for this movie.
A Paul Naschy werewolf special and I believe the only sequel in the 11 (or 12 or 13, accounts vary) werewolf movies he made. Its predecessor – Fury of the Werewolf - pretty much sucked. I have not seen all of them but I am been advised that ‘Fury’ was the worst of the lot. Having seen it I see no reason to doubt that judgment. I have also been told that ‘Vampire Woman’ is the best and again it might be, based on what I have seen of the series.
For those not familiar with the Naschy werewolf films, with the exception of the pair mentioned above, each is a standalone ‘reboot’ unrelated to all the others. The character always has the same name, Waldemar Daninsky, and always becomes a werewolf, but again excluding the single sequel they are unrelated stories as if the others never happened.
The movie was not too bad. Kind of creepy and Naschy always does a nice physical bouncing around becoming the werewolf’. There is never an onscreen transformation. He generally just falls down out of sight and gets up transformed. The werewolf look is ala Lon Chaney, hair on the face, teeth in the mouth, hair and claws on the hands. But it has its own style and charm. The vampire women (plural) are very pale and have long fangs and evil looks in their eyes, but it does not stop them from being sexy. IMO it even helps. The overall feel of the movie is atmospheric in the style of Hammer films if not quite as well done.
The movie was quite good in parts but also dragged in others. Some additional editing could have helped there. I could not judge the video quality as what I saw was copied off TV but even so it was not bad and was probably quite good in the original. Audio was pretty good and the music was appropriately moody. The English dubbed dialog was not very good but might have been better in Spanish. Likewise, the delivery of the lines. Acting was otherwise decent.
I read that in the original there was an ample supply of bare bodices and of gore. In the edited version I saw, there are no boobs visible and gore is minimal.
Overall opinion: Reasonably watchable if not IMO the cult classic some claim.
A Paul Naschy werewolf special and I believe the only sequel in the 11 (or 12 or 13, accounts vary) werewolf movies he made. Its predecessor – Fury of the Werewolf - pretty much sucked. I have not seen all of them but I am been advised that ‘Fury’ was the worst of the lot. Having seen it I see no reason to doubt that judgment. I have also been told that ‘Vampire Woman’ is the best and again it might be, based on what I have seen of the series.
For those not familiar with the Naschy werewolf films, with the exception of the pair mentioned above, each is a standalone ‘reboot’ unrelated to all the others. The character always has the same name, Waldemar Daninsky, and always becomes a werewolf, but again excluding the single sequel they are unrelated stories as if the others never happened.
The movie was not too bad. Kind of creepy and Naschy always does a nice physical bouncing around becoming the werewolf’. There is never an onscreen transformation. He generally just falls down out of sight and gets up transformed. The werewolf look is ala Lon Chaney, hair on the face, teeth in the mouth, hair and claws on the hands. But it has its own style and charm. The vampire women (plural) are very pale and have long fangs and evil looks in their eyes, but it does not stop them from being sexy. IMO it even helps. The overall feel of the movie is atmospheric in the style of Hammer films if not quite as well done.
The movie was quite good in parts but also dragged in others. Some additional editing could have helped there. I could not judge the video quality as what I saw was copied off TV but even so it was not bad and was probably quite good in the original. Audio was pretty good and the music was appropriately moody. The English dubbed dialog was not very good but might have been better in Spanish. Likewise, the delivery of the lines. Acting was otherwise decent.
I read that in the original there was an ample supply of bare bodices and of gore. In the edited version I saw, there are no boobs visible and gore is minimal.
Overall opinion: Reasonably watchable if not IMO the cult classic some claim.
There are references or similarities to other movies. In the previous movie, Daninsky contracts his lycanthropy in Tibet (Werewolf of London). In this movie, Daninsky gets revived from the dead and becomes a werewolf under the light of the full moon, killing the two people messing with him. (Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man) The vampire woman gets revived by removing the ‘stake,’ a cross shaped dagger, from her corpse (Return of the Vampire) and by having blood dribbled into her mouth (Scars of Dracula).
Although the title is The Werewolf Versus the Vampire Woman, the actual clash is perhaps 30 seconds long and not terribly exciting. The vampire is killed by the werewolf biting her in the neck and the werewolf is killed when the ‘stake’ is shoved into his heart. Sounds a little confused to me. Or was this supposed to be irony?
Although the title is The Werewolf Versus the Vampire Woman, the actual clash is perhaps 30 seconds long and not terribly exciting. The vampire is killed by the werewolf biting her in the neck and the werewolf is killed when the ‘stake’ is shoved into his heart. Sounds a little confused to me. Or was this supposed to be irony?
Le Loup-Garou Qui Rit