Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

sddavis63 There have certainly been some bad werewolf movies made over the years, but perhaps there have been none that have simply been lacking in so many ways as "Cry Of The Werewolf." This was a poorly acted, cliché- ridden (which was unfortunate, and I'll expand upon that in a moment) and completely atmosphere free film whose basic redeeming quality is that it's very short and therefore doesn't waste too much of your time. There were a couple of things that broke free of the usual Hollywood treatment of the subject that gave this some potential, which was largely wasted. The first was that this stayed more true to actual werewolf legends. The werewolf was actually a person who became a wolf, and not some hybrid wolf-man beast, and the werewolf was a woman - not unheard of, but unusual for the most part in the genre. There might have been some meat there; there was also the potential for atmosphere - the story revolves around a mysterious gypsy tribe and much of the action takes place in a mysterious house complete with a secret chamber and crypt. Neither was used to create much atmosphere, though, and both are admittedly part of the cliché-ridden part of the story.Other clichés? People from Transylvania abound in this, and there's even a kind of goofy cop involved in the investigation (not central to the film thankfully and overshadowed - again thankfully - by a more competent superior.) The acting was poor to fair at best. Especially poor was the woefully lacking in passion performance of Stephen Crane, who you'd think would be a bit more passionate, given that his father has just been torn apart by some wild beast! There's nothing even remotely frightening about this, and as mysteries go - well, there wasn't much. I kept watching to see if a potential plot twist might show up in the end that would have at least come as a surprise, but no. What you see from the beginning is basically what you get. It's very disappointing, and seemed basically to be put together by people who had no idea how to make a werewolf movie work. (2/10)

sol (There are Spoilers) Werewolf movie with a twist in that this time around the creature is a woman and there's, probably due to budget restrictions, no long and cumbersome stop motion sequences where the person slowly changes into a werewolf or visa versa.The story has to do with this group of Gypsies, the Troyincas, who immigrated to the United States from their ancient homes in far off Transylvania. The curator of New Orlean's Occult Latour Museum Dr. Charles Morris, Fritz Leiber, has discovered the Toryinca's secret ceremonies that has to do with their involvement in the occult sciences. This leads to Dr. Morris being murdered by Troyincan Matriarch Marie Latour, Nina Foch, who with the help of fellow Troyincan Jan(Ivan Triesault), who works as the janitor in the museum, hid Dr. Morris' body.It's when Dr. Morris' son Bob, Stephen Crane, shows up from New York that he suspects that his father, who's body had since been discovered, was not killed by a wild wolf, like the local police believe, but some kind of wolf-like man that his father uncovered in his investigation of Troyincan legend. Bob with the help of his father's assistant Elsa Chavret, Osa Massen, who just happens to have been born and raised in Transylvania finds Dr. Morris' burnt notes that if made legible will reveal the deadly secret that cost him his life.As expected the evil Marie Latour does everything to stop the truth from coming out about her and the background of her mother, Marie Sr, in that their descendant of werewolves who are descant to rule the Troyincan tribe both in Transylvania as well as in the United States. The film soon turns into a tug of war between the two leading ladies, Marie and Elsa, over the handsome and a bit confused, by the plot, Bob Morris.Marie seeing that she's getting nowhere with Elsa has her turned into a zombie like android muttering over and over to herself as well as out loud that she in fact was the one who murdered Dr. Morris. If that tactic on Marie's part was to turn Bob against Elas it fell flat on it's face. Bob as naive as he was wasn't convince that Elsa murdered his father since her fingerprints wren't found at the murder scene but, a it later turned out, Marie's were!***SPOILERS*** The very predictable ending has Marie turn into a werewolf for the very last time but this time around the police lead by Lt. Barry Lane, Barton MacLane, are ready for her. It took a lot of lead to put put the big bad wolf down in a wild and almost five minute long shootout but it was Lt. Lane's movie ending, that was supposed to tie all the loose ends together, statement that really got to me. With the killer werewolf, Marie Latour, lying dead and crumpled on the floor Lt. Lane, a non-believer in these kind of things, is totally awestruck at the sight of a wild animal-werewolf-changing into a human being! The fact is that the dead Maria Latour didn't start changing back from werewolf to human well after Lt. Lane made that statement!

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.

bbowman-7 I can't believe these User Comments! Sheesh! This one has GOT to be one of the worst travesties and wastes of time in my book! What's up with Stephen Crane? Terrible actor! He's attacked by the werewolf and then stands up calmly, brushes himself off and says: "Yeah..I'm okay..." This is the best that Lana Turner could do? The whole piece of garbage looked like it was made for about twenty bucks. Nina Foch must have gone home a gotten drunk every night. The "wolf" was the only natural actor in the movie! Fritz Leiber's wooden performance brings new meaning to the expression "bad actor"! And Osa Massen? I couldn't get Inga from Young Frankenstein out of my mind!