Maybe i was distract but compared to frankenstein and other movies..this did not work so well. Foggy set looked good, acting and dialogue was good, but then story is not very engaging and wolfman suit look terrible in these days. Wolfman was never a favourite character i had so maybe it is just that reason.
I think it's very good, probably not truly great, yet a classic in its genre. It doesn't quite have the feel of a horror movie, even as it is one. The sets are standard issue Universal back lot and look it. Fog swirls nicely, as needed. Good dialogue, not quite brilliant; exceptional work from Chaney, to whom the wolf man curse really seemed to be happening; Claude Rains and all the supporting Brits were effective; and I thought the acting of Yanks Ralph Bellamy and Warren William was competent. It just didn't jump off the screen. Maybe the writing was too stylized, as in solidly crafted but never inspired. I think that the best films, the greatest, draw the viewer into their stories almost by a kind of seduction; or maybe charm is the better word for this in some cases. Truly great movies enchant. The Wolf Man does none of the things. It neither drew me in nor seduced me. Nor once did it enchant me. My disbelief was never suspended, and yet for all that I still think it works pretty well. A huge amount of credit should go to the movie's top star, Lon Chaney, Jr. He, of all the film's characters was the most credibly realized. His sincerity of emoting, his sense of dread,--his innate decency, above all--redeemed him. Nicely made as The Wolf Man is, when it rises in quality this is usually due to Chaney's performance in it. He made of his wolf man a sad and tragic character.
Hey, in any movie, from any era, if they get the sets to look good, the acting is good, and the special effects are indeed special for the time...you can probably say it’s worth a watch, right? I mean the story doesn’t have to be a total grand slam home run with the rest going for it.