<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/wordpress-mu-1.0" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Werewolf of London</title>
	<link>http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/07/15/werewolf-of-london/</link>
	<description>The Darkest Corner of the Web</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.0</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Livius</title>
		<link>http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/07/15/werewolf-of-london/#comment-4110</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:53:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/07/15/werewolf-of-london/#comment-4110</guid>
					<description>I also think Hull's werewolf is ok. I kind of like the movie too - it's just that Chaney's look and take on the part has become so iconic that it tends to overshadow Hull.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also think Hull&#8217;s werewolf is ok. I kind of like the movie too - it&#8217;s just that Chaney&#8217;s look and take on the part has become so iconic that it tends to overshadow Hull.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: paulwjm</title>
		<link>http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/07/15/werewolf-of-london/#comment-4104</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/07/15/werewolf-of-london/#comment-4104</guid>
					<description>It's an interesting theory, Colin, and very probably correct.  I'm not sure if I can remember seeing them but apparently the photographs of Pierce's tests on Hull have been released somewhere, which would make a nice comparison to Chaney's wolfman.  I quite like Hull's make-up here though, if only because it's quite distinctive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s an interesting theory, Colin, and very probably correct.  I&#8217;m not sure if I can remember seeing them but apparently the photographs of Pierce&#8217;s tests on Hull have been released somewhere, which would make a nice comparison to Chaney&#8217;s wolfman.  I quite like Hull&#8217;s make-up here though, if only because it&#8217;s quite distinctive.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Livius</title>
		<link>http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/07/15/werewolf-of-london/#comment-4098</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:33:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/07/15/werewolf-of-london/#comment-4098</guid>
					<description>I think the wolf make-up, or lack of it, is one reason this film isn't more highly regarded. Chaney's look is more effective as it makes him less obviously human. Maybe part of the reason you find Chaney's Wolf Man unthreatening is down to his playing of Talbot. There's so much pathos that you just have to feel sorry for the big fella. So, even when he transforms some of that sympathy still lingers. 
At least that's the way I felt about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the wolf make-up, or lack of it, is one reason this film isn&#8217;t more highly regarded. Chaney&#8217;s look is more effective as it makes him less obviously human. Maybe part of the reason you find Chaney&#8217;s Wolf Man unthreatening is down to his playing of Talbot. There&#8217;s so much pathos that you just have to feel sorry for the big fella. So, even when he transforms some of that sympathy still lingers.<br />
At least that&#8217;s the way I felt about it.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
