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.
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.