Critics’ reviews

An American Werewolf in London (1981)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 74: 5 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of An American Werewolf in London

74
Positive
5
Mixed
1
Negative
1

Most critics respond warmly to An American Werewolf in London, praising its ability to make comedy and horror work together without softening the scares. Praise clusters around Rick Baker’s practical effects, particularly the transformation scene, while the soundtrack, dry humour and characterisation also draw approval. Several reviews find something affecting beneath the gore and jokes, reading the American outsider’s experience in Britain as a source of cultural unease, romance and tragedy.

The spread is wide, however, and the balance of tones that pleases most critics is precisely what troubles the dissenters. The New York Times admires the early restraint and lead casting but finds that comic detachment prevents a deeper emotional response. RogerEbert.com is more firmly opposed: its review acknowledges the effects but finds weak transitions, thin character development and an uneasy combination of comedy and horror that the individual set pieces cannot repair.

Empire
1 January 2000 · Kim Newman
85*

The critic calls it a marvellous, pop tragic, serio-comic monster movie in which the backpacker protagonist is haunted by his dead friend's ghost while coping with the werewolf curse. They single out the still-amazing practical transformation effects along with Landis's observations on British strangeness and a witty moon-themed soundtrack.

Read the full review →
Little White Lies
28 October 2019 · Anton Bitel
80*

The critic sees the film as a potent mix of romance, tragedy and horror that explores cultural alienation through an American outsider in Britain. He singles out the extraordinary make-up effects, killer soundtrack and the tragicomic portrayal of a stranger in a strange land for praise.

Read the full review →
Time Out
27 October 2009 · ★★★★ · Tom Huddleston
80

The critic calls the film a hysterical gore-spattered masterpiece whose horror-comedy blend remains impressive despite modern familiarity with the genre. He singles out the astounding soundtrack, marvellous characterisation and endlessly memorable one-liners for praise.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
21 August 1981 · Janet Maslin
60*

The film begins with a fine balance of comedy and horror and restraint, showing promise as one of Landis's better works. It maintains comic detachment even when deeper response is needed, which eventually feels callow, though the casting of the leads is a strong point.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
1 January 1981 · Roger Ebert
40*

The film seems unfinished, with spectacular set pieces but weak transitions, character development, and an arbitrary ending. Special effects by Rick Baker are impressive but cannot compensate for the uneasy mix of comedy and horror or the lack of believable characters and places.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1980 · Variety Staff

A clever mixture of comedy and horror that succeeds in being both funny and scary, with an eagerness to please that keeps it from becoming off-putting. Special effects freaks get more than their money's worth, highlighted by the on-camera werewolf transformation.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
27 September 2009 · ★★★★★ · Robert Mclaughlin
100

The critic praises the film's enduring appeal as a horror-comedy, highlighting its fast-paced script, terrific pacing, and groundbreaking special effects, especially the transformation scene. The review notes how it remains the benchmark for werewolf movies and benefits greatly from the high-definition transfer.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
11 June 2012 · Jennie Kermode
80*

The film condenses horror tropes effectively and adds overt humour that gives it a joyous atmosphere still influential today. Landis keeps the humour dry and naturalistic while delivering strong acting, impressive practical effects from Rick Baker, and a gleefully destructive final sequence.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate