User reviews

"Werewolf of London" almost never gets mentioned when one talks of the classic Universal horror flicks of the 30s and 40s. Yet it is as good or better than most of them.

The story involves a biologist (Henry Hull) who is in Tibet searching for a rare flower. While there he is attacked by a werewolf and unknowingly becomes infected himself. The rare flower it turns out, has the power to suppress the transformation into a werewolf. A mysterious scientist from Tibet (Warner Oland) appears and takes an unusual interest in the plant. Well, as in all werewolf movies, you know what happens when the moon is full.

Perhaps the film doesn't get the recognition it deserves because of the absence of one of Universal's major horror stars (Karloff or Lugosi). Lon Chaney Jr. would not arrive on the scene (in horror movies) until 1941.

Veteran character actor Hull is very good as the tormented Dr. Glendon. He plays him more in the manner of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde than an out and out monster. The murders are committed off screen so we have to rely on Hull to convey the evil of the werewolf through his performance. Warner Oland, who was starring in the Charlie Chan series at the time, has little to do as Dr. Yogami. The fetching Valerie Hobson stands out as Hull's wife and Spring Byington does her usual talkative busybody as Aunt Ettie. The weak link in the cast is Lester Matthews as the token hero Captain Ames. He plays him as a silly-ass stuffed shirt rather than the dashing fellow he is supposed to be.

Having said all of that, "Werewolf of London" is one of the better horror films of its time and unfortunately remains one of the most underrated of the genre.

Whilst in Tibet searching for a rare flower, botanist Dr. Glendon (Henry Hull) is bitten by a werewolf.

Howard Maxford praises its "effective sequences", and truly, yes, the metamorphosis is decent for its time. Mike Mayo is less sympathetic (surprisingly) and believes the reason this film hasn't matched Chaney's version in fame is because, "Glendon is such a cold protagonist that it's difficult to muster up much sympathy for his predicament."

This is, of course, a Universal film, prior to their much more famous "Wolf Man". Director Stuart Walker did not go on to do much else for horror, though he did do two adaptations of Charles Dickens.

Any horror historian needs to see this, as it is not only an early werewolf tale, but really is the seed that blossomed into "Wolf Man". The same makeup was even used (though toned down last minute, unfortunately).

Before there was "The Wolf Man", Universal made "Werewolf of London". This movie is not as well known or as good the Lon Chaney Jr. movie but it's a rather good genre movie on its own nevertheless.

The movie starts off in a good and mysterious horror way but also in a great and entertaining way, by introducing some fun typical upper-class British characters and dialog into the movie. Unforntunately it then takes quite a while before things start to kick off. The monstrous werewolf only makes his full entrance halve way through the movie.

It's funny to see how much similar the werewolf transformation sequences in this movie look to "The Wolf Man". The make-up effects in this movie are also almost the same and created by the same person, but only as a more lighter and less hairy version, since the actor Henry Hull disliked the time-consuming makeup application. The make-up effects in this movie are nevertheless rather good and convincing. Henry Hull is definitely almost unrecognizable underneath all of the make-up.

I also must say that I liked Henry Hull better as the werewolf than as his human character. It was a hard character too sympathize for, something that Lon Chaney Jr. did succeed in by the way. A reason why "The Wolf Man" is still a better movie than this one is. Also quite weird to see Warner Oland in this movie, since at the time he almost entirely only made Charlie Chan movies and he was very popular for it at the time. It therefor is a bit weird to see him in a different role in this movie.

The movie features lots of comedy, which makes this a very pleasant movie to watch. But it also takes away the tension at times when it isn't really needed to. It sort of prevents the movie from being a true tense and mysterious horror movie at times, though the potential for it was definitely there.

The story isn't that much special and rather simplistic. The movie doesn't offer any real surprises, although the story does has its moments. Also the climax of the movie feels rather rushed and sudden. The movie should at least had been 10 minutes longer, to let it reach a better and more satisfying less sudden conclusion.

It's still a good sort of forgotten Universal werewolf movie and a more than great watch for the Universal horror/classic horror movie lovers.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

WEREWOLF OF LONDON is a gem. I became familiar with the old Universal classics watching them on an old GE black and white when they were broadcast on "Lights Out" in El Paso, Texas thirty-odd years back. And this was one of the few that I found seriously frightening as a boy.

The initial transformation scene in this film is done as well as any special effect was in those days. First, the viewer becomes aware of its approach through the reaction of a housecat to the afflicted Doctor as he reaches out to stroke his pet. He crosses over into another room, the camera pans back, and the transformation occurs as he passes behind a number of columns. It's damn eerie. And I believe it holds up after all this time, but it doesn't matter to me if I'm alone with this sentiment.

Warner Oland, Valerie Hobson, Spring Byington end up carrying the weight that Henry Hull couldn't as a central player, plus there are a couple of marvelous character actors playing some very funny dipsomaniac landladies. It all balances out. You gotta see this one.

Henry Hull is no Lon Chaney Jr, and "London" will never be remembered as fondly as "The Wolf Man", but without this movie, how much of the werewolf lore we all take for granted would even exist? "Werewolf of London" gave us the transfer of lycanthropy through a bite, an herbal remedy (though this became wolfsbane not long after, likely for aesthetic reasons), the biped wolfish human, and most significantly, the link between a werewolf's transformation and the light of the full moon.

There are flaws that can be pointed out, and they are glaring. The make-up was somewhat sparse even by contemporary standards, and the acting was often stilted. Actual werewolf lore seems to have been cast aside in favor of the Jekyll / Hyde formula for dealing with man's dark nature. All this is true, yet none of it diminishes the importance of this film to the genre.

Any fan of werewolf movies containing any of the elements listed above owes a large howl of gratitude to "The Werewolf of London."

This early version of the Universal Studios Wolf Man borrows heavily from Paramount Studios' take on 'Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde,' which emphasized character and psychology over chills and horrors. Henry Hull gives a good performance as the eponymous monster, but does not inspire the same sympathy as a Frederick March or a Lon Chaney, Jr.

And unfortunately, there are some poorly handled comic-relief scenes involving a couple of drunken old ladies that really don't fit and detract from the mood. The scenes are so awkward that I suspect they were filmed later and added-in, to pad running time perhaps. These sequences seriously hurt this film, which is a shame.

Nonetheless, the story is interesting, the special effects and make-up are good, and some of the camera work is very well done. In particular, there is a neat shot as Hull is changing to the monster and simultaneously passing by a number of columns, and as he passes behind each successive column, the change progresses.

As is the case with virtually all classic horror films, this film has a psycho-sexual subtext. In this film, Henry Hull is playing a repressed and frustrated married man who has some deep behavioral compulsion and a secret relationship with with another man, and ultimately these things threaten to destroy his marriage. I won't give away anymore than that.

The werewolf make-up here is a little more subtle than that used by Lon Chaney in 1941, not necessarily better or worse, just different, and therefore, interesting. Overall this film is somewhat less entertaining than Chaney's Wolf Man, but still good and worthwhile for any fan of classic horror.

********************************** Additional Notes:

1) The Tibetan sequence was filmed at Vasquez Rocks, a famous place near LA, where many movies and TV shows were filmed, including episodes of the original Star Trek.

2) Soundtrack music from this film was re-used for one of the Buster Crabbe 'Flash Gordon' serials. The Flash Gordon serials also used music from The Invisible Man and Bride of Frankenstein.

5 years ago, I would never thought I would even try to watch a black and white movie but 5 years later , I am not just watching it, I am actually really enjoying some oldies.

This is another really good movie, the movie is only 75 mins long, so it'kind of short and the movie didn't take long to get started at all.

I liked how the movie flowed, it's was not all action packed or anything, there were some in trusting scenes here and there.

The effect in this were surprising, really good for it's time and I did found parts of it really funny, with those two old drunken ladies on stairs, they were so funny.

The acting was great however I wasn't to keen on the ending, he went down too easy!

7 out of 10 from me.

Botanist Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) treks into the Himalayas in search of a rare flower that only blooms in the moonlight. He finds it, only to be attacked and bitten by a werewolf. He returns to England and meets Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland), who tells him that the flower can temporarily prevent a werewolf from transforming during the full moon. Soon, Dr. Glendon discovers that he has become a werewolf himself and stalks the streets of London.

The first true werewolf movie is an entertaining, if at times frustrating, piece of work. I liked all of the "A" plot dealing with lycanthropy, Dr. Yogami, and the marifisa lupina lumina. I thought Hull was good, as was Warner Oland. It was nice to see him take a break from the Charlie Chan films to do something like this. The werewolf makeup and the transformation was well-done for the time. I have no complaints about this part of the film. The movie's only real problem for me is that I didn't like the subplot involving Glendon's wife (Valerie Hobson), her old boyfriend (Lester Matthews), and a meddlesome woman (Spring Byington) out to break up Glendon's marriage. I believe our sympathies were supposed to lie with Hobson but mine were not. I found her character unlikable, Matthews' character unbearable, and Byington's character downright villainous. Still, putting this tacky part of the movie aside, the rest of it is good fun that should please any fan of Universal horror films. And no, there is absolutely no mention of a place called Lee Ho Fook's!

Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) is in Tibet searching for the rare mariphasa plant that apparently only blooms under moonlight. Upon finding the plant his joy is obvious but it's quickly short lived as he is attacked by a half-man half-wolf type creature. He manages to fight off the creature but it does draw blood before retreating off into the mountains. Back in London, Glendon works tirelessly to get the plant to bloom under artificial light, neglecting his wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson) in the process. But that's not the only worry he has to contend with, with the arrival of the mysterious Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) comes news of lycanthrophobia and the true value of the mariphasa plant...

The names Universal Studios and Werewolves go hand in hand (or paw in paw if you like). Automatically images of a pained Lon Chaney Jr howling at the moon come quickly into the conscious, yet quite some years earlier Universal had already ventured into the realms of lycanthropy. Firstly they had offered up "The Werewolf", a silent short film in 1913 that sadly is thought to have long been lost in a fire in 1924, and then in 1935 they released "Werewolf Of London". The first mainstream werewolf picture and first to feature anthropomorphic werewolves. It can't be understated just how important "Werewolf Of London" is in the pantheon of Universal classic horror. It also helps that it also happens to be a rather fine picture in its own right. Interestingly blending the werewolf legend with science fiction elements, the script is intelligent, the scenic sets impressive and director Stuart Walker keeps it taut and suspenseful.

In spite of what you may have read on some internet sites, the cast deliver the goods, particularly Henry Hull who it should be remembered is playing a vastly different type of werewolf to the one Chaney would play six years later. This is after all a wolf-man who pops on his hat and cloak and strides out into the dimly lit night. Hull also comes up trumps with the emotional aspects of Glendon. Observe the expressive acting as Glendon's cat turns against him, the hurt and then the horrific realisation of what awaits him is vividly portrayed during one heartfelt scene. Another sees Glendon proclaim "Singularly Single, madame. More single than I ever realised that it was possible for a human being to be," this is fine stuff delivered with style and emotion by the well spoken Hull.

The support is very tidy from Hobson, Oland, Lester Matthews and Lawrence Grant, but they are unsurped by the comic relief that comes in the form of Ethel Griffies & Zeffie Tilbury as batty bints, Whack & Moncaster. A right couple of old dears who stick their noses in where they shouldn't and enjoy knocking each other out! I kid you not. Yet perhaps surprisingly this humour sits easily within the structure of the story. Another testament to the good work done by all involved. While rounding out the treats is the make up work from pioneer supreme, Jack P Pierce (AKA Janus Piccoulas). This is not one for the boo jump scare brigade, or even for those after a bit of old fashioned blood letting. This is tight story telling with a good production and acting to match. Twas a pleasant surprise indeed. 8/10

Okay, a quick history lesson -- After the success of Dracula and Frankenstein, Carl Laemmle Jr., who was head of production at Universal Studios in the 1930s, wanted to bring another monster to the big screen. They were planning a movie called "The Wolf Man", which would star Boris Karloff, but that fell through so in 1935 they decided instead to create a Frankenstein sequel ... and this little gem. He called upon makeup legend Jack Pierce, who had already created the Dracula and Frankenstein monsters we know and love, and who would later go on to create Lon Chaney Jr.'s Wolf Man. Also involved was special effects guru John P. Fulton, who also worked on most of Universal's monster movies of the 30s and 40s. And so, at least some of the ingredients were here that would later created a classic werewolf that everyone would remember in the years to come.

Henry Hull gives a creditable performance here as a botanist cursed with lycanthropy, but the same cannot be said for the whole cast. I found Warner Oland's acting ability to be particularly suspect, as the villain of the story. The sets are fairly well designed and mostly believable, and the directing is competent enough. The score has it's moments, although it is a little intrusive at times.

On the whole, the movie is well written and well acted, although admittedly there are huge sections which are just plain dull, and the werewolf here isn't particularly horrific. The only truly memorable sequence is the initial transformation. Already interesting interpretations are being made of the Werewolf myth -- here they say that a man will become a wolf "between the hours of nine and ten at the full of the moon", thereby introducing the idea that wolves only change at the full moon.

Although the movie was a fair commercial success, it just didn't scream of a franchise. But six years later, that "Wolf Man" project that Universal had been interested in would eventually come into being, and the rest is history ...

Six years before Lon Chaney Jr. famously donned fake fangs, yak hair and rubber snout to become The Wolf Man, lesser known character actor Henry Hull underwent a similar transformation to become Universal Studio's first ever lycanthrope, the Werewolf of London.

After being savagely attacked by a werewolf in Tibet (or California's Vasquez Rocks, unconvincingly standing in for Tibet), botanist Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Hull) returns to London with his prized specimen, a rare flower that only blooms in the moonlight. In a rather fortunate coincidence, the juice from this particular plant can prevent Wilfred from turning into a monster come the full moon, just so long as he can a) convince the specimen to flower, and b) keep the mysterious Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) from stealing it from him!!!

For horror fans, The Werewolf of London is undoubtedly very important, being the first true film in a very popular sub-genre, but as a piece of entertainment, it proves to be extremely lacking: it is hard to sympathise with Hull's character, who selfishly puts his work ahead of his personal life (he ignores his lovely wife, who understandably seeks comfort in the arms of ex-beau Paul); the standard of acting is pretty awful; there is some dreadfully unfunny comedy content courtesy of two drunken landladies; and the whole shebang moves slower than molasses going uphill in January.

Curiously, Jack Pierce's makeup is actually slightly better than his later work on The Wolf Man, and the transformations are more inventive (Hull walking past a series of pillars, gradually becoming more wolfish as he passes behind each one, is fantastic), but Werewolf of London is still something of a chore to sit through.

Universal's first 'werewolf' movie & oddly enough one of the least celebrated in the studio's library of classic horror films, due in large part to a later vehicle titled 'THE WOLF MAN' that would elevate the werewolf to classic monster status. Not that there's anything wrong with "Werewolf of London", it's a terrific picture in its own right.

Perhaps the star of this film could be the reason why this picture didn't catch on like the later wolf series with Lon Chaney. Henry Hull (as Wilfred Glendon) doesn't come across as being the most likable guy in the world, or one who can invoke much sympathy like Larry Talbot. Hull is such a cold fish that it doesn't come as a great shock when his jailbait looking wife (Valerie Hobson) runs into the arms of her former beau. But, whatever charm Hull may lack, Warner Oland makes up for in spades with his show-stealing performance as Dr. Yogami. "The werewolf is neither man nor wolf, but a Satanic creature with the worst qualities of both."

This movie also tips its hat to the horror films of James Whale, injecting liberal amounts of comic relief throughout the proceedings, with the biggest laughs coming courtesy of two old lushes, Mrs. Whack & Mrs. Moncaster, who rent a room to the afflicted Dr. Glendon and after getting a peek of him in his lunar form, vow to give up the bottle, but somehow I don't think they stuck to that resolution.

Henry Hull and his London Werewolf may linger forever in Chaney's shadow, but Hull will forever have the advantage when it comes to "best dressed" lycanthrope & no one can ever take that from him.

This movie is an old friend. I have seen it countless times since childhood and remain fascinated by both the highly original story and the sometimes whacky element of humor which softens a classic horror tale.

When comparing movies in the werewolf genre, one has to refer to "The Wolfman", which starred Lon Chaney, Jr. and Claude Raines. It is, I think, the humor of "Werewolf of London" that sets it apart. Spring Byington probably makes the film with her "Aunt Ettie" with excellent support from the "Mrs. Whack" and "Mrs. Montcaster" (I cannot remember the names of the actresses).

Also, the werewolves, as played by Henry Hull and Warner Oland, are more frightening than that of Lon Chaney because the makeup tends to reveal more of the human character in their faces. Thus does Oland's revelation to Hull that "A werewolf is neither man nor wolf, but a satanic creature with the worst qualities of both," nicely set the tone for what is to follow.

"Werewolf of London" (1935) is often somewhat overshadowed by the iconic Lon Chaney Jr. depiction in the later "The Wolf Man" (1941). However, while I would agree with the prevailing consensus that the latter film is the better one, Universal's first bash at the werewolf legend is nonetheless still a good film, only stumbles in its execution a couple of times, and even manages to trump it's illustrious successor on a couple of points.

The film begins in Tibet, where Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) is searching for the rare mariphasa plant that apparently only blooms under moonlight. Disregarding the ominous warnings of a priest and the locals he continues in his quest and finally comes upon the rare flower only to be attacked and bitten by a half-man half-wolf creature. Back in London, Glendon's works continues as he tries to get the plant to bloom under artificial moonlight when the mysterious Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) arrives and informs Glendon that the flower has the power to suppress the transformation into a werewolf. From here on in the initially skeptical Glendon succumbs to the lycanthropic curse and seeks to take the life of the one he loves the most, his wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson).

It is interesting to compare the Henry Hull and Lon Chaney Jr.'s differing portrayals of the werewolf: most notably the make-up (done in both films by legend Jack Pierce, who had previously done "Frankenstein" (1932) and "The Mummy" (1932)) is less hairy than the iconic "Wolfman" image as it is said that Henry Hull didn't want to sit through the time taken to apply all the make-up so Pierce created a less hairy version. This said, I personally prefer the make-up in "Werewolf of London" as it seems a more savage beast, which is odd as he is also more man than beast than "The Wolf Man", even casually donning his scarf and hat before leaving to kill. In this respect, the "Werewolf of London" is closer to a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, something which is nodded to in the transformation sequence (something "The Wolf Man sorely lacks).

However, the film is let down a little by a few too many characters, a subplot involving Lisa's unresolved feelings for an ex-boyfriend, and (crucially) a character in Dr. Wilfred Glendon who is a little too hard to identify with in his clipped upper-class manner and obsessive attention to botany, compared to the affable Larry Talbot in "The Wolf Man", making the film carry slightly less pathos at the ending. Still, a great movie which is hard not to enjoy and is a must-see for anyone interested in the Universal Movie Monsters or the history of horror in general.

Henry Hull stars as a snooty botanist who becomes inflicted with Lycanthropy (or "Werewolfery", as stated in the film) from the bite of another werewolf (Warner Oland) during an expedition in Tibet. A rare flower which grows there is the only known antidote for the affliction, and Hull and his rival are at odds with one another in trying to secure it. Since this was the very first official "sound" werewolf picture, there are many unconventional aspects to it because there were no cinematic rules early on: This wolf-man lurks about in cape and hat, much like a Mr. Hyde. He's animalistic at one moment, but then can reason and speak rationally through his fangs in another (which can come off as unintentionally humorous). The makeup on Hull is minimal but used to great effect. Warner Oland (Fox's own Charlie Chan) is quite good as Dr. Yogami, the fellow cursed soul. But Valerie Hobson, who plays Hull's neglected wife, is a handful much like she was in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. And Lester Matthews as a former love interest of Hobson's is ineffective as usual. Director Stuart Walker seems to try emulating James Whale in a few comical moments, with half-hearted results. This is not a "good" Universal horror, but it's still got enough going for it for a decent enough time. I think a serious mistake was in making the lead character so unlikable. As an interesting side note, this film was at one time being prepared as a vehicle for Boris Karloff (in the Hull role) and Bela Lugosi as the competing Dr. Yogami (imagine those possibilities!). **1/2 out of ****

The best thing about 1935's "Werewolf of London" is not the performances of Henry Hull and Warner Oland, or the werewolf makeup created by the legendary Jack Pierce for Hull's transformation from man to beast. The true star of this Universal horror film is Valerie Hobson who played Elizabeth in the same year's "Bride of Frankenstein." According to Gregory William Mank, author of "It's Alive," a book about the Frankenstein series, the English born Hobson was only 17 that year, a minor, and therefore too young to play the wife of either Colin Clive or Henry Hull. You'd never know it though. She has a poise and maturity that belies her youth. She's also stunningly beautiful and deserving of greater fame and stardom than she achieved. She was hampered, no doubt, by her association with Universal, a studio whose most memorable films in the 1930s and 1940s were all in the horror genre. The only requirement for an actress when chased by Dracula, the Frankenstein monster, or a werewolf was to shriek at the top of her lungs while still looking gorgeous. Hobson excelled at meeting those requirements, but she was a good actress, deserving of better, more challenging roles.

Hobson is very convincing at conveying terror when confronted with Hull's wolf man, but since Hull isn't that terrifying to behold, her reaction is the only thing that makes the horror scenes effective. Other than the fangs, Hull's sideburns and pompadour bring to mind a beatnik from the pre-rock n' roll 1950s. I can picture Hull be-bopping at a corner table in a café where goateed poets recite wretched verse, scarves tied around their necks, smoking cigarettes and sipping lattes. The film is also short on atmosphere, crying out for fog or something to create an aura of menace. It's little wonder that Universal's first excursion into lycanthropy was deemed a failure. It would take Lon Chaney, Jr. and 1941's "The Wolf Man" to make a success of this theme.

But I will continue to rank "Werewolf of London" alongside the more superior films from Universal's Golden Age of Horror because it provides a rare opportunity to appreciate the beauty and talent of Valerie Hobson.

Brian W. Fairbanks

The first Hollywood feature film about werewolves stars Henry Hull as Dr. Glendon, a botanist. He'd travelled to Tibet to obtain a very rare flower - which only blooms in moonlight. Fatefully, while he's there he's attacked and mauled by a mysterious beast. When he gets back to London, he receives warnings from the strange Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland), warnings about what will happen to Glendon during the full moon. And this flower is the only thing that can temporarily prevent the transformation from occurring. Poor Dr. Glendon, realizing what is happening to him and horrified by the murders he commits while in wolfish form, tries everything possible to contain himself - all to no avail.

It wouldn't be until "The Wolf Man" six years later that tropes associated with werewolves would become part of the popular culture. There's no mention of silver here, for example. While "Werewolf of London" isn't particularly iconic, there's no denying its value as a trailblazer. Now, it's not going to have enough of a horror quotient to satisfy some in the audience. The makeup effects are quite good for something done 80 years ago. Again, however, people are more familiar with the look sported by Lon Chaney Jr. than the way that Hull looks here. The film, although decently directed by Stuart Walker (whose name was referenced in "The Howling" 46 years later), just doesn't have all that much atmosphere. It begins quite well in Tibet, but really hits its stride once Oland, the actor best known for playing Charlie Chan, makes his first appearance. As it plays out, there might be too much comedy for some tastes, with a lot of time devoted to dotty old landladies Mrs. Whack and Mrs. Moncaster.

But the performances are quite capable, with Hull managing to evoke some sympathy, Oland delivering the most fun performance in the show, and Valerie Hobson being lovely and appealingly feisty as Glendons' wife, who turns to Paul Ames (Lester Matthews) for companionship as her relationship with her husband doesn't seem to be very loving.

Must viewing for any fan of the werewolf sub genre.

Seven out of 10.

This is quite an entertaining older werewolf film. It is quite different than any other movie on lycanthropy that I have seen. We've heard stories of when the wolfsbane (Aconitum) is in bloom the werewolves come out and to keep the werewolves away but this movies gives us a slightly different twist: it is the mariphasa flower that has properties to keep the werewolves from turning (it keeps them human during the full moon). I love this angle - it makes for a good film (watching the werewolves in human and lycan forms battle over the mariphasa).

There is some humor in this film too which helps to keep the movie interesting like the sci-fi horror aspect of the film. Over all this is a fun werewolf movie! I recommend it to fans of werewolves and classic horror.

An interesting note: "Werewolf of London" is considered to be the first film on or about werewolves by quite a number of people. In a way, "Werewolf of London" really is the first werewolf film BUT there are two other silent films that came first: "The Werewolf" (1913) & "Wolf Blood" (1925).

"The Werewolf" (1913) is a lost film burned in a fire of 1924 - so there is no way for me to know just how much of a true werewolf film the story is - is it the first real werewolf film and not "Werewolf of London"?

"Wolf Blood" (1925) deals with a man that is injected with the blood of a wolf and superstition has it that he has become a wolf man. I've seen "Wolf Blood" and it is the first surviving film about werewolves but it is psychological & superstitious fears and NOT a physical reality for the character. So in a way, this is a werewolf film and in another way it is not.

"Werewolf of London" does seem to be the first film on werewolves where we can see a physical transformation from man to werewolf. (Again, we will never know about "The Werewolf" from 1913).

9/10

Universal's first try at a werewolf picture. British botanist Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) is in Tibet searching for a certain moon flower. He finds it but is attacked by a werewolf and survives. Back in Britain he's fascinated by the flower but ignores his young lovely wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson). He's also visited by mysterious Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) who is actually the werewolf who attacked him in Tibet. He wants the flower because its blossoms are an antidote to werewolfrey (as the script puts it). Wilfred refuses to part with it but Yogami steals it...and there's a full moon that night.

This movie has been bashed over the years. It's flatly directed, there's very little werewolf action and Hull HATED making the movie (and it shows in his acting). Also Oland and Hobson are terrible in their roles. Still it's short (only 75 minutes), is never really dull and the werewolf makeup (while minimal) is effective. Also it does provoke a few pleasurable chills here and there. It's not as good as "The Wolf Man" made 6 years later but it's not a bad little horror film. A better lead and better director would have helped.

A scientist is bitten by a wolf while on an expedition in Tibet. Upon returning to London, a full moon and the buds blooming on a Tibetan plant makes for a very interesting change. Oh, no...that darn curse of the wolf man.

Henry Hull takes some getting used to and of course had no idea what was to follow. Warner Oland always brings out the best of those around him. Other worthy players of notice are: Spring Byington, Charlotte Granville and Lawrence Grant.

Note: the musical score will show up in other Universal pictures over the years.

WEREWOLF OF LONDON (Universal, 1935), directed by Stuart Walker, adds to another roaster of Universal's collection of movie monsters of the 1930s, this time a werewolf. Six years before Lon Chaney Jr. Made a lasting impression as THE WOLF MAN (1941), followed by sequels, this early rendition about a man cursed with werewolfism comes off pretty well, in spite of the absence of the usual horror names of Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi in the leads. In fact, without the usual actors of previous horror movies of that era, this one stands on its own merits.

Henry Hull (1890-1977), a character actor with decades of movie roles to his credit, seems to be quite unlikely to be chosen to perform not only in a lead performance (there were so few to his long film credit), but in the title role. Unlike Karloff or Lugosi, Hull never remained associated or type-cast with horror roles during the duration of his career, and like Claude Rains, the star of THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933), Hull was able to perform in diversified roles, in spite that he never got any recognition worthy of receiving an Academy Award nomination. If Hull is to be remembered at all, it should be for his performance as what is reportedly said to be as Hollywood's first werewolf.

The story opens in Tibet with middle-aged Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull), a Botanist, who discovers an extraordinary flower, but after he retrieves it, he is suddenly attacked by some strange creature, but Glendon manages to get it away, coming off with some scratches on his arm. Back in his London laboratory, Glendon works on his experiments and close study of the plant, much to the dismay of his lovely but younger wife, Lisa (Valerie Hobson). She feels somewhat neglected but later finds something to occupy her time after she reacquaints herself with one of the visiting guests, Paul Ames (Lester Matthews), an older gentleman who was once her former sweetheart of years past. While conducting his study, Glendon agrees to let Lisa spend some of her free time with Ames, which eventually causes Glendon to become a little jealous. Also seen attending Glendon's open house exhibits is a mysterious man named Doctor Yogami (Warner Oland) who takes a special interest in Glendon's rare flower find. Yogami tells Glendon the background of this flower which is known for combating werewolves. Of course Glendon thinks Yogami is crazy and refuses to believe such a tale, but then begins to have second thoughts when, during a full moon evening, Glendon, sitting in his reading room, starts to notice hairs growing on his arms, body and face (which causes his pet cat to hump its back and start hissing), finding Glendon unable to control his inner emotions as he prowls the streets of London to commit some ghastly murders. Others in the cast include Spring Byington (Aunt Ettie); Lawrence Grant (Mr. Forsythe); Charlotte Granville (Mrs. Forsythe), Ethel Griffies and Zeffie Tilbury.

This review shouldn't go without commenting on its transformation scene(s) of Hull as he changes into a werewolf little by little while walking behind some pillars with the buildup of the underscoring to the final outlook of Hull's appearance, compliments of make-up expert, Jack Pierce, to wonderful accomplishment.

WEREWOLF OF LONDON can be found on home video and DVD. Cable television broadcasts include Sci-Fi Channel and American Movie Classics prior to 2001. No classic horror movie fan should go without seeing this almost forgotten horror gem, especially on Halloween or on a cold rainy Saturday night. Unlike other horror films from that period, this one produced no sequels. Maybe just as well. (**1/2)

I started watching this once, and fell asleep within the first 10 minutes. Today I decided to watch it properly, and I thought it was pretty good. Not as good as Universal's later "The Wolf Man", but still a good film in it's own right. Henry Hull made a good werewolf, though he wasn't nearly as easy to sympathize with as Cheney Jr.'s later portrayal. I really liked the plot, very different than most werewolf flicks. I especially liked the fact that there were two werewolves present, though we only get to see one transform. Most of the transformations were pretty run-of-the-mill, but the walking transformation was phenomenal. This film's main flaw was it's pacing; even at barely over an hour in length, it seems to drag on very badly. Overall if you're a fan of werewolves, this early feature is a good one to check out.

7/10

As Hollywood's first sound treatment of the wolfman legend, "Werewolf Of London" scores points for setting the stage. But it squanders them with plodding exposition, labored comedy, weak scare scenes, and an insufferable central performance by Henry Hull.

Hull plays Dr. Wilfred Glendon, an intrepid botanist we first encounter on a journey to Tibet, where he collects the rare mariphasa lumina lupina, also known as the phosphorescent wolf flower. But that's not all he collects. He also encounters a strange creature who bites him and afflicts him with an incurable condition, described as "werewolfery" by fellow well-traveled botanist Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland). This makes Dr. Glendon a danger in London, especially to his devoted but alienated wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson).

As Dr. Yogami explains, a werewolf is "neither man nor wolf, but a satanic creature with the worst qualities of both."

Yogami's warning falls on deaf ears, as Dr. Glendon isn't disposed to believe in such "medieval unpleasantness" until he's knee-deep in mauled streetwalkers.

As it turns out, Dr. Glendon isn't really much for any advice in this movie. Part of that is a product of a sluggish script, where general disbelief in the werewolf situation is a constant motif, but also because Hull is so stiff here. He plays Dr. Glendon too mannered and unsympathetic, a terminal miscalculation for a werewolf film, and one Universal wouldn't make again. I'm no wholesale admirer of the later films with Lon Chaney, Jr. as the wolfman, but at least in terms of engaging an audience in his plight, he's much better company than the waxwork Hull presents here.

Director Stuart Walker had the chance to make an unusual kind of film, but with his undernourished script and a raft of one-note supporting players, he is not up to the task of delivering it. So much of the film is present as drawing-room chatter, shot in long close-ups. Even the eerier atmosphere of the film's second half has a perfunctory air about it, interrupted by comic relief sequences that are ineffective at delivering laughs and too obviously tacked on.

Much oxygen is sucked up by a subplot involving Lisa and an old beau, Paul (Lester Matthews), who pitches woo in the form of stuffy banalities like "Oh, my dear, I can't tell you how good it is to hear you laugh again." Walker tries to tie this into Dr. Glendon's rage-infused wolfery, but it doesn't wash. Dr. Glendon is such a stick with his wife in human form you don't really care about their relationship.

The film does benefit from effective transformation sequences, or "transvections" as we see them described in a scholarly book Dr. Glendon is reading. The first sequence showing Glendon mutate as he walks past various visual obstructions is masterfully done, and Jack Pierce's less-is-more aesthetic, forced on him by Hull's unwillingness to go full wolf, is consistently effective.

But the film really dies with the weak first half, with its focus on English high society tea parties and Hull's glacial manner. The ending is rushed and unconvincing, with Hull's parting words especially risible when delivered in his werewolf makeup. "Werewolves Of London" sets a potent formula in motion, but its failure to do much with it proves too nagging by the end.