Werewolf of London

"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.

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.

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.

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).

WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935) does not satisfy as a whole, but it does have some memorable spots. The basic plot tells of a introverted botanist (Henry Hull) who is stricken with the ability to become a werewolf. The film's great moments are peppered through out. There's the beautifully photographed scene in Tibet, where moonlight is almost sun-beach bright. There's the bit in the zoo with a cockney hag fooling around with the zookeeper. Hull's perfomance is superb. We feel his anger over his failed marriage to much younger Valarie Hobson, his fear over his new affiction. It's a shame the screenwriters didn't dwell on his marriage more. The film has a humdinger of an ending, especially with the werewolf's last line.