Werewolf of London

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" 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).

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."

Listen to the Warren Zevon jokes fly…

The secret to telling stories in any media, be it books, plays, TV or movies, is to make the audience care about the characters. The hero of `Werewolf of London,' Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull), manages to earn our sympathy: he's a botanist obsessed with his studies to the point where he neglects his beautiful young wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson). His ordered life disintegrates when he is attacked by a werewolf in Tibet; he realizes he is doomed to the lycanthrope's savage curse at the same time his wife begins flirting with an old flame, Paul (Lester Matthews). The logical foundation of Glendon's life flies apart, and he came face-to-face with his brutal animal nature.

`Werewolf of London,' like most of the classic Universal horror pictures, is heavy on atmosphere, lots of shadows and fog. The transformation sequences and the makeup are good, although not as proficient as `The Wolf Man' six years later. The Werewolf of London struck me as a more sinister creature than the Wolf Man in his deliberateness. The Werewolf would even wear a sort of disguise as he stalked the streets of London, using his intelligence, whereas the Wolf Man was a more savage, animalistic force that attacked anyone nearby. It makes you wonder who would win a fight between the two…

And, as is usual for the old Universal horror films, the acting is very good. Henry Hull moves from stuffy academic to tortured soul, and brings us along for the ride (reminiscent of Basil Rathbone's deterioration in `Son of Frankenstein.') Valerie Hobson is luminous as always, and Warner Oland is quietly menacing as Dr. Yogami, who has an inside knowledge of `werewolfery.'

`Werewolf of London' will probably always be in the shadow of its successor, and rightfully so. There's nothing wrong with `Werewolf,' but there also isn't anything here that `Wolf Man' doesn't do better. It's just part of the horror evolution, a lesson well learned.