Werewolf of London

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).

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.

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/

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.