Werewolf of London

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.

"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.

Universal's first foray into lycanthropy was this version of a man that goes to Tibet in search of a rare flower. He is bitten by a werewolf. He then leaves Tibet for his home in London with said plant which flowering buds have the ability to off-set the "disease" at least for that evening against the full moon. This film is entertaining and has many good points. It has a great score and lots of wonderful scenes and sets. Many of the character actors are quite good, in particular Spring Byington and Valerie Hobson. Warner Oland steals the acting honors as an adversary to Dr. Glendon, the titular werewolf. Oland, the great Charlie Chan himself, hams it up as another werewolf in search of the flowering buds. The film has a lot of comedy in it, with several scenes between two friendly landladies creating most of the laughs. I think the picture really suffers from the script, which really does not help create werewolf folklore like The Wolfman did later for Universal. The make-up by Jack Pierce is pretty good, but actor Henry Hull is very dull in his lead role. Hull plays the beast with some passion but his role as the doctor is the epitome of boredom. Nonetheless I found the film very entertaining and recommend it.

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.