Werewolf of London (1935)

Werewolf of London (1935) was a pleasant surprise, not that I wasn't expecting much from the first (mainstream) werewolf film, but I wasn't expecting it to be as good or better than the Wolfman (1941) and I will say that it managed to be on the same level of greatness.Perhaps not all of the actors do a convincing job and some scenes could be considered to be very poorly executed, but I will say that most of the film its quite good. This movie is also responsible for making up most of the werewolf myth, at least the more well known version of the myth.I also noticed the intentional similarities between this film and An American Werewolf in London (1981), more than just the name, they share many other elements, from the two men being attacked at the beginning of the film, to the very end.Overall, its a pretty great horror film, I would recommend it to horror fans, mostly because I don't think enough people have seen it, most people think of The Wolf Man when they think of classic werewolf movies, and with good reason, but this one also had a huge part in the genre.

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.

5 years ago, I would never thought I would even try to watch black and white movie but 5 years later , I am not just watching it, I am actually really enjoy 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 not take 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!