Werewolf of London (1935)

Ignoring filmmaking limitations of the time it was made, this is still an intensely boring film. I can't think of a film where less happens. Luckily the forthcoming movie Carnivore: Werewolf of London (2017) doesn't seem to have taken inspiration from the 1935 dull-a-thon - here's hoping that will be a great film.

Other reviewers are giving a lot of credence to this film for being the first talkie of its genre. Unfortunately, it doesn't wear its 80+ years well. The story is the standard monster flick plot that we've seen over and over again. You'll be able to predict the plot at least 30 minutes into the future after the first 10 minutes. The acting is typical 30's -- loud, melodramatic, and wholly unbelievable. The sound quality is also typical 30's -- the white noise level is so high that it almost drowns out the dialogue. These are all technical faults that one might be prepared to forgive in an old "classic." Unfortunately, this isn't a classic so the faults simply make it unwatchable.I can only recommend this if you want to watch it for its historical significance. As a movie for entertainment purposes... don't bother.

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!