Werewolf of London (1935)

Simply Perfect

Memorable, crazy movie

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

While procuring a rare Tibetan plant, Dr. Glendon (Henry Hull) is attacked and bitten by a fur-upholstered creature of the lycanthropic persuasion. Back home in London, Glendon, w/ his precious plant secured in his amazing lab, goes about his normal life. Oh no! Someone else is interested in his new-found flora! A certain Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) shows an unhealthy interest in Glendon's "moon flower". The two men soon realize a mutual need of the flower, having to do w/ their shared, titular malady. If that isn't bad enough, Glendon's wife, Lisa (Valerie Hobson) is being wooed by a dashing upstart named Paul Ames (Lester Matthews)! With Glendon growing more surly w/ each passing moment, death and doom result. WEREWOLF OF LONDON is one of the better movies of its type, w/ Hull's sinister / sympathetic portrayal making it a classic in its own right. Highly recommended...

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.

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.

Universal's first try at a werewolf picture. British botanist Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) is in Tibet searching for a certain moon flower. He finds it but is attacked by a werewolf and survives. Back in Britain he's fascinated by the flower but ignores his young lovely wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson). He's also visited by mysterious Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) who is actually the werewolf who attacked him in Tibet. He wants the flower because its blossoms are an antidote to werewolfrey (as the script puts it). Wilfred refuses to part with it but Yogami steals it...and there's a full moon that night.This movie has been bashed over the years. It's flatly directed, there's very little werewolf action and Hull HATED making the movie (and it shows in his acting). Also Oland and Hobson are terrible in their roles. Still it's short (only 75 minutes), is never really dull and the werewolf makeup (while minimal) is effective. Also it does provoke a few pleasurable chills here and there. It's not as good as "The Wolf Man" made 6 years later but it's not a bad little horror film. A better lead and better director would have helped.