The film follows Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull), a wealthy British botanist who is bitten by a werewolf while searching for a rare flower in Tibet. He returns to London, where his lycanthropy causes him to sequester himself during the full moon in an (unsuccessful) attempt to keep from killing innocent bystanders, particularly his wife Lisa (Valeria Hobson). There is hope, however, as the Tibetan flower he returned with (which only blooms in the moonlight) can be used to suppress his lycanthropic transformations. Whether he can utilize it before his wolfish self has its way with Lisa, however, presses on his increasingly unstable psyche.
This film is, in every respect, inferior to 1941's "The Wolf Man" (which Universal would also produce a mere 6 years later). The acting and directing are both well enough, I suppose - neither helping nor hindering the final presentation. The writing, however, is absolutely atrocious. More time is spent making idle Victorian Chatter than producing lycanthropic Victorian horror. The film seems to spend more time developing upper class parties than moon-lit London alleys. The fully costumed, fully made-up werewolf looks more like Eddie Munster than Larry Talbot (effectively more comic than terrific).
The one thing that could be said in praise of this movie is its superb editing. The transformation of Glendon from man to wolf-man is done with cleverly hidden cuts, which is as effective today as it likely was upon its release (he steps behind something which precludes him from view, only to step out with another layer of make-up - done several times to complete the transformation).
The film's largest contribution is the clear groundwork it laid for "The Wolf Man" (1941) as the modern werewolf film. Fans of early horror (particularly werewolf horror) should find this film at least partially interesting. Unfortunately, however, this film is ultimately boring and better executed by its cinematic progeny.
This film is, in every respect, inferior to 1941's "The Wolf Man" (which Universal would also produce a mere 6 years later). The acting and directing are both well enough, I suppose - neither helping nor hindering the final presentation. The writing, however, is absolutely atrocious. More time is spent making idle Victorian Chatter than producing lycanthropic Victorian horror. The film seems to spend more time developing upper class parties than moon-lit London alleys. The fully costumed, fully made-up werewolf looks more like Eddie Munster than Larry Talbot (effectively more comic than terrific).
The one thing that could be said in praise of this movie is its superb editing. The transformation of Glendon from man to wolf-man is done with cleverly hidden cuts, which is as effective today as it likely was upon its release (he steps behind something which precludes him from view, only to step out with another layer of make-up - done several times to complete the transformation).
The film's largest contribution is the clear groundwork it laid for "The Wolf Man" (1941) as the modern werewolf film. Fans of early horror (particularly werewolf horror) should find this film at least partially interesting. Unfortunately, however, this film is ultimately boring and better executed by its cinematic progeny.