IMDb user comments for
Werewolf of London (1935)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

48 comments in total

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Werewolf Of London (1935) **1/2, 16 August 2005

Author: MARIO GAUCI (marrod@onvol.net) from Naxxar, Malta

An interesting first outing in the werewolf stakes for Universal, but which has been unfairly maligned in the wake of the more popular THE WOLF MAN (1941). The film has a lot going for it, not the least of which are its credible, if unsympathetic, leads (Henry Hull and Warner Oland playing two antagonistic werewolves!) and subtle, but undeniably effective, use of make-up (which is actually preferable to Lon Chaney Jr.'s in the later film!). The werewolf legend is here treated in a scientific, quasi-theological way (a nod, perhaps, to the 1931 version of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE - as are the costume and general habits of Hull's werewolf, by the way) rather than the psychological approach, steeped in superstition, of the Chaney/Larry Talbot films.

The supporting cast, however, is variable: Valerie Hobson is pretty but the role is unworthy of her, especially as she is forced to share the romantic spotlight with the stiff Lester Matthews; Spring Byington as a dotty socialite, then, not to mention Zeffie Tilbury and Ethel Griffies as drunken crones, are a matter of taste in the Una O'Connor vein - but, really, their various antics don't harm the film in any serious way for me. WEREWOLF OF London rises to a good climax where Hull kills Oland and pursues Hobson with the same intent, until he is stopped by a normal(!) - as opposed to the traditional silver - bullet, for which he is actually thankful; in this, he is no worse than Chaney who is hellbent on self-destruction in each and every one of his portrayals of Larry Talbot and, as such, I can't understand the criticism directed towards this scene in some circles!

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
The Curse of the Werewolf, 3 July 2001
Author: lugonian from Kissimmee, Florida

"The Werewolf of London" (Universal, 1935), directed by Stuart Walker, adds to another roaster of Universal's collection of movie monsters of the 1930s, this time a werewolf. Six years before Lon Chaney Jr. made a lasting impression as "The Wolf Man" (1941), followed by sequels, this early rendition about a man cursed with werewolfism comes off pretty well, in spite of the absence of the usual horror names of Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi in the leads. In fact, without the usual actors of previous horror movies of that era, this one stands on its own merits.

Henry Hull (1890-1977), a character actor with decades of movie roles to his credit, seems to be quite unlikely to be chosen to perform not only in a lead performance (there were so few to his long film credit), but in the title role. Unlike Karloff or Lugosi, Hull never remained associated or type-cast with horror roles during the duration of his career, and like Claude Rains, the star of "The Invisible Man" (1933), Hull was able to perform in diversified roles, in spite that he never got any recognition worthy of receiving an Academy Award nomination. But if Hull is to be remembered at all, it should be for his performance as what is reportedly said to be as Hollywood's first werewolf.

The story opens in Tibet with middle-aged Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull), a Botanist, who discovers an extraordinary flower, but after he retrieves it, he is suddenly attacked by some strange creature, but Glendon manages to get it away, coming off with some scratches on his arm. Back in his London laboratory, Glendon works on his experiments and close study of the plant, much to the dismay of his lovely but younger wife, Lisa (Valerie Hobson). She feels somewhat neglected but later finds something to occupy her time after she reacquaints herself with one of the visiting guests, Paul Ames (Lester Matthews), an older gentleman who was once her former sweetheart of years past. While conducting his study, Glendon agrees to let Lisa spend some of her free time with Ames, which eventually causes Glendon to become a little jealous. Also seen attending Glendon's open house exhibits is a mysterious man named Doctor Yogami (Warner Oland) who takes a special interest in Glendon's rare flower find. Yogami tells Glendon the background of this flower which is known for combating werewolves. Of course Glendon thinks Yogami is crazy and refuses to believe such a tale, but then begins to have second thoughts when, during a full moon evening, Glendon, sitting in his reading room, starts to notice hairs growing on his arms, body and face (which causes his pet cat to hump its back and start hissing), finding Glendon unable to control his inner emotions as he prowls the streets of London to commit some ghastly murders. But before the story comes to a somewhat rushed climax, Glendon learns the true dark secret about Doctor Yogami.

Aside from some tense moments, the movie features "comedy relief" headed by Spring Byington as Aunt Ettie, who, in one scene, becomes nauseous after witnessing a live frog being fed to a man-eating-flower; Ethel Griffies and Zeffie Tilbury as two old drunken and very nosy English floosies who have their usual "friendly" disagreements while managing both bar and upstairs apartments; Lawrence Grant and Charlotte Granville as Mr. and Mrs. Forsythe; among others. This review shouldn't go without commenting on its fine transformation scene(s) of Hull as he changes into a werewolf little by little while walking behind some pillars, with the buildup of the underscoring to the final outlook of Hull's appearance as the werewolf, compliments of make-up expert, Jack Pierce.

"The Werewolf of London" can be found as a video movie rental, and was formerly shown on both the Sci-Fi Channel and American Movie Classics prior to 2001. No classic horror movie fan should go without seeing this almost forgotten horror gem, especially on Halloween or on a cold rainy Saturday night. Unlike other horror films from that period, this one produced no sequels. Maybe I could be thankful for that. (**1/2)

---

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Werewolves of London again, 21 August 2003
Author: oyason from Seattle

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.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
By the Light of the Silvery Moon, 13 July 2000
Author: BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC

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.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Draw Blood!, 19 September 2001
Author: Shield-3 from Kansas City, MO, USA

Listen to the Warren Zevon jokes fly…

The secret to telling stories in any media, be it books, plays, TV or movies, is to make the audience care about the characters. The hero of `Werewolf of London,' Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull), manages to earn our sympathy: he's a botanist obsessed with his studies to the point where he neglects his beautiful young wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson). His ordered life disintegrates when he is attacked by a werewolf in Tibet; he realizes he is doomed to the lycanthrope's savage curse at the same time his wife begins flirting with an old flame, Paul (Lester Matthews). The logical foundation of Glendon's life flies apart, and he came face-to-face with his brutal animal nature.

`Werewolf of London,' like most of the classic Universal horror pictures, is heavy on atmosphere, lots of shadows and fog. The transformation sequences and the makeup are good, although not as proficient as `The Wolf Man' six years later. The Werewolf of London struck me as a more sinister creature than the Wolf Man in his deliberateness. The Werewolf would even wear a sort of disguise as he stalked the streets of London, using his intelligence, whereas the Wolf Man was a more savage, animalistic force that attacked anyone nearby. It makes you wonder who would win a fight between the two…

And, as is usual for the old Universal horror films, the acting is very good. Henry Hull moves from stuffy academic to tortured soul, and brings us along for the ride (reminiscent of Basil Rathbone's deterioration in `Son of Frankenstein.') Valerie Hobson is luminous as always, and Warner Oland is quietly menacing as Dr. Yogami, who has an inside knowledge of `werewolfery.'

`Werewolf of London' will probably always be in the shadow of its successor, and rightfully so. There's nothing wrong with `Werewolf,' but there also isn't anything here that `Wolf Man' doesn't do better. It's just part of the horror evolution, a lesson well learned.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
A minor classic., 3 December 2001
Author: Glenn Andreiev (gandreiev@aol.com) from Huntington, NY

WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935) does not satisfy as a whole, but it does have some memorable spots. The basic plot tells of a introverted botanist (Henry Hull) who is stricken with the ability to become a werewolf. The film's great moments are peppered through out. There's the beautifully photographed scene in Tibet, where moonlight is almost sun-beach bright. There's the bit in the zoo with a cockney hag fooling around with the zookeeper. Hull's perfomance is superb. We feel his anger over his failed marriage to much younger Valarie Hobson, his fear over his new affiction. It's a shame the screenwriters didn't dwell on his marriage more. The film has a humdinger of an ending, especially with the werewolf's last line.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
First werewolf movie isn't as great as some of the later ones, 20 June 2005

Author: The_Void from Beverley Hills, England

Predating the seminal classic, 'The Wolf Man', by six years; Werewolf of London represents Universal's first foray into the werewolf sub-genre and is an obvious blueprint for their later film. The film is, therefore, notable because it is one of, if not the very first werewolf film ever made; and as werewolf movies now have their own niche within the horror genre, much is owed to this movie. However, despite this; the film itself is somewhat less than brilliant. It's certainly not bad - but it constantly feels as if more could have been made of it, and because of that it gives off a very unfinished sort of feel. At just seventy minutes, the film is very short; which is both a blessing and a curse as, although the film doesn't go over the top with details; it also doesn't go very far with any of the elements of the plot. There isn't a great deal of horror in the movie either; and the only real creepy parts are those when the werewolf is on screen. However, as this movie was made in the thirties; the wolf itself has that 'shaven' look, which, like the rest of the film; comes off as unfinished.

The plot is very similar to The Wolf Man as it follows a scientist who is bitten by a werewolf while on an expedition somewhere. Of course, that bad fortune now means that our protagonist is a werewolf too, and although there's no cure for 'werewolfism', there is a prevention, which comes in the form of some weird plant that blooms by moonlight. The action basically follows our scientist as he becomes a werewolf by night and tries to solve his problem by day. The atmosphere in the movie isn't bad, but has nothing on the atmosphere of many earlier - and later - classics from the time period. Because of the horrid werewolf effects, it's hard to take the film seriously and when combined with the lack of sympathy for the lead character; the werewolf plot fails to generate any real tension or a foreboding feeling. Still, this film does have it's good points; the twist in the tale is very good, and the plot, although not really well done, does have it's moments. If you're a fan of Universal horror or classic horror in general, you'll probably find something to like here...just don't go in expecting brilliance, because you wont find it.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Underrated Horror Classic, 31 October 2001

Author: (bsmith5552@rogers.com) from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

"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.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
living in the shadows..., 22 February 2005

Author: simeon_flake

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.

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
A GOOD WEREWOLF MOVIE, 31 October 1999

Author: TEXICAN-2 from Benbrook, Texas

It is said that Henry Hull didn't want to do this role, and therefore didn't give his all. You could fool me. As far as I'm concerned his portrayal of the doom Dr. Glendon was excellent. He was supposed to be dull, absorbed in his work, rather cold and indifferent to his wife. Hull did just that. Watch the show and think about his character, and you've got a tremendous portrait of a doom person. Hobson was absolutely a gorgeous woman and played the ignored wife, Lisa, perfectly.

I was kind of surprised that the censors let the obvious renewed attraction between Lisa and her old friend Paul, Lester Matthews, fly in our face. Okay, it didn't show them doing anything but sharing a friendship and giving Lisa a reprieve from her dull marriage, but you knew that there was romance in the air between them. It's not like she was trying to be unfaithful, Hull was pushing her away. If remade today, there would probably be a hot and sweaty scene between the Lisa/Paul characters to show the attraction.

You have to give high marks for Hull's first transformation. Every werewolf transformation that I had seen to that point (the fifties), the actor had stayed stationary for the change. This has Hull walking from his house across the courtyard to his lab. It's not perfect, my god it was 1935, but it was the effort to do what no one else (that I know of) had done before.

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history