Werewolf of London

“The werewolf is neither man nor wolf, but a Satanic creature with the worst qualities of both.”

Not to be confused with An American Werewolf in London, this movie brings us a werewolf six years before the more well-known Lon Chaney Jr. version of the lycanthrope in The Wolfman, which I will review in the future.

Back to reviewing the Universal Monster classics from my boxed set, we visit an obscure take on the werewolf concept. This film's main stars are Henry Hull as Doctor Wilfred Glendon, who is also our wolfman from the title; Valerie Hobson as Lisa Glendon, wife of the aforementioned doctor; Warner Oland as the mysterious Dr. Yogami; and Lester Matthews as Paul Ames, Lisa’s previous sweetheart.

The film opens with Dr. Glendon, a renowned botanist, on an expedition to Tibet for a rare flower that only blooms in moonlight. While there, he does find the rare Mariphasa lumina lupina plant he sought, but is attacked by some wild hybrid creature, although he returns to London with samples of the exotic plant, despite that unpleasant encounter.

That attack is where the title of the movie comes from, as Dr. Glendon soon finds himself dealing with both his own transformations into a bestial lycanthrope, Lisa’s old heartthrob Paul obviously still longing for her and her for him, and the enigmatic Dr. Yogami, who has his own agenda regarding werewolves and the exotic plant that Glendon has brought with him. This gives us a love triangle, a capricious stranger, several acts of violence that baffle the authorities (more surprising in 1935 than today, I'm sure), and in the end, we have a movie that while it can be considered a classic, I don't feel it's as important to horror history than the more famous Universal horror movies of the time.

"I hope no one notices the mess I made on the rug."

Dr. Glendon is a tragic and reluctant monster, which makes him sympathetic for much of the film. He can be downright caustic at times but judging by how others react to him being unpleasant in such a way, this is not his normal behavior; it instead seems to be his frustration with his condition and the terrible things he does while transformed. This works well, and I feel these are the best parts of the film — his conflict with himself and how he deals with those around him, who are mostly, although not entirely in some cases, concerned for him and how much he's changed. I've never seen Hull in anything else, despite an impressive list of stage and screen appearances, but his performance is the best part of this film. The ending is genuinely moving too, with some of the best performances from him and Valerie Hobson in the entire picture.

This movie isn’t as cheesy or poorly thought-out as some of the lesser Universal horror classics, but it does commit the unforgivable crime of being rather dull for much of the film. I’m generally fine with slower-paced stories in movies, TV shows, and video games; it’s why I still love classic Doctor Who more than new Who after all, and I like a lot of buildup and development before things hit a crescendo. But this movie mostly plods along, despite only being 75 minutes long. It has some moments of tension, but it comes off more as a weird love triangle than a horror movie, with a dash of racism due to the character of Dr. Yogami.

So it isn’t as highly recommended as the other, more well-known and entertaining Universal horror movies are, but it is enjoyable to a degree, and it’s fun to see the werewolf makeup used on Hull, which is actually very good considering it’s from 1935. It’s not a terrible watch, hence the rating I’ve given it, although I pondered giving it as low as a 1.5, as it just isn’t as exciting as I feel a werewolf movie should be.

"For the last time, you can't borrow my Bugs Bunny DVDs!"

I have seen some say that perhaps with a better cast, especially a leading man, it would be more well-regarded. But I would argue that the main cast is fine. Despite the conjecture that is largely focused on Henry Hull's performance here, I don't find him at fault, and in fact, as I've said before, I feel his performance is the best part of this film. It's the script and story itself that make it lackluster. Maybe it would have worked better with Lugosi or Karloff or someone else, but I don't think that would have made this movie as a whole any better. We just have to wait for Lon Chaney Jr. to revisit the monster in a few years with a better script.

"Which bottle has the wolfman treats?"

Two bestial howls out of four.

— Valerie Hobson was also Elizabeth in Bride of Frankenstein. While I felt she was mostly decent there, with a couple exceptions, her performance is better here.

— Warner Oland was Charlie Chan for several movies and played Asian characters often back then. It’s important to note that he’s of Swedish lineage, so not really the best choice for these roles, but this is an issue in other films and with other performers at that time.

— Jack Pierce is the makeup artist for the werewolf here and the subsequent Wolfman movie for Lon Chaney. Pierce also worked on Karloff’s makeup for his various appearances as Frankenstein’s monster.

— Speaking of Jack Pierce, he had wanted a more monstrous appearance for the werewolf, but Hull wanted his face to still look enough like him so that those that saw him in his bestial form knew it was him. Pierce ended up using his preferred version on Lon Chaney Jr. in the later Wolfman film.

— The werewolf howls are a combination of Hull’s voice and an actual timber wolf, which I admit, is kind of cool.

Morella is a Gen Xer who likes strange things a bit too much.

• Back to Movie Reviews home