CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

MonsterVision99 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.

Leofwine_draca This film, which has the distinction of being the first 'sound' werewolf movie ever made, is pretty enjoyable once you get over the fact that it's invariably dated due to its age. This is an incredibly overlooked film, which is at least as good as THE WOLF MAN, a classic which tends to get all of the attention these days. Although WEREWOLF OF London has quite a slow pacing and many talk-filled scenes, the horror, when it comes, is full-blooded and menacing in the best Universal tradition.The main detractment from this film is the miscasting of Hull as the werewolf. Hull is a straight, somewhat stuffy actor who reminded me a lot of Noel Willman, a similar player who appeared in a number of Hammer films including KISS OF THE VAMPIRE. While Willman made use of his impassive features as a thoroughly nasty villain, Hull in comparison just seems to be rather dry and boring. The one element that repeatedly turns up in werewolf films - the sympathy for the werewolf - is totally missing here, as Hull is such an unlikeable chap. Thankfully, also around is the sinister Warner Oland as the "chief" werewolf who bites Hull in the first place, and Oland plays his Dr. Yogami in the same way Charles Laughton would have done; quietly creepy and disturbing. No '30s horror would be complete without the young loving couple, whose presence here is another unfortunate detraction. Valerie Hobson and Lester Matthews combine to make one of the most sickening do-gooder couples ever to appear in a Universal horror film, and their survival at the end of the film is most unwanted. What WEREWOLF OF London does have are a good music score and nice sets and scenery, which actually do look a bit like how you would imagine London to look, unlike Universal's Americanised Welsh sets in THE WOLF MAN.Hull's villain is less of a beast here, and more of a partially civilised person who retains his intellect. He is forced to kill to avoid turning into a werewolf forever, rather than sheer bloodlust. The first time he changes, he promptly dons a coat and hat to go out on the town! Scenes involving Hull jumping through closed windows and creeping down London alleyways work well, and a sufficient atmosphere of terror is raised - especially when we keep hearing the eerie wolf cries across London. Hull's simplistic and minimal makeup job is also very effective, making him a memorable villain. WEREWOLF OF London isn't a great film, but it should be considered a minor classic and stands up well against the other biggies of the decade.

Bill Slocum As Hollywood's first sound treatment of the wolfman legend, "Werewolf Of London" scores points for setting the stage. But it squanders them with plodding exposition, labored comedy, weak scare scenes, and an insufferable central performance by Henry Hull.Hull plays Dr. Wilfred Glendon, an intrepid botanist we first encounter on a journey to Tibet, where he collects the rare mariphasa lumina lupina, also known as the phosphorescent wolf flower. But that's not all he collects. He also encounters a strange creature who bites him and afflicts him with an incurable condition, described as "werewolfery" by fellow well-traveled botanist Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland). This makes Dr. Glendon a danger in London, especially to his devoted but alienated wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson).As Dr. Yogami explains, a werewolf is "neither man nor wolf, but a satanic creature with the worst qualities of both."Yogami's warning falls on deaf ears, as Dr. Glendon isn't disposed to believe in such "medieval unpleasantness" until he's knee-deep in mauled streetwalkers.As it turns out, Dr. Glendon isn't really much for any advice in this movie. Part of that is a product of a sluggish script, where general disbelief in the werewolf situation is a constant motif, but also because Hull is so stiff here. He plays Dr. Glendon too mannered and unsympathetic, a terminal miscalculation for a werewolf film, and one Universal wouldn't make again. I'm no wholesale admirer of the later films with Lon Chaney, Jr. as the wolfman, but at least in terms of engaging an audience in his plight, he's much better company than the waxwork Hull presents here.Director Stuart Walker had the chance to make an unusual kind of film, but with his undernourished script and a raft of one-note supporting players, he is not up to the task of delivering it. So much of the film is present as drawing-room chatter, shot in long close-ups. Even the eerier atmosphere of the film's second half has a perfunctory air about it, interrupted by comic relief sequences that are ineffective at delivering laughs and too obviously tacked on.Much oxygen is sucked up by a subplot involving Lisa and an old beau, Paul (Lester Matthews), who pitches woo in the form of stuffy banalities like "Oh, my dear, I can't tell you how good it is to hear you laugh again." Walker tries to tie this into Dr. Glendon's rage-infused wolfery, but it doesn't wash. Dr. Glendon is such a stick with his wife in human form you don't really care about their relationship.The film does benefit from effective transformation sequences, or "transvections" as we see them described in a scholarly book Dr. Glendon is reading. The first sequence showing Glendon mutate as he walks past various visual obstructions is masterfully done, and Jack Pierce's less-is-more aesthetic, forced on him by Hull's unwillingness to go full wolf, is consistently effective.But the film really dies with the weak first half, with its focus on English high society tea parties and Hull's glacial manner. The ending is rushed and unconvincing, with Hull's parting words especially risible when delivered in his werewolf makeup. "Werewolves Of London" sets a potent formula in motion, but its failure to do much with it proves too nagging by the end.

TheLittleSongbird That is in no way saying that Werewolf of London is bad because it isn't. In fact as a film while very problematic it is above average, and a number of the good things are great.What was especially good about Werewolf of London was the production values. Handsomely shot with atmospheric lighting and sets that are both sumptuous and Gothic, the film looks great, as does the werewolf make-up and effects that actually looks animalistic and werewolf-like. Werewolf of London does have some good atmosphere and there are some scenes that do give off chills, the stalking through the zoo has some suspense but the standouts were the transformation scenes, for 1930s Universal they were in my opinion outstandingly good. Coming off best of these transformation scenes was the one with Glendon becoming less of a man and more of a werewolf surrounded by pillars.Some of the dialogue is interesting and doesn't come over as too stilted, melodramatic or corny, the music score is suitably eerie and while the acting is variable three of the actors especially come off well. Valerie Hobson is alluring and touching, succeeding in bringing some heart into the film and is much more than just a "scream queen". Spring Byington seems to be enjoying herself and like Hobson bringing some heart into the film Byington succeeds in injecting a little fun. And Warner Oland is wonderfully mysterious.I do agree however that Henry Hull was lacking in the lead role, Glendon was written very unsympathetically in the first place but Hull plays him also very remote and cold so it was rather difficult to relate to him. Lester Matthews is very stiff and Ethel Griffies and Zeffie Tilbury were, for my tastes, very annoying and their comic relief unfunny and at times out of place. The film has some great moments but some of the film is a bit of a drag and lacking in suspense, tension and scares, while the ending is rushed and felt too easy. The love triangle is occasionally touching but overall underdeveloped.All in all, an above average film with great things but has a lot of problems that stop it from being more than it was. It does deserve to be known as more than just the first werewolf film but it is for me not one of the best examples, The Wolf Man and Curse of the Werewolf while not flawless came over stronger. 6/10 Bethany Cox