Own the rights?
12 out of 13 people found the following review 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.
12 out of 14 people found the following review 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.
9 out of 9 people found the following review 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 8 people found the following review useful: Werewolf Of London (1935) **1/2, 16 August 2005 Author: MARIO GAUCI (marrod@melita.com) from Naxxar, Malta
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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!
8 out of 8 people found the following review 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.
9 out of 10 people found the following review 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 review 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.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: Under-rated werewolf story, 2 September 2008 Author: HagenTronje from United States
In 1933 the first werewolf novel made its appearance. "The Werewolf of Paris" was the pulp creation of Guy Endore, a screenwriter at Universal in the early '30s who for a time seems to have been a horror specialist, working on Universal's "The Raven," and on MGM's "Mark of the Vampire," "Mad Love," and "The Devil Doll." So, as the creator of modern fiction's first werewolf at the height of Hollywood's first horror cycle, Endore's influence on the first werewolf movie—Universal's "The Werewolf of London" in 1935—is fairly certain. It seems highly likely, therefore, that the film should owe something to the novel's perverse eroticism.In "The Werewolf of London" botanist Wilfred Glendon neglects his wife for his work but becomes jealous when his wife's childhood sweetheart arrives at his museum of carnivorous plants. Glendon's passion is for the Marifasa Lupina Lumino, a flower he brought to London from Tibet after being bitten there by a werewolf. He learns that he too is a werewolf and that this flower can temporarily calm the beast. But the "wolf flower" blooms only by moonlight, which Glendon strives to artificially reproduce. The flower's mysterious relationship with the moon also coincides with the traditional belief that the moon's phases govern menstruation. Dr. Yogami, another afflicted lycanthrope, tells Glendon "the werewolf instinctively seeks to kill the thing it loves best." The correlation between the werewolf and the male's drive to assert dominance over the female becomes clearer when Glendon's beast awakens to stalk only women in various sexual roles—street walker, vamp, flirtatious society dame, and his own wife—whose sexuality he desires and fears.In this initial development of the myth the werewolf is a sexual predator, the film encoding references to menstruation and masculine aggression that go back as far as "Red Riding Hood." Indeed, when Glendon queries his landlady about what she would say if he told her a man can become a wolf, she answers, "I'd say I was Little Red Riding Hood." This after her rambling discourse on the brutality of her late husband, "What a man he was." The film's close relation to similar themes in the novel becomes even more apparent when we consider that Endore's werewolf also targets provocative females: a prostitute whom he sexually maims with his teeth, and his nymphomaniac mother whom he rapes. Later his girlfriend allows him to drink her blood in small quantities to quiet the beast within.The film's one major flaw - some extremely awkward dialog - should not distract viewers from the tight plotting and pacing, or from the fact that this first cinematic werewolf is also in many ways the most frightening, his sparse makeup emphasizing the archetypal definition of a werewolf as "neither man nor wolf, but a satanic creature with the worst qualities of both." Henry Hull may be a dud as Glendon, but he is truly terrifying as the werewolf, and the lighting on his face enhances his grotesqueness. Cinematographer Charles Stumar had plied his craft for a time in Germany, the birthplace of Gothic cinema, and worked on "The Mummy" in 1932 with legendary cameraman-turned-director Karl Freund.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: Good but slow, 8 April 2006 Author: Vampenguin from Canada
I started watching this once, and fell asleep within the first 10 minutes. Today I decided to watch it properly, and I thought it was pretty good. Not as good as Universal's later "The Wolf Man", but still a good film in it's own right. Henry Hull made a good werewolf, though he wasn't nearly as easy to sympathize with as Cheney Jr.'s later portrayal. I really liked the plot, very different than most werewolf flicks. I especially liked the fact that there were two werewolves present, though we only get to see one transform. Most of the transformations were pretty run-of-the-mill, but the walking transformation was phenomenal. This film's main flaw was it's pacing; even at barely over an hour in length, it seems to drag on very badly. Overall if you're a fan of werewolves, this early feature is a good one to check out.7/10
3 out of 3 people found the following review 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.
Add another review
