Werewolf of London Reviews

  • Jun 08, 2018

    The werewolf movie that started it all. A great classic.

    The werewolf movie that started it all. A great classic.

  • Jul 16, 2016

    Not to be comfused with 1981's horror comedy film, "An American Werewolf in London", and nether with the classic 1941 "The Wolfman". I got the feeling that, because of Lon Chaney's success as the Wolfman, this movie was negolected pretty much. But it's too bad, because it has an interesting and intriguing plot and the characters are well developped. But in general, it's pretty good, and I actually prefered the make-up effects in this movie, then the one of the Wolfman. Anyways, recommended !!

    Not to be comfused with 1981's horror comedy film, "An American Werewolf in London", and nether with the classic 1941 "The Wolfman". I got the feeling that, because of Lon Chaney's success as the Wolfman, this movie was negolected pretty much. But it's too bad, because it has an interesting and intriguing plot and the characters are well developped. But in general, it's pretty good, and I actually prefered the make-up effects in this movie, then the one of the Wolfman. Anyways, recommended !!

  • Mar 07, 2016

    Worthy horror classic, it's status is bona fide , Werewolf of London is very good for the time period.

    Worthy horror classic, it's status is bona fide , Werewolf of London is very good for the time period.

  • Jan 16, 2016

    The most believable of all the Universal scientists, Hull's buttoned-up angular Britishness --his clothes are too small; he seems uncomfortable in his gawky body. It's easy to imagine him boring you in a lecture while fumbling nervously through his texts, his sleeves ink-stained and frayed. His slavish devotion to science makes his obligations to conform to British upper class decorum a challenge he is just not up to. Hull seems like the real thing. And his face, all angles and eyebrows, looks half wolf all ready, and that's the genius of this particular wolf make-up here as opposed to the 1941 Wolf Man's, pouffy hair and doggie nose. The script for Wolf Man is all about whether Lon's imagining his affliction or not, and the subtext reflected America's anxiety about getting sucked back into another European conflict it doesn't quite understand.Werewolf of London on the other hand is about science and drug addiction, the pain of watching powerless from deep within the prison of your madness as your beautiful, warm sweet wife settles for her consolation prize of a doting rebound male.

    The most believable of all the Universal scientists, Hull's buttoned-up angular Britishness --his clothes are too small; he seems uncomfortable in his gawky body. It's easy to imagine him boring you in a lecture while fumbling nervously through his texts, his sleeves ink-stained and frayed. His slavish devotion to science makes his obligations to conform to British upper class decorum a challenge he is just not up to. Hull seems like the real thing. And his face, all angles and eyebrows, looks half wolf all ready, and that's the genius of this particular wolf make-up here as opposed to the 1941 Wolf Man's, pouffy hair and doggie nose. The script for Wolf Man is all about whether Lon's imagining his affliction or not, and the subtext reflected America's anxiety about getting sucked back into another European conflict it doesn't quite understand.Werewolf of London on the other hand is about science and drug addiction, the pain of watching powerless from deep within the prison of your madness as your beautiful, warm sweet wife settles for her consolation prize of a doting rebound male.

  • Jan 12, 2016

    The original Universal werewolf movie makes interesting viewing looking back after the werewolf formula is now so well established. This movie can be viewed as a prototype. You can see the basic element of the werewolf being a tragic figure rather than pure evil, for example. Most of the rest of the mythology, though, is not carried over into later movies so you could think of the Lon Chaney Jr. Werewolf as actually being a reboot to use our modern terms. As a 1930's monster movie, it's better than average. The supporting cast is fun though the lead is just OK. It was quite disappointing that we never get to see a match between the feral forms of Yogami and Glendon. The movie really feels like that should have been the climax. Overall, it's an entertaining and historically interesting movie.

    The original Universal werewolf movie makes interesting viewing looking back after the werewolf formula is now so well established. This movie can be viewed as a prototype. You can see the basic element of the werewolf being a tragic figure rather than pure evil, for example. Most of the rest of the mythology, though, is not carried over into later movies so you could think of the Lon Chaney Jr. Werewolf as actually being a reboot to use our modern terms. As a 1930's monster movie, it's better than average. The supporting cast is fun though the lead is just OK. It was quite disappointing that we never get to see a match between the feral forms of Yogami and Glendon. The movie really feels like that should have been the climax. Overall, it's an entertaining and historically interesting movie.

  • Nov 27, 2015

    some funny parts but very boring

    some funny parts but very boring

  • Nov 21, 2015

    A botanist (Henry Hull) ventures to Tibet in search of a rare flower and gets bitten by a werewolf for his troubles. The flower itself is a salve for the man's condition, but his struggle is exasperated by the plant's reluctance to grow in England, his failing relationship with his wife (Valerie Hobson), and a rival botanist who wants the plant all to himself (Warner Oland). Werewolf Of London is Universal's largely-forgotten attempt to kickstart a werewolf movie franchise in the immediate wake of Dracula and Frankenstein's success. The Wolf Man would do much better six years after this movie underperformed, but I'd argue that Werewolf Of London is a more compelling movie. The characters are dynamic, the pacing is strong, and that unique atmosphere found in Universal monster movies is present in abundance.

    A botanist (Henry Hull) ventures to Tibet in search of a rare flower and gets bitten by a werewolf for his troubles. The flower itself is a salve for the man's condition, but his struggle is exasperated by the plant's reluctance to grow in England, his failing relationship with his wife (Valerie Hobson), and a rival botanist who wants the plant all to himself (Warner Oland). Werewolf Of London is Universal's largely-forgotten attempt to kickstart a werewolf movie franchise in the immediate wake of Dracula and Frankenstein's success. The Wolf Man would do much better six years after this movie underperformed, but I'd argue that Werewolf Of London is a more compelling movie. The characters are dynamic, the pacing is strong, and that unique atmosphere found in Universal monster movies is present in abundance.

  • Apr 25, 2015

    Not too terrific of a werewolf movie, the story line has a slow pace with only a few thrilling moments. The make-up is nice, but not as memorable as other Universal monsters. Decent ending, but the beginning is the best bit which makes the rest of the film bit of a low note.

    Not too terrific of a werewolf movie, the story line has a slow pace with only a few thrilling moments. The make-up is nice, but not as memorable as other Universal monsters. Decent ending, but the beginning is the best bit which makes the rest of the film bit of a low note.

  • Dann M Super Reviewer
    Nov 03, 2014

    Universal's first attempt at a werewolf series, Werewolf of London, delivers some scares but lacks compelling characters. The story follows a botanist who contracts a werewolf bite while searching for a rare flower in Tibet, and upon his return to London he's told that he'll turn into a ravenous werewolf unless he's able to cultivate the Tibetan flower into an antidote. Unfortunately, the characters are poorly developed (particularly the protagonist Dr. Glendon), and thus it's hard to get invested in their fates. However, the wolf make-up is pretty good, creating a frightening, demonic creature. While there's a lot of exciting action and some intense scenes, overall Werewolf of London feels rather bland.

    Universal's first attempt at a werewolf series, Werewolf of London, delivers some scares but lacks compelling characters. The story follows a botanist who contracts a werewolf bite while searching for a rare flower in Tibet, and upon his return to London he's told that he'll turn into a ravenous werewolf unless he's able to cultivate the Tibetan flower into an antidote. Unfortunately, the characters are poorly developed (particularly the protagonist Dr. Glendon), and thus it's hard to get invested in their fates. However, the wolf make-up is pretty good, creating a frightening, demonic creature. While there's a lot of exciting action and some intense scenes, overall Werewolf of London feels rather bland.

  • Jeff B Super Reviewer
    Oct 21, 2014

    Evincing quite a suspenseful bite, H'Wood's first mainstream werewolf movie plays out more like a lycan Jekyll and Hyde than the iconic reboot that was to follow. Bafflingly, this entertaining gem never caught fire on either side of the Atlantic, but still deserves to be remembered in its own right. True, it leans a little too closely to Robert Louis Stevenson's classic split personality tome, but shows a lot of teeth of its own. The setting rings true, the story keeps you invested, and the monster convinces. End of story. In this unrated Universal horror flick, the juice of a rare Tibetan flower is the only thing that keeps Dr. Glendon (Hull) from turning into a werewolf during a full moon. Stuart Walker (1934's Great Expectations)s direction proves atmospheric enough and the cast delivers beautifully. While title character Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) is never as sympathetic as The Wolf Mans Larry Talbot, his plight nonetheless keeps horror fans' fur flying. Perhaps, the biggest star remains Jack Pierce's pioneering wolfen make-up, experimenting with an early look before going with the now-iconic version Full-Moon-Fever in 1941. Bottom line: Tooth and Awe

    Evincing quite a suspenseful bite, H'Wood's first mainstream werewolf movie plays out more like a lycan Jekyll and Hyde than the iconic reboot that was to follow. Bafflingly, this entertaining gem never caught fire on either side of the Atlantic, but still deserves to be remembered in its own right. True, it leans a little too closely to Robert Louis Stevenson's classic split personality tome, but shows a lot of teeth of its own. The setting rings true, the story keeps you invested, and the monster convinces. End of story. In this unrated Universal horror flick, the juice of a rare Tibetan flower is the only thing that keeps Dr. Glendon (Hull) from turning into a werewolf during a full moon. Stuart Walker (1934's Great Expectations)s direction proves atmospheric enough and the cast delivers beautifully. While title character Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) is never as sympathetic as The Wolf Mans Larry Talbot, his plight nonetheless keeps horror fans' fur flying. Perhaps, the biggest star remains Jack Pierce's pioneering wolfen make-up, experimenting with an early look before going with the now-iconic version Full-Moon-Fever in 1941. Bottom line: Tooth and Awe