Sunday, January 10, 2016


Werewolf of London Movie Review

Dr. Glendon (Henry Hull) visits Tibet and returns to London with very a mysterious flower. As fate would have it, it's the only thing that can cure him of the "werewolfery" (Dr. Yogami's term, not mine) he contracts after being attacked by a hairy-handed gent. This 1935 Universal film predates the much more known The Wolf Man by about 6 years, and is the first stab at the werewolf genre for the company. Hull refused the makeup that would eventually be used on Lon Chaney Jr. six years later, opting a for a less hairy, but still scary, look.

This look

To me, this was a wonderfully shot film, and, visually, is absolutely beautiful. Some of the dialogue is witty and clever, but can also veer the opposite direction so far is becomes mind numbing. The story itself is fairly uninteresting, and there are long periods of time when little to nothing to happening to advance the story. My primary gripe with this film, however, are the wolves. They just come across as so...physically weak. Glendon has little trouble swatting away the wolf he falls victim to, and when Glendon has a confrontation with a human near the end of the film the outcome is similar. Werewolf of London is not a terribly memorable film, and is not considered one of Universal's Classics as a result, but it does a nice job developing the blueprint for The Wolf Man and countless werewolf movies that would follow. It's worth watching for that reason alone.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Werewolf of London Movie Trailer

Because I know you want it...

No comments:

Post a Comment