Wed 8 Jun 2011
A Movie Review by Dan Stumpf: WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935).
Posted by Steve under Horror movies , Reviews[6] Comments
WEREWOLF OF LONDON. Universal Pictures, 1935. Henry Hull, Warner Oland, Valerie Hobson, Lester Matthews, Lawrence Grant, Spring Byington, Clark Williams. Director: Stuart Walker.
The Wolf Man, one of Universal’s strongest monsters — probably the appeal to teenage boys of a conflicted being who finds his body changing and getting hairy as his emotions run wild — only got one film to himself, The Wolf Man (1941).
For the rest of the run, he had to share the limelight with Frankenstein’s monster, Dracula and assorted mad doctors and hunchbacks, while second-string ghouls like the Creeper and Paula the Ape Woman got two or three films all to themselves and that lumbering bore Kharis got four. I guess there’s no justice for monsters.
Actually, Universal kicked off the idea in ’35 with Werewolf of London, a flawed-but-interesting effort laboring under the weight of Henry Hull’s stodgy scientist-turned-boogey-man.
Hull (to the left, on the left) was a dashing leading man on stage and played a fine string of crusty old-timers in the movies, but as a suffering monster he totally fails to grab our sympathy.
That’s rare in a monster movie, because normally the monster is the most interesting character. Here, Hull is such a constipated dullard, we want something unpleasant to befall him, and lycanthropy seems like just the thing.
Too bad, because this movie offers an interesting plot, some catchy dialogue, worthy special effects and camera work that lingers in the mind’s eye long after the silly story passes on.
June 9th, 2011 at 1:33 am
I thought the werewolf makeup was far scarier here than in the later incarnation. But, yeah, otherwise kind of a disappointment, with some particularly awful comic relief.
June 9th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Warner Oland in a non-Asian role. Imagine that! I can’t recall a single thing about this movie. I saw it eons ago on Creature Feature” some Saturday night on channel 5 (WNEW in its pre-Fox TV days) when I was probably still in elementary school. Guess Dan’s assessment is correct. Not too memorable.
I can’t imagine that the comic relief is as bad as in The Ghoul – the Karloff cult movie which I didn’t like at all. Horrid music hall antics. Ugh.
June 9th, 2011 at 10:57 am
The movie certainly isn’t memorable, but I think that Warner Oland is. He more than compensates for the miscasting of Henry Hull.
As for “The Ghoul,” there’s a pristine print of this was released on DVD some time ago. I don’t remember the comic relief, but I do remember the atmospheric setting and lighting. A handsomely produced film.
June 9th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
It’s not, perhaps, a classic, but it is an interesting variation on the old myth. There’s a lot of good stuff here, but somehow it never quite gels into a coherent whole. One of the most interesting things for me is the fact that one of the authors of the screenplay is Edmund Lester Pearson, the legendary true-crime writer.
June 14th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
I haven’t seen this in years but I do remember that it as one of the very few ‘werewolf’ movies I actually liked. Well, besides Lon Chaney Jr. in his ‘classic’ deliverance as Larry ‘Wolfman’ Talbot.
Yeah, WEREWOLF OF LONDON is old and hokey, but I still wouldn’t mind watching it today.
I LOVE your review. Henry Hull – ‘…a constipated dullard…’ HAHA!!!
Love the colorfully graphic poster too.
June 14th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Although I don’t collect movie posters, I know what catches my eye, and you’re right — this one sure has what it takes.