Werewolf of London (1935)

Very best movie i ever watch

Powerful

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

This was a decent film from the time. Don't get me wrong, if you're not a fan of this era of film-making it won't change your mind.The plot follows a lot of old movie tropes, but they are classic ones. There is an interesting twist in this, but I won't give it away. This film should be remembered for its importance in werewolf lore as it created a few key facts.Henry Hull does a fine performance as the titular werewolf. He can be selfish, demonstrating man's folly of knowing his limits and bringing his downfall, but also sympathetic because he isn't an evil person.There are a lot of comedic bits in this and they're pretty entertaining. A lot of credit should be the comic relief characters, because they're the most memorable parts of the film. Be sure to catch the part with the innkeeper and her friend.Overall, old movie fans will like this.

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.

This is quite an entertaining older werewolf film. It is quite different than any other movie on lycanthropy that I have seen. We've heard stories of when the wolfsbane (Aconitum) is in bloom the werewolves come out and to keep the werewolves away but this movies gives us a slightly different twist: it is the mariphasa flower that has properties to keep the werewolves from turning (it keeps them human during the full moon). I love this angle - it makes for a good film (watching the werewolves in human and lycan forms battle over the mariphasa).There is some humor in this film too which helps to keep the movie interesting like the sci-fi horror aspect of the film. Over all this is a fun werewolf movie! I recommend it to fans of werewolves and classic horror.An interesting note: "Werewolf of London" is considered to be the first film on or about werewolves by quite a number of people. In a way, "Werewolf of London" really is the first werewolf film BUT there are two other silent films that came first: "The Werewolf" (1913) & "Wolf Blood" (1925). "The Werewolf" (1913) is a lost film burned in a fire of 1924 - so there is no way for me to know just how much of a true werewolf film the story is - is it the first real werewolf film and not "Werewolf of London"?"Wolf Blood" (1925) deals with a man that is injected with the blood of a wolf and superstition has it that he has become a wolf man. I've seen "Wolf Blood" and it is the first surviving film about werewolves but it is psychological & superstitious fears and NOT a physical reality for the character. So in a way, this is a werewolf film and in another way it is not. "Werewolf of London" does seem to be the first film on werewolves where we can see a physical transformation from man to werewolf. (Again, we will never know about "The Werewolf" from 1913). 9/10

5 years ago, I would never thought I would even try to watch black and white movie but 5 years later , I am not just watching it, I am actually really enjoy some oldies. This is another really good movie, the movie is only 75 mins long, so it'kind of short and the movie didn't not take to get started at all. I liked how the movie flowed, it's was not all action packed or anything, there were some in trusting scenes here and there.The effect in this were surprising, really good for it's time and I did found parts of it really funny, with those two old drunken ladies on stairs, they were so funny. The acting was great however I wasn't to keen on the ending, he went down too easy! 7 out of 10 from me.