Before there was "The Wolf Man", Universal made "Werewolf of London". This movie is not as well known or as good the Lon Chaney Jr. movie but it's a rather good genre movie on its own nevertheless.

The movie starts off in a good and mysterious horror way but also in a great and entertaining way, by introducing some fun typical upper-class British characters and dialog into the movie. Unforntunately it then takes quite a while before things start to kick off. The monstrous werewolf only makes his full entrance halve way through the movie.

It's funny to see how much similar the werewolf transformation sequences in this movie look to "The Wolf Man". The make-up effects in this movie are also almost the same and created by the same person, but only as a more lighter and less hairy version, since the actor Henry Hull disliked the time-consuming makeup application. The make-up effects in this movie are nevertheless rather good and convincing. Henry Hull is definitely almost unrecognizable underneath all of the make-up.

I also must say that I liked Henry Hull better as the werewolf than as his human character. It was a hard character too sympathize for, something that Lon Chaney Jr. did succeed in by the way. A reason why "The Wolf Man" is still a better movie than this one is. Also quite weird to see Warner Oland in this movie, since at the time he almost entirely only made Charlie Chan movies and he was very popular for it at the time. It therefor is a bit weird to see him in a different role in this movie.

The movie features lots of comedy, which makes this a very pleasant movie to watch. But it also takes away the tension at times when it isn't really needed to. It sort of prevents the movie from being a true tense and mysterious horror movie at times, though the potential for it was definitely there.

The story isn't that much special and rather simplistic. The movie doesn't offer any real surprises, although the story does has its moments. Also the climax of the movie feels rather rushed and sudden. The movie should at least had been 10 minutes longer, to let it reach a better and more satisfying less sudden conclusion.

It's still a good sort of forgotten Universal werewolf movie and a more than great watch for the Universal horror/classic horror movie lovers.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

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

I had a hard time deciding whether to give this film a 6 or a 7. Sure, it was only mildly entertaining, but I also have to give the film makers credit for making the first werewolf film--thus creating a new sub-genre.

The biggest differences you'll find between this film and the greatest of the werewolf films, THE WOLF MAN (1941),are the likability of the character as well as a very, very different set of "rules" for the monster. This certainly isn't much like the Lon Chaney version! While Chaney played a very sad and sympathetic character (one you really felt sorry for),Warren Hull seemed more snippy and selfish and only got worse as the film progressed--so it was very hard to care about him and his plight. As a result, the humanity of the character was missing. Additionally, while you needed to shoot the monster with a silver bullet AND he only became the wolf man during a full moon, neither of these ideas were in WEREWOLF OF London. In fact, I guess you could have just shot him with a regular bullet, dropped a safe on his head or stabbed him--he was far from invulnerable AND he became a killer every night or when he was in contact with a "moon lamp"--which, by the way, the idiot doctor ALWAYS seemed to be walking under yet he never seemed to get the connection!

Still, it was entertaining. I liked seeing the roots of the character plus I liked the idea of another werewolf who showed up who was much more of a jerk--a nice touch. While the non-classic horror buffs probably will score this closer to a 5 and not be particularly enthralled by it, as I am a HUGE Universal horror fan, I still see it as a must-see for fans of the genre.