4/10
A lacklustre lycanthrope in London.
16 January 2009
Six years before Lon Chaney Jr. famously donned fake fangs, yak hair and rubber snout to become The Wolf Man, lesser known character actor Henry Hull underwent a similar transformation to become Universal Studio's first ever lycanthrope, the Werewolf of London.

After being savagely attacked by a werewolf in Tibet (or California's Vasquez Rocks, unconvincingly standing in for Tibet), botanist Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Hull) returns to London with his prized specimen, a rare flower that only blooms in the moonlight. In a rather fortunate coincidence, the juice from this particular plant can prevent Wilfred from turning into a monster come the full moon, just so long as he can a) convince the specimen to flower, and b) keep the mysterious Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) from stealing it from him!!!

For horror fans, The Werewolf of London is undoubtedly very important, being the first true film in a very popular sub-genre, but as a piece of entertainment, it proves to be extremely lacking: it is hard to sympathise with Hull's character, who selfishly puts his work ahead of his personal life (he ignores his lovely wife, who understandably seeks comfort in the arms of ex-beau Paul); the standard of acting is pretty awful; there is some dreadfully unfunny comedy content courtesy of two drunken landladies; and the whole shebang moves slower than molasses going uphill in January.

Curiously, Jack Pierce's makeup is actually slightly better than his later work on The Wolf Man, and the transformations are more inventive (Hull walking past a series of pillars, gradually becoming more wolfish as he passes behind each one, is fantastic), but Werewolf of London is still something of a chore to sit through.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed