6/10
Werewolf Of London (1935) **1/2
16 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
An interesting first outing in the werewolf stakes for Universal, but which has been unfairly maligned in the wake of the more popular THE WOLF MAN (1941). The film has a lot going for it, not the least of which are its credible, if unsympathetic, leads (Henry Hull and Warner Oland playing two antagonistic werewolves!) and subtle, but undeniably effective, use of make-up (which is actually preferable to Lon Chaney Jr.'s in the later film!). The werewolf legend is here treated in a scientific, quasi-theological way (a nod, perhaps, to the 1931 version of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE - as are the costume and general habits of Hull's werewolf, by the way) rather than the psychological approach, steeped in superstition, of the Chaney/Larry Talbot films.

The supporting cast, however, is variable: Valerie Hobson is pretty but the role is unworthy of her, especially as she is forced to share the romantic spotlight with the stiff Lester Matthews; Spring Byington as a dotty socialite, then, not to mention Zeffie Tilbury and Ethel Griffies as drunken crones, are a matter of taste in the Una O'Connor vein - but, really, their various antics don't harm the film in any serious way for me. WEREWOLF OF London rises to a good climax where Hull kills Oland and pursues Hobson with the same intent, until he is stopped by a normal(!) - as opposed to the traditional silver - bullet, for which he is actually thankful; in this, he is no worse than Chaney who is hellbent on self-destruction in each and every one of his portrayals of Larry Talbot and, as such, I can't understand the criticism directed towards this scene in some circles!
17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed