El lobo humano de Londres

Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) is in Tibet searching for the rare mariphasa plant that apparently only blooms under moonlight. Upon finding the plant his joy is obvious but it's quickly short lived as he is attacked by a half-man half-wolf type creature. He manages to fight off the creature but it does draw blood before retreating off into the mountains. Back in London, Glendon works tirelessly to get the plant to bloom under artificial light, neglecting his wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson) in the process. But that's not the only worry he has to contend with, with the arrival of the mysterious Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) comes news of lycanthrophobia and the true value of the mariphasa plant...

The names Universal Studios and Werewolves go hand in hand (or paw in paw if you like). Automatically images of a pained Lon Chaney Jr howling at the moon come quickly into the conscious, yet quite some years earlier Universal had already ventured into the realms of lycanthropy. Firstly they had offered up "The Werewolf", a silent short film in 1913 that sadly is thought to have long been lost in a fire in 1924, and then in 1935 they released "Werewolf Of London". The first mainstream werewolf picture and first to feature anthropomorphic werewolves. It can't be understated just how important "Werewolf Of London" is in the pantheon of Universal classic horror. It also helps that it also happens to be a rather fine picture in its own right. Interestingly blending the werewolf legend with science fiction elements, the script is intelligent, the scenic sets impressive and director Stuart Walker keeps it taut and suspenseful.

In spite of what you may have read on some internet sites, the cast deliver the goods, particularly Henry Hull who it should be remembered is playing a vastly different type of werewolf to the one Chaney would play six years later. This is after all a wolf-man who pops on his hat and cloak and strides out into the dimly lit night. Hull also comes up trumps with the emotional aspects of Glendon. Observe the expressive acting as Glendon's cat turns against him, the hurt and then the horrific realisation of what awaits him is vividly portrayed during one heartfelt scene. Another sees Glendon proclaim "Singularly Single, madame. More single than I ever realised that it was possible for a human being to be," this is fine stuff delivered with style and emotion by the well spoken Hull.

The support is very tidy from Hobson, Oland, Lester Matthews and Lawrence Grant, but they are unsurped by the comic relief that comes in the form of Ethel Griffies & Zeffie Tilbury as batty bints, Whack & Moncaster. A right couple of old dears who stick their noses in where they shouldn't and enjoy knocking each other out! I kid you not. Yet perhaps surprisingly this humour sits easily within the structure of the story. Another testament to the good work done by all involved. While rounding out the treats is the make up work from pioneer supreme, Jack P Pierce (AKA Janus Piccoulas). This is not one for the boo jump scare brigade, or even for those after a bit of old fashioned blood letting. This is tight story telling with a good production and acting to match. Twas a pleasant surprise indeed. 8/10

Listen to the Warren Zevon jokes fly…

The secret to telling stories in any media, be it books, plays, TV or movies, is to make the audience care about the characters. The hero of `Werewolf of London,' Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull), manages to earn our sympathy: he's a botanist obsessed with his studies to the point where he neglects his beautiful young wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson). His ordered life disintegrates when he is attacked by a werewolf in Tibet; he realizes he is doomed to the lycanthrope's savage curse at the same time his wife begins flirting with an old flame, Paul (Lester Matthews). The logical foundation of Glendon's life flies apart, and he came face-to-face with his brutal animal nature.

`Werewolf of London,' like most of the classic Universal horror pictures, is heavy on atmosphere, lots of shadows and fog. The transformation sequences and the makeup are good, although not as proficient as `The Wolf Man' six years later. The Werewolf of London struck me as a more sinister creature than the Wolf Man in his deliberateness. The Werewolf would even wear a sort of disguise as he stalked the streets of London, using his intelligence, whereas the Wolf Man was a more savage, animalistic force that attacked anyone nearby. It makes you wonder who would win a fight between the two…

And, as is usual for the old Universal horror films, the acting is very good. Henry Hull moves from stuffy academic to tortured soul, and brings us along for the ride (reminiscent of Basil Rathbone's deterioration in `Son of Frankenstein.') Valerie Hobson is luminous as always, and Warner Oland is quietly menacing as Dr. Yogami, who has an inside knowledge of `werewolfery.'

`Werewolf of London' will probably always be in the shadow of its successor, and rightfully so. There's nothing wrong with `Werewolf,' but there also isn't anything here that `Wolf Man' doesn't do better. It's just part of the horror evolution, a lesson well learned.

WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935) does not satisfy as a whole, but it does have some memorable spots. The basic plot tells of a introverted botanist (Henry Hull) who is stricken with the ability to become a werewolf. The film's great moments are peppered through out. There's the beautifully photographed scene in Tibet, where moonlight is almost sun-beach bright. There's the bit in the zoo with a cockney hag fooling around with the zookeeper. Hull's perfomance is superb. We feel his anger over his failed marriage to much younger Valarie Hobson, his fear over his new affiction. It's a shame the screenwriters didn't dwell on his marriage more. The film has a humdinger of an ending, especially with the werewolf's last line.

This movie is an old friend. I have seen it countless times since childhood and remain fascinated by both the highly original story and the sometimes whacky element of humor which softens a classic horror tale.

When comparing movies in the werewolf genre, one has to refer to "The Wolfman", which starred Lon Chaney, Jr. and Claude Raines. It is, I think, the humor of "Werewolf of London" that sets it apart. Spring Byington probably makes the film with her "Aunt Ettie" with excellent support from the "Mrs. Whack" and "Mrs. Montcaster" (I cannot remember the names of the actresses).

Also, the werewolves, as played by Henry Hull and Warner Oland, are more frightening than that of Lon Chaney because the makeup tends to reveal more of the human character in their faces. Thus does Oland's revelation to Hull that "A werewolf is neither man nor wolf, but a satanic creature with the worst qualities of both," nicely set the tone for what is to follow.

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/