Le monstre de Londres

Whilst in Tibet searching for a rare flower, botanist Dr. Glendon (Henry Hull) is bitten by a werewolf.

Howard Maxford praises its "effective sequences", and truly, yes, the metamorphosis is decent for its time. Mike Mayo is less sympathetic (surprisingly) and believes the reason this film hasn't matched Chaney's version in fame is because, "Glendon is such a cold protagonist that it's difficult to muster up much sympathy for his predicament."

This is, of course, a Universal film, prior to their much more famous "Wolf Man". Director Stuart Walker did not go on to do much else for horror, though he did do two adaptations of Charles Dickens.

Any horror historian needs to see this, as it is not only an early werewolf tale, but really is the seed that blossomed into "Wolf Man". The same makeup was even used (though toned down last minute, unfortunately).

WEREWOLF OF LONDON is a gem. I became familiar with the old Universal classics watching them on an old GE black and white when they were broadcast on "Lights Out" in El Paso, Texas thirty-odd years back. And this was one of the few that I found seriously frightening as a boy.

The initial transformation scene in this film is done as well as any special effect was in those days. First, the viewer becomes aware of its approach through the reaction of a housecat to the afflicted Doctor as he reaches out to stroke his pet. He crosses over into another room, the camera pans back, and the transformation occurs as he passes behind a number of columns. It's damn eerie. And I believe it holds up after all this time, but it doesn't matter to me if I'm alone with this sentiment.

Warner Oland, Valerie Hobson, Spring Byington end up carrying the weight that Henry Hull couldn't as a central player, plus there are a couple of marvelous character actors playing some very funny dipsomaniac landladies. It all balances out. You gotta see this one.

"Werewolf of London" almost never gets mentioned when one talks of the classic Universal horror flicks of the 30s and 40s. Yet it is as good or better than most of them.

The story involves a biologist (Henry Hull) who is in Tibet searching for a rare flower. While there he is attacked by a werewolf and unknowingly becomes infected himself. The rare flower it turns out, has the power to suppress the transformation into a werewolf. A mysterious scientist from Tibet (Warner Oland) appears and takes an unusual interest in the plant. Well, as in all werewolf movies, you know what happens when the moon is full.

Perhaps the film doesn't get the recognition it deserves because of the absence of one of Universal's major horror stars (Karloff or Lugosi). Lon Chaney Jr. would not arrive on the scene (in horror movies) until 1941.

Veteran character actor Hull is very good as the tormented Dr. Glendon. He plays him more in the manner of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde than an out and out monster. The murders are committed off screen so we have to rely on Hull to convey the evil of the werewolf through his performance. Warner Oland, who was starring in the Charlie Chan series at the time, has little to do as Dr. Yogami. The fetching Valerie Hobson stands out as Hull's wife and Spring Byington does her usual talkative busybody as Aunt Ettie. The weak link in the cast is Lester Matthews as the token hero Captain Ames. He plays him as a silly-ass stuffed shirt rather than the dashing fellow he is supposed to be.

Having said all of that, "Werewolf of London" is one of the better horror films of its time and unfortunately remains one of the most underrated of the genre.

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.