Le monstre de Londres

"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.

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.

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.

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).

This early version of the Universal Studios Wolf Man borrows heavily from Paramount Studios' take on 'Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde,' which emphasized character and psychology over chills and horrors. Henry Hull gives a good performance as the eponymous monster, but does not inspire the same sympathy as a Frederick March or a Lon Chaney, Jr.

And unfortunately, there are some poorly handled comic-relief scenes involving a couple of drunken old ladies that really don't fit and detract from the mood. The scenes are so awkward that I suspect they were filmed later and added-in, to pad running time perhaps. These sequences seriously hurt this film, which is a shame.

Nonetheless, the story is interesting, the special effects and make-up are good, and some of the camera work is very well done. In particular, there is a neat shot as Hull is changing to the monster and simultaneously passing by a number of columns, and as he passes behind each successive column, the change progresses.

As is the case with virtually all classic horror films, this film has a psycho-sexual subtext. In this film, Henry Hull is playing a repressed and frustrated married man who has some deep behavioral compulsion and a secret relationship with with another man, and ultimately these things threaten to destroy his marriage. I won't give away anymore than that.

The werewolf make-up here is a little more subtle than that used by Lon Chaney in 1941, not necessarily better or worse, just different, and therefore, interesting. Overall this film is somewhat less entertaining than Chaney's Wolf Man, but still good and worthwhile for any fan of classic horror.

********************************** Additional Notes:

1) The Tibetan sequence was filmed at Vasquez Rocks, a famous place near LA, where many movies and TV shows were filmed, including episodes of the original Star Trek.

2) Soundtrack music from this film was re-used for one of the Buster Crabbe 'Flash Gordon' serials. The Flash Gordon serials also used music from The Invisible Man and Bride of Frankenstein.