Le monstre de Londres

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.