Werewolf of London (1935)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Purely Joyful Movie!

just watch it!

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Werewolf of London (1935) was a pleasant surprise, not that I wasn't expecting much from the first (mainstream) werewolf film, but I wasn't expecting it to be as good or better than the Wolfman (1941) and I will say that it managed to be on the same level of greatness.Perhaps not all of the actors do a convincing job and some scenes could be considered to be very poorly executed, but I will say that most of the film its quite good. This movie is also responsible for making up most of the werewolf myth, at least the more well known version of the myth.I also noticed the intentional similarities between this film and An American Werewolf in London (1981), more than just the name, they share many other elements, from the two men being attacked at the beginning of the film, to the very end.Overall, its a pretty great horror film, I would recommend it to horror fans, mostly because I don't think enough people have seen it, most people think of The Wolf Man when they think of classic werewolf movies, and with good reason, but this one also had a huge part in the genre.

"Werewolf of London" is the first werewolf to be made in Hollywood but it doesn't quite work as a whole. There are bits and pieces that are fairly good but I see this film as a failed experiment. In my opinion, "The Wolf Man" (1941) is the definitive werewolf movie.Henry Hull is miscast in the leading role - he is far too surly, disagreeable and cantankerous to be worthy of much sympathy. Warner Oland lacks the sense of mystery that is required for his character. If this movie had been a tailor- made one for Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, then "Werewolf of London" would be MUCH better.Not a classic by any means.

This was a decent film from the time. Don't get me wrong, if you're not a fan of this era of film-making it won't change your mind.The plot follows a lot of old movie tropes, but they are classic ones. There is an interesting twist in this, but I won't give it away. This film should be remembered for its importance in werewolf lore as it created a few key facts.Henry Hull does a fine performance as the titular werewolf. He can be selfish, demonstrating man's folly of knowing his limits and bringing his downfall, but also sympathetic because he isn't an evil person.There are a lot of comedic bits in this and they're pretty entertaining. A lot of credit should be the comic relief characters, because they're the most memorable parts of the film. Be sure to catch the part with the innkeeper and her friend.Overall, old movie fans will like this.

This film, which has the distinction of being the first 'sound' werewolf movie ever made, is pretty enjoyable once you get over the fact that it's invariably dated due to its age. This is an incredibly overlooked film, which is at least as good as THE WOLF MAN, a classic which tends to get all of the attention these days. Although WEREWOLF OF London has quite a slow pacing and many talk-filled scenes, the horror, when it comes, is full-blooded and menacing in the best Universal tradition.The main detractment from this film is the miscasting of Hull as the werewolf. Hull is a straight, somewhat stuffy actor who reminded me a lot of Noel Willman, a similar player who appeared in a number of Hammer films including KISS OF THE VAMPIRE. While Willman made use of his impassive features as a thoroughly nasty villain, Hull in comparison just seems to be rather dry and boring. The one element that repeatedly turns up in werewolf films - the sympathy for the werewolf - is totally missing here, as Hull is such an unlikeable chap. Thankfully, also around is the sinister Warner Oland as the "chief" werewolf who bites Hull in the first place, and Oland plays his Dr. Yogami in the same way Charles Laughton would have done; quietly creepy and disturbing. No '30s horror would be complete without the young loving couple, whose presence here is another unfortunate detraction. Valerie Hobson and Lester Matthews combine to make one of the most sickening do-gooder couples ever to appear in a Universal horror film, and their survival at the end of the film is most unwanted. What WEREWOLF OF London does have are a good music score and nice sets and scenery, which actually do look a bit like how you would imagine London to look, unlike Universal's Americanised Welsh sets in THE WOLF MAN.Hull's villain is less of a beast here, and more of a partially civilised person who retains his intellect. He is forced to kill to avoid turning into a werewolf forever, rather than sheer bloodlust. The first time he changes, he promptly dons a coat and hat to go out on the town! Scenes involving Hull jumping through closed windows and creeping down London alleyways work well, and a sufficient atmosphere of terror is raised - especially when we keep hearing the eerie wolf cries across London. Hull's simplistic and minimal makeup job is also very effective, making him a memorable villain. WEREWOLF OF London isn't a great film, but it should be considered a minor classic and stands up well against the other biggies of the decade.