The Werewolf of London

Audience Reviews

View All (128)

Johnathon W Interesting relic of early cinema that shows the beginnings of the werewolf genre but doesn't quite jell. The acting is solid but with some dated casting, such as having one actor in yeltlowface, even if the character is doctor. Start Walker's direction is also okay but nothing extraordinary while the make-up isn't quite up to the Wolf-Man. All in all, a watchable film, especially when part of a movie set. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 02/01/25 Full Review Alex K 1935 saw Universal release the first feature length werewolf film ever onto the public. In fact much of the werewolf myths that we know today originate from this film such as the notion that it's an infection spread through being scratched or bitten and that the afflicted turns during the full moon. 6 years later more would be added to the legend in Universal's more famous howler The Wolf Man. This film however is still a great horror film. Set in 1935 metropolitan London a botanist has returned from a trip to Tibet to find the rare Mariphasa plant that only blooms under full moonlight and even then not reliably. During this trip he is attacked by a creature in the mountains and upon returning home he finds himself transforming into a hideous wolf like creature at night. The design of the titular monster was again left to Universal's makeup maestro Jack Pierce and his original design would later be used for The Wolf Man. This werewolf looks much more human. It was originally said that actor Henry Hull wanted less time in the makeup chair but that wasn't the case. The reason Hull objected to the original design was because the script it self said that his character was supposed to still be recognizable in wolf form. So a more hybrid look was created. The look is still effectively frightening and it's an unfortunate that more people don't give the design credit as it's still good. The makeup is a big star in this film and it features some incredible special effects for the transformation scenes. Directed by Stuart Walker the film is full of tense atmosphere and plenty of suspense. Like many horror films of the day lots of comic relief was put in but it doesn't detract from the film in this case. The cast is solid with Henry Hull delivering strong work as the title werewolf, he brings depth and nuance to his portrayal of a workaholic who despite appearances is deeply in love with his wife. Valerie Hobson is good as his wife, offering a nice balance to Hull and bringing a believability to their relationship given their age gap. Also on hand is Warner Oland, a mysterious man who arrives in London and may know more than he says he does. There's twists and turns and a few murders in this werewolf tale that is worth a watch not just because it's a good werewolf film but because it's cool to see where it really all began Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 01/24/25 Full Review Andrew L I can completely understand why Universal Studios didn't make this movie part of the canon that would become the first cinematic universe. The big reason is that the werewolf's weakness in this film is a flower instead of silver. Another reason is because none of Universal Studios horror hotshots (other than Valerie Hobson) are in it. Both Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff turned down roles in this movie. Karloff's excuse was because he was working on BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (which Hobson is also in). Lugosi's reason was probably because he knew the movie would be a flop. Rated 1.5/5 Stars •  Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars 07/17/24 Full Review Andy F A fantastic but often overlooked Universal horror. The first ever Werewolf film is sparkling with originality, tension and memorable dialogue. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 10/29/23 Full Review Valerii Ege D Interestingly, 35 and 41 versions end with the same dialogue. The funny thing also, none of the versions realized how deadly is a Werewolf. In both movies, the werewolf tries to strangle its prey. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 08/28/23 Full Review Steve D The only problem is the unconvincing acting. The story is solid for its time. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 04/12/23 Full Review Read all reviews

The Werewolf of London

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now