"Werewolf of London" Film Review

Werewolf of London

Rating: 3/5

By: Nathaniel Simpson

    By 1935, Universal Pictures have already crafted brilliant films about vampires, monsters created by a man who wanted to play God, a scientist who goes mad after he turns himself invisible, and other stories of monsters from around the world. With these other films already made, they were ready to tell a feature-length story about another now-famous monster, the werewolf. While the werewolf has gone through multiple iterations over time, from freakishly-terrifying creatures to moody teenagers that simply want to save the girl from the blood-sucking vampire, Universal crafted the first feature-length werewolf film to introduce the concept to the world. Even though the movie has inspired numerous iterations of this monster form, with Universal even crafting a new werewolf film six years later, it simply doesn't hold up as well as the other Monster films, and simply lacks some of the charm and magic that made the other ones so famous. 

    The movie revolves around botanist Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull), who is bitten by a strange creature that attacks him while he is searching for a special flower in Tibet. While this flower contains special abilities, supposedly serving as an antidote for werewolves, Wilfred becomes increasingly interested in the flower and its powers. He then notices how it affects him, realizing he had been infected with this sort of virus when he was attacked by the humanoid creature. When his flower is stolen by fellow botanist Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland), he makes a full transformation, putting his wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson) at a major risk. 

    Starting with the monster and the transformation Wilfred takes to become the titular character, I think it is done quite well. From the scene where he notices his hand becoming hairier and more monster-like to the full transformation into the monster, I think all of it is shot beautifully and leaves a lot up to the imagination of the viewer. It shows the audience all it needs to for them to paint this picture in their head, which makes it even more terrifying. At the same time, director Stuart Walker is able to capture the movements and the action sequences of the monster and his prey very well, and showcases the magic of having a werewolf present on the screen. 

    While I think the monster and horror elements work quite well, the story and the characters are simply what is lacking here. What helped make Frankenstein and Dracula such iconic films and characters were because they were very interesting, making the viewer want to see more and see what happens after the credits roll. I simply didn't feel that way about this one, with the characters being very two-dimensional and lacking any charm that would make the audience feel compelled to want to know more about them. It starts with Wilfred trying to find the flower, and then being attacked by a terrifying creature lurking in the shadows. This is how you build suspense and the wanting to know more, but it simply loses steam along the way to the ending. 

    In terms of performances, the actors do their best with what they are given, and try to inject some sort of life into these roles, but it simply doesn't do enough. When watching, I knew these characters existed in this realm of importance, but none of them really felt important enough to truly care about. I do think Hull is pretty magnetic in the role, especially when he starts his transformation into the hideous beast, leading him down this path of madness he can't control anymore. All of these films so far do a wonderful job of showcasing how these men become monsters throughout the course of the runtime, and this picture is no example. It does a wonderful job allowing him to evolve as a character over time, but the rest feels like an afterthought. 

    In addition to the great scenes involving the werewolf, the cinematography and visuals are done pretty nicely as well, never really losing the charm that the previous pictures helped capture. They are made to feel like the viewer is watching the real world through a dream-like scope, and this allows them to lose the realism of the plot and allows them to escape to this world. This world is one where monsters live, which shows the viewer what could happen if these creatures were able to exist in this "real world". Each of these films throughout the Universal Monster canon has this feeling embedded into the stories, but they are on a varying degree of how much it is present in each one. For this picture, it does contain that charm, but not as much as the earlier films had. Perhaps this is a reason why this movie is simply not held to the same regard as the Invisible Man or the Bride of Frankenstein. 

    For this being considered the first feature-length werewolf film, I think Universal does a decent enough job to introduce this character and this sort of plot to the world. While it is lacking compared to the previous pictures in this expanded universe of films, it still has a lot to be appreciated for, and is held responsible for the wonderful influence filmmakers have taken for nearly 100 years.