For all intents and purposes, WEREWOLF OF LONDON is the first major motion picture to deal with werewolves. Originally released in 1935, in the wake of other Universal hits such as DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, THE MUMMY and THE INVISIBLE MAN, WEREWOLF was planned as another "franchise" picture in the Universal arsenal. However, this first attempt was botched so badly that they had to hit the restart button in 1941 with Lon Chaney Jr's THE WOLF MAN, with infinitely more satisfactory results. WEREWOLF OF LONDON is more of a footnote in horror movie history. Just 'cause it's old doesn't mean it's a classic...
Henry Hull's performance, his wolf make-up and the moody atmospherics of the opening Tibet scenes are the best things in the entire movie. Some think Hull comes off as stiff, but I dare say he would have made a more convincing Larry Talbot than the hapless and perennially over-rated Lon Chaney Jr. The germ of a great performance is here, but Hull is ultimately done in by an inept script. The make-up is fantastic for its time, again far more menacing-looking than what came later in the WOLF MAN series. And the day-for-night scenes in Tibet have a beautiful, eerie quality to them that the rest of the film never capitalizes on. (Incidentally, the scenes were filmed at the "Vazquez Rocks" sites in California, made famous by countless episodes of the 1960's STAR TREK! If you know what I'm talking about, you'll recognize them right off the bat!)
Other than that, I can't say I recommend this film at all. It certainly has gained a new lease on life with its inclusion on the new WOLF MAN LEGACY COLLECTION DVD, but you really need only watch it once. The pacing is atrocious, the acting overly-stiff and mannered (this is supposed to be 1930's London, after all), the chills non-existent and the supposed comedy of the two bantering old landladies is annoying and shoe-horned in. The 1941 WOLF MAN was never the scariest or best-made horror film, but it practically looks like THE EXORCIST next to the boring drivel of WEREWOLF.
All in all, a rather dull experience. To catch only the best bits, it's better to simply watch the Behind-the-Scenes special on the WOLF MAN DVD--it covers ALL of the werewolf movies of the '30s and '40s.
Henry Hull's performance, his wolf make-up and the moody atmospherics of the opening Tibet scenes are the best things in the entire movie. Some think Hull comes off as stiff, but I dare say he would have made a more convincing Larry Talbot than the hapless and perennially over-rated Lon Chaney Jr. The germ of a great performance is here, but Hull is ultimately done in by an inept script. The make-up is fantastic for its time, again far more menacing-looking than what came later in the WOLF MAN series. And the day-for-night scenes in Tibet have a beautiful, eerie quality to them that the rest of the film never capitalizes on. (Incidentally, the scenes were filmed at the "Vazquez Rocks" sites in California, made famous by countless episodes of the 1960's STAR TREK! If you know what I'm talking about, you'll recognize them right off the bat!)
Other than that, I can't say I recommend this film at all. It certainly has gained a new lease on life with its inclusion on the new WOLF MAN LEGACY COLLECTION DVD, but you really need only watch it once. The pacing is atrocious, the acting overly-stiff and mannered (this is supposed to be 1930's London, after all), the chills non-existent and the supposed comedy of the two bantering old landladies is annoying and shoe-horned in. The 1941 WOLF MAN was never the scariest or best-made horror film, but it practically looks like THE EXORCIST next to the boring drivel of WEREWOLF.
All in all, a rather dull experience. To catch only the best bits, it's better to simply watch the Behind-the-Scenes special on the WOLF MAN DVD--it covers ALL of the werewolf movies of the '30s and '40s.