Henry Hull is no Lon Chaney Jr, and "London" will never be remembered as fondly as "The Wolf Man", but without this movie, how much of the werewolf lore we all take for granted would even exist? "Werewolf of London" gave us the transfer of lycanthropy through a bite, an herbal remedy (though this became wolfsbane not long after, likely for aesthetic reasons), the biped wolfish human, and most significantly, the link between a werewolf's transformation and the light of the full moon.
There are flaws that can be pointed out, and they are glaring. The make-up was somewhat sparse even by contemporary standards, and the acting was often stilted. Actual werewolf lore seems to have been cast aside in favor of the Jekyll / Hyde formula for dealing with man's dark nature. All this is true, yet none of it diminishes the importance of this film to the genre.
Any fan of werewolf movies containing any of the elements listed above owes a large howl of gratitude to "The Werewolf of London."
There are flaws that can be pointed out, and they are glaring. The make-up was somewhat sparse even by contemporary standards, and the acting was often stilted. Actual werewolf lore seems to have been cast aside in favor of the Jekyll / Hyde formula for dealing with man's dark nature. All this is true, yet none of it diminishes the importance of this film to the genre.
Any fan of werewolf movies containing any of the elements listed above owes a large howl of gratitude to "The Werewolf of London."