"Werewolf of London" (1935) is often somewhat overshadowed by the iconic Lon Chaney Jr. depiction in the later "The Wolf Man" (1941). However, while I would agree with the prevailing consensus that the latter film is the better one, Universal's first bash at the werewolf legend is nonetheless still a good film, only stumbles in its execution a couple of times, and even manages to trump it's illustrious successor on a couple of points.
The film begins in Tibet, where Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) is searching for the rare mariphasa plant that apparently only blooms under moonlight. Disregarding the ominous warnings of a priest and the locals he continues in his quest and finally comes upon the rare flower only to be attacked and bitten by a half-man half-wolf creature. Back in London, Glendon's works continues as he tries to get the plant to bloom under artificial moonlight when the mysterious Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) arrives and informs Glendon that the flower has the power to suppress the transformation into a werewolf. From here on in the initially skeptical Glendon succumbs to the lycanthropic curse and seeks to take the life of the one he loves the most, his wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson).
It is interesting to compare the Henry Hull and Lon Chaney Jr.'s differing portrayals of the werewolf: most notably the make-up (done in both films by legend Jack Pierce, who had previously done "Frankenstein" (1932) and "The Mummy" (1932)) is less hairy than the iconic "Wolfman" image as it is said that Henry Hull didn't want to sit through the time taken to apply all the make-up so Pierce created a less hairy version. This said, I personally prefer the make-up in "Werewolf of London" as it seems a more savage beast, which is odd as he is also more man than beast than "The Wolf Man", even casually donning his scarf and hat before leaving to kill. In this respect, the "Werewolf of London" is closer to a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, something which is nodded to in the transformation sequence (something "The Wolf Man sorely lacks).
However, the film is let down a little by a few too many characters, a subplot involving Lisa's unresolved feelings for an ex-boyfriend, and (crucially) a character in Dr. Wilfred Glendon who is a little too hard to identify with in his clipped upper-class manner and obsessive attention to botany, compared to the affable Larry Talbot in "The Wolf Man", making the film carry slightly less pathos at the ending. Still, a great movie which is hard not to enjoy and is a must-see for anyone interested in the Universal Movie Monsters or the history of horror in general.
The film begins in Tibet, where Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) is searching for the rare mariphasa plant that apparently only blooms under moonlight. Disregarding the ominous warnings of a priest and the locals he continues in his quest and finally comes upon the rare flower only to be attacked and bitten by a half-man half-wolf creature. Back in London, Glendon's works continues as he tries to get the plant to bloom under artificial moonlight when the mysterious Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) arrives and informs Glendon that the flower has the power to suppress the transformation into a werewolf. From here on in the initially skeptical Glendon succumbs to the lycanthropic curse and seeks to take the life of the one he loves the most, his wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson).
It is interesting to compare the Henry Hull and Lon Chaney Jr.'s differing portrayals of the werewolf: most notably the make-up (done in both films by legend Jack Pierce, who had previously done "Frankenstein" (1932) and "The Mummy" (1932)) is less hairy than the iconic "Wolfman" image as it is said that Henry Hull didn't want to sit through the time taken to apply all the make-up so Pierce created a less hairy version. This said, I personally prefer the make-up in "Werewolf of London" as it seems a more savage beast, which is odd as he is also more man than beast than "The Wolf Man", even casually donning his scarf and hat before leaving to kill. In this respect, the "Werewolf of London" is closer to a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, something which is nodded to in the transformation sequence (something "The Wolf Man sorely lacks).
However, the film is let down a little by a few too many characters, a subplot involving Lisa's unresolved feelings for an ex-boyfriend, and (crucially) a character in Dr. Wilfred Glendon who is a little too hard to identify with in his clipped upper-class manner and obsessive attention to botany, compared to the affable Larry Talbot in "The Wolf Man", making the film carry slightly less pathos at the ending. Still, a great movie which is hard not to enjoy and is a must-see for anyone interested in the Universal Movie Monsters or the history of horror in general.