classicsoncall Well you learn something new every day. I never even considered that there was another 'wolf man' type picture before Lon Chaney's take in the 1941 classic. So imagine my surprise when I come across this 1935 film claiming it's title as the very first werewolf flick. Not only that, but it's not a bad little story built around a potential cure for 'werewolfery', a term I never heard before, but coming from Warner Oland as Chinese Professor, Dr. Yogami, it sort of sounded like there should actually be such a word. I got the biggest kick out of that.So the 'cure' turns out to be a rare flower called the mariphasa lupina lumina, and because it only blooms by moonlight, it goes by the name of the phosphorescent moon flower. Actually, as explained by Dr. Yogami, it's not really a cure, but an antidote for the werewolf afflicted for only a matter of hours. I had to do a double take when I heard the description of the plant in Dr.Glendon's (Henry Hull) book on lycantrophy - "Unless the rare flower is used, the werewolf must kill at least one human being each night of the full moon or become permanently afflicted." But wait a minute - wouldn't killing a person each night of the full moon be the very definition of permanently afflicted? Still scratching my head over that one.You know, I never understood the phrase 'going on the wagon' as it refers to someone who's an alcoholic trying to quit. But this picture clarified it for me right out of the blue when one of the characters stated that one needed to 'go on the WATER wagon'. Now that makes perfect sense, seeing as how water wagons were quite commonly used for delivery, and would have provided the necessary relief in place of booze. So this picture turned out to be educational as well. Anyway, I thought this was a fairy entertaining story that even threw in some comic relief with a couple of bickering spinsters going by the names of Mrs. Whack (Ethel Griffies) and Moncaster (Zeffie Tilbury). It was most likely their banter that contributed to the 'on the wagon' scenario, but I just can't place it for certain. I also found Dr. Yogami's contention interesting that there were two werewolves in London at the time he arrived. All the time one wonders who the second one might have been, right up until Yogami himself takes a hit of the old moon flower remedy. That was a clever way to bring the story around full circle.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 14 May 1935 by Universal Pictures Corporation. Presented by Carl Laemmle. New York opening at the Rialto: 9 May 1935. U.S. release: May 1935. Australian release: 18 September 1935. 75 minutes. Canadian release title: UNHOLY HOUR. SYNOPSIS: Scientist is bitten by a werewolf whilst on an expedition in Tibet.NOTES: Following her debut in the 1934 The Path of Glory, Valerie Hobson journeyed to Hollywood where she starred in several important films such as The Mystery of Edwin Drood and The Bride of Frankenstein before returning to England. The lesser-known Werewolf of London was also a product of her Hollywood stay.COMMENT: Despite (and indeed partly because of) its clichés of dialogue, plot and situation, this is an entertaining entry in Universal's horror cycle. Walker's direction is stylish enough to give the lie to any notion that he is dull and unimaginative. Particularly impressive here is the transformation scene with Hull advancing diagonally towards the camera as it tracks behind pillars. The rapid fade-ins/fade-outs of the telephone reports are likewise effectively accomplished, and there's an extremely long take (early on in the picture) of which even John Farrow might have been proud. As the music score by Karl Hajos is rather pedestrian, Walker wisely relies only on sound effects in the film's more dramatic moments-of which there are many. Although Stumar's photography is otherwise impressive, Miss Hobson's heroine is not very flatteringly lit. Her acting, however, registers okay. Hull himself does a vivid job, but it's Warner Oland (taking time off from his Charlie Chan impersonations), who effortlessly walks away with the movie's histrionic honors. Produced on rather a lavish scale, Werewolf in London certainly doesn't lack action.

atinder 5 years ago, I would never thought I would even try to watch black and white movie but 5 years later , I am not just watching it, I am actually really enjoy some oldies. This is another really good movie, the movie is only 75 mins long, so it'kind of short and the movie didn't not take to get started at all. I liked how the movie flowed, it's was not all action packed or anything, there were some in trusting scenes here and there.The effect in this were surprising, really good for it's time and I did found parts of it really funny, with those two old drunken ladies on stairs, they were so funny. The acting was great however I wasn't to keen on the ending, he went down too easy! 7 out of 10 from me.

utgard14 Botanist Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) treks into the Himalayas in search of a rare flower that only blooms in the moonlight. He finds it, only to be attacked and bitten by a werewolf. He returns to England and meets Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland), who tells him that the flower can temporarily prevent a werewolf from transforming during the full moon. Soon, Dr. Glendon discovers that he has become a werewolf himself and stalks the streets of London.The first true werewolf movie is an entertaining, if at times frustrating, piece of work. I liked all of the "A" plot dealing with lycanthropy, Dr. Yogami, and the marifisa lupina lumina. I thought Hull was good, as was Warner Oland. It was nice to see him take a break from the Charlie Chan films to do something like this. The werewolf makeup and the transformation was well-done for the time. I have no complaints about this part of the film. The movie's only real problem for me is that I didn't like the subplot involving Glendon's wife (Valerie Hobson), her old boyfriend (Lester Matthews), and a meddlesome woman (Spring Byington) out to break up Glendon's marriage. I believe our sympathies were supposed to lie with Hobson but mine were not. I found her character unlikable, Matthews' character unbearable, and Byington's character downright villainous. Still, putting this tacky part of the movie aside, the rest of it is good fun that should please any fan of Universal horror films. And no, there is absolutely no mention of a place called Lee Ho Fook's!