Just as it's no coincidence that the inhabitants of London hear the howling of wolves on the full-moon nights when women are attacked seemingly by a wild beast, it's no mere happenstance that Universal released its werewolf films, this one, "Werewolf of London," and "The Wolf Man" (1941), shortly after the 1931/32 and 1941 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" productions, respectively. Whereas the studio laid claim to two of the major 19th-Century English-language Gothic horror novels, Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and Bram Stoker's "Dracula," rival Paramount controlled Robert Louis Stevenson's novella. As a workaround, Universal folded the Jekyll/Hyde story within the werewolf myth. This is less obvious in the 1941 version, with the layman Larry Talbot hunting barefoot in the forest like an animal, but it's blatant here, as Dr. Glendon stalks women amid the foggy, lamp-lit streets of London and, even in wolf form, manages to take the time to put on his coat, cap and scarf. On top of this, they also incorporate bits from the Fu Manchu films also of Paramount, as well as MGM, and from their own Dracula and Frankenstein properties.Jekyll/Hyde is more concerned with the hypocrisy of its upper-class doctor than with the dangers or philosophy of science, as opposed to Frankenstein, where the science fiction is crucial. Dr. Jekyll's Hyde provides him an outlet to unleash his repressed sexual perversions and murderous aggression. This is exactly what the transmitted werewolf disease does to, or for, this film's Dr. Glendon. As a man, he's already a rather jealous misogynist, of his wife and her male friend. He even tellingly refers to her as "the thing" he loves best. Perhaps, my favorite part of this film is that the doctor's possessiveness is reinforced visually by the camera focusing primarily on his hands during his transformations, as opposed to the face or the feet as other Jekyll/Hyde and werewolf movies have. It's, perhaps, even more interesting that this connection was probably unintentional--the film, with its tropes of screaming and fainting female victims, being as much a product of a patriarchal system as its protagonist.Lycanthropy being transmitted, indeed, seems to resemble vampirism more so than the chemistry of Jekyll/Hyde, and like "Dracula," there's a sexual element to the preying. Yet, although it's supernatural, the two werewolves here are botanists by day, and they work to harvest the antidote from a rare Tibetan flower that blooms in moonlight. As an antidote, it's a more science-y-based narrative device than the wolf's bane of Universal's other monster movies, which originally merely replaced the garlic in Stoker's story. The way they stick the flower stems in their arms also seems allusive to needle-based drug addiction, a theme similar to the ever-increasing doses of drugs that Jekyll was required to consume in the book. The scientific aspect is also reflected in Dr. Glendon's laboratory, which includes a bit of the type of electric gizmos that populated the set of Universal's 1931 "Frankenstein," as well as its sequels. There's also a video surveillance camera with a screen inside the lab.On the other hand, his sneaking into a woman's bedroom at night, his snarling showcasing his wolf fangs and the fact that he transforms into a wolf does recall Dracula. Like Stoker's tale, "Werewolf of London" also features a xenophobic invasion threat from the East, but Tibet instead of Transylvania. This is also akin to the yellow peril through-line of the Fu Manchu books, which had also recently been turned into successful screen adaptations. In the role of Dr. Yogami, this film even casts the original actor of Paramount's Dr. Fu Manchu films, Warner Oland (a Swedish actor whose specializing in Oriental roles also had him star in the Charlie Chan series).Technically, "Werewolf of London" is a far cry from the 1931/32 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," which it most imitates. The editing and dissolves mostly used for the werewolf transformations are less-impressive visual effects and the use of the camera less inspired, including a scene of the shadow of the monster over a victim à la "Nosferatu" (1922). It also suffers by comparison to the best of 1930s Universal horror, including "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Invisible Man" (1933) and "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), but fares better if judged beside the passable entertainment of Universal's B-picture productions of the 1940s.

While procuring a rare Tibetan plant, Dr. Glendon (Henry Hull) is attacked and bitten by a fur-upholstered creature of the lycanthropic persuasion. Back home in London, Glendon, w/ his precious plant secured in his amazing lab, goes about his normal life. Oh no! Someone else is interested in his new-found flora! A certain Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) shows an unhealthy interest in Glendon's "moon flower". The two men soon realize a mutual need of the flower, having to do w/ their shared, titular malady. If that isn't bad enough, Glendon's wife, Lisa (Valerie Hobson) is being wooed by a dashing upstart named Paul Ames (Lester Matthews)! With Glendon growing more surly w/ each passing moment, death and doom result. WEREWOLF OF LONDON is one of the better movies of its type, w/ Hull's sinister / sympathetic portrayal making it a classic in its own right. Highly recommended...

Werewolf of London (1935) was a pleasant surprise, not that I wasn't expecting much from the first (mainstream) werewolf film, but I wasn't expecting it to be as good or better than the Wolfman (1941) and I will say that it managed to be on the same level of greatness.Perhaps not all of the actors do a convincing job and some scenes could be considered to be very poorly executed, but I will say that most of the film its quite good. This movie is also responsible for making up most of the werewolf myth, at least the more well known version of the myth.I also noticed the intentional similarities between this film and An American Werewolf in London (1981), more than just the name, they share many other elements, from the two men being attacked at the beginning of the film, to the very end.Overall, its a pretty great horror film, I would recommend it to horror fans, mostly because I don't think enough people have seen it, most people think of The Wolf Man when they think of classic werewolf movies, and with good reason, but this one also had a huge part in the genre.

Returning from a Tibetan expedition, an English botanist finds the strange animal attack he suffered on the trip inadvertently transferred a curse to him that turns him into a werewolf and stalks the city streets looking to kill while his loved ones try to stop him.This one was quite the enjoyable if slightly flawed effort. One of the better features here is the fact that the action scenes of the werewolf here are really quite enjoyable and far better than expected, generating plenty of fun here. The opening attack in the mountains is quite fun with the darkness obscuring the creature nicely while the resulting wrestling match is a nice bit of lively action, the antics of the first nights out on the streets where his stalking and attacking is handled really nicely with some suspenseful moments while the changes he undergoes gives this some rather fine attacks while the extended scenes of him attacking the reception soiree at their house and his surprise attack on the bar-owners at his tavern hideout are both are both quite enjoyable as they really let the werewolf's look get center stage in this. As well, the high-end finale at the mansion estate is yet another really fun scene with the stalking around the outside of the house as well as providing the framework for launching the main attack on the couple as well as the nice brawling with the werewolf at the end which is far more vicious than expected and helps to really weave a lot of nice action into the second half that really gives this a great pace for this part of the film. Along with this, the film also manages some rather good points here for really great-looking werewolf design which is quite creepy-looking and manages to look really monstrous as it's on-screen quite often with some nice transformations thrown into the mix as well. These here work well for the film in spite of its few flaws. The main issue here is the film's rather slow- going first half here which doesn't really offer up a lot of interesting points or elements. It's mostly bogged down by a trio of really troubling problems all intertwined together, as this features bland scenes of him interacting in high society, stumbling over nonsense science fiction or building the unnecessary former lovers thread and each one is troubling. The high-society is mostly unappealing party scenes or stuffy luncheons that don't go anywhere, the science fiction used to spell out the connection between the contraption and the blooming flower is nowhere near realistic and there's almost no point in bringing up their past relationship which just ends up telegraphing. The only other flaw here is the fact that there's very little here about his torment over the curse who seems rather uninterested in being one and treats it as a non-entity once afflicted, which does affect him once he realizes it yet before of the signals raises his interest which is quite unrealistic. Otherwise, this one worked rather well.Today's Rating/PG: Violence.