Keeley Coleman
The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
Calum Hutton
It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...
Sabah Hensley
This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama
hellholehorror
Ignoring filmmaking limitations of the time it was made, this is still an intensely boring film. I can't think of a film where less happens. Luckily the forthcoming movie Carnivore: Werewolf of London (2017) doesn't seem to have taken inspiration from the 1935 dull-a-thon - here's hoping that will be a great film.
alexanderdavies-99382
"Werewolf of London" is the first werewolf to be made in Hollywood but it doesn't quite work as a whole. There are bits and pieces that are fairly good but I see this film as a failed experiment. In my opinion, "The Wolf Man" (1941) is the definitive werewolf movie.Henry Hull is miscast in the leading role - he is far too surly, disagreeable and cantankerous to be worthy of much sympathy. Warner Oland lacks the sense of mystery that is required for his character. If this movie had been a tailor- made one for Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, then "Werewolf of London" would be MUCH better.Not a classic by any means.
spencergrande6
Preceding Universal's own The Wolf Man by a good 6 years (and the eponymous song by even more than that), Werewolf of London is a surprisingly nimble delight. It's brisk, sly and spattered with scenes of welcome comic relief. The central story is rather basic, a man transforming during the full moon to hunt the one he loves. This person being his wife, of course, whom he has neglected in order to pursue his studies, which ironically winds up saving her life.The main character isn't very sympathetic. He isn't redeemed in any real sense (he basically just apologizes on his death bed). There are some erratic scenes involving drunken revelry, adultery and carnivorous plants (that leads to this gem of a line, "Evolution was in a strange mood when that creation came long.") It's all pleasant in a passable matinée sense.And the makeup is quite good. As good as The Wolfman no matter what anyone tries to say, and honestly the lack of that old woman hairdo almost makes it better. The transformation scenes smartly use single takes with use of foregrounding and slight movements to cut between transitions to show the process in motion. It works surprisingly well (better than CGI even!).
Some Dude
Other reviewers are giving a lot of credence to this film for being the first talkie of its genre. Unfortunately, it doesn't wear its 80+ years well. The story is the standard monster flick plot that we've seen over and over again. You'll be able to predict the plot at least 30 minutes into the future after the first 10 minutes. The acting is typical 30's -- loud, melodramatic, and wholly unbelievable. The sound quality is also typical 30's -- the white noise level is so high that it almost drowns out the dialogue. These are all technical faults that one might be prepared to forgive in an old "classic." Unfortunately, this isn't a classic so the faults simply make it unwatchable.I can only recommend this if you want to watch it for its historical significance. As a movie for entertainment purposes... don't bother.
