Director: Stuart Walker
Screenplay: John Colton
Starring: Henry Hull, Warner Oland, Valerie Hobson, Leslie Matthews
Release Date: May 13th, 1985
WEREWOLF OF LONDON was Universal Studios first foray into the world of lycanthropy, and while it has never attained the iconic status of 1941’s THE WOLF MAN, it still served as a major stepping stone towards cementing the cinematic legacy of the werewolf.
The film tells the tale of Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Hull), a botanist on expedition in Tibet searching for the rare mariphasa flower. He finds the plant, but in the process is attacked and bitten by a strange wolf-like creature. Once he returns to his home in London, he is approached by the mysterious Dr. Yogami (Oland), he vaguely infers that the two of them met in Tibet, and warns of the side effects of a werewolf’s bite, adding that the mariphasa acts as a temporary antidote to the affliction. Of course Glendon doesn’t believe him. That is, until he begins to sprout fur on his hands at random times, fur that recedes once the petals of the mariphasa have been applied to the affected area.
When he returns to his lab the next night to attempt to stave off his imminent lycanthropy he is horrified to discover that the only two flowers that have blossoms, leaving a third that hasn’t bloomed and is of no use. And so Glendon transforms and, donning a hat and coat, embarks into the moonlit night to wreak havoc. The werewolf, it is said, instinctively seeks to kill the thing it loves best. In Glendon’s case that would be his wife Lisa (Hobson), whom Glendon has been neglecting in favor of his experimentation. Lisa has been spending a lot of time with her former sweetheart Paul (Matthews), and the mere thought of this sends the beastly incarnation of Glendon into a fury. Needless to say, several several innocents are brutally mangled until Glendon discovers that Dr. Yogami was, in fact, the werewolf who bit him in Tibet, leading to the tragic climax we’ve all come to expect from every werewolf story.
WEREWOLF OF LONDON runs a bit on the dry side, acting more as a domestic drama showcasing the deterioration of a marriage accelerated by the inconvenience of a husband’s lycanthropy. Henry Hull makes for a rather stuffy and uninteresting lead, but still manages to convey the sad desperation of his character as his life quickly falls apart around him. While I’m sure this film played far differently back in 1935, the scares are practically non-existent, though the black and white photography naturally lends the film the proper atmosphere to make this ripe for October viewing.
While this is my first time viewing the flick, I have been familiar with the werewolf makeup used in this film since I was a child, and while it lacks the visual flair of Lon Chaney Jr.’s iconic creature, there is something about the simplicity of this particular makeup that I have always found unsettling. Utilizing some subtly arched eyebrows, simple prosthetic fangs, and a few extra patches of fur, the werewolf in this movie seems more demonic than Chaney’s beast. My only problem with this hell-beast is it’s silly predilection for putting on a fancy hat and coat on it’s way out the door for a night of killing. It just seems silly for a beast comprised of man’s unbridled to stop and dress up before raping and pillaging, but that’s a minor complaint.
With it’s simple story and brief running time WEREWOLF IN LONDON is a charming distraction, and a nice reminder of how far the genre has come in the last century. I don’t think even a child would be frightened by this flick, but it might act as a good introduction to the genre for the youn’uns, if one felt so inclined.
My Rating: 7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment