6.3/10
Senior Film Conservator
A definitive 6.3/10 rating for a film that redefined the boundaries of cult cinema. Werewolf of London remains a cornerstone of transgressive art.
If you like old-school creature features, absolutely. If you need snappy dialogue or modern jump scares, you might want to skip this one. It feels like a stage play that occasionally wanders into a dark alleyway.
The whole thing moves pretty fast. Henry Hull, who plays the lead, isn't your typical sympathetic monster. He’s kind of a grumpy scientist who spends way too much time shouting at his wife about his botanical research. Honestly, I found myself rooting for the werewolf a little bit just so he’d stop talking about his flowers for a second. 🌸
People always talk about the 1941 Wolf Man, but the transformation here is actually pretty creepy for 1935. It’s all practical, just simple dissolves and hair growing in weird spots. It’s not smooth, but there’s something unsettling about it. It’s messy. I like messy.
I caught myself looking at the background extras more than the main cast. Some of them are just standing there, looking like they’re waiting for a bus while a literal monster is prowling around. It’s the kind of background acting that makes you laugh for no reason.
It’s weirdly fun to compare this to stuff like The City of Stars. Both have that old-world charm, but this one is definitely more concerned with how many people can get bit before the police finally show up. The police, by the way, are completely useless here. They’re basically just scenery.
The ending happens so abruptly you’ll think you missed a scene. One minute he’s running around, and the next, it’s all over. It’s not graceful, but it doesn't overstay its welcome. Sometimes movies just need to stop, and this one knows when to quit. 🐺
It’s not a masterpiece. It’s a 75-minute mood piece about a guy who really should have just stayed in the office. If you’ve got a rainy afternoon and a soft spot for grainy black and white film, it’s a solid watch.
