Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

For the next several days, I plan to review various movies about werewolves that I manage to find on YouTube, starting with this-the first mainstream one about them. Henry Hull travels to Tibet in search of a certain flower. While there, a creature bites into his arm. When he arrives home to England, he meets Warner Oland who claims to have met him previously in Tibet. Hull also has to deal with his wife and her friendship with an old friend who still fancies her. I'll stop there and just say this was quite a thrilling horror movie from the studio that glories in the genre: Universal. So on that note, Werewolf of London is highly recommended.

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.

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.

Prior to The Wolfman, Universal's first crack at a werewolf picture was Werewolf of London starring a legendary drama/romance actor named Henry Hull. Although Henry Hull is a terrific actor, his screen presence was rather timid in a horror picture that needed an exaggerated character. The film having a great introduction, couldn't manage to keep an entertaining story together and had didn't have as much werewolf screen time as it should have. The transformation of Henry Hull into the werewolf wasn't spectacular either. Looking back it may have been well received and fresh in the mid-1930s but the dull dialogue and uninteresting characters just doesn't hold up. Werewolf of London isn't a bad watch, just don't go in with high expectations.