As Hull’s nephew has stated, his uncle felt his wife needed to recognize her husband in the werewolf.

I prefer the Werewolf of London makeup. It hits a human/beast balance that crosses over into the uncanny valley, even when I see it today. That pillar transformation still remains my favorite werewolf transformation on film ever. The smoothness of the moves and his growing confusion at each step really sells the effect.

@AntoniaCarlotta

Жыл бұрын

That's an interesting take about the human/beast balance and uncanny valley-ness. Sometimes I find myself wondering if I'm too tough on the Werewolf of London makeup, and your perspective has me wondering again if I am.

@jimhedron3009

Жыл бұрын

I quite agree. The London Werewolf make up is subtle as he is half beast & half man. The Wolfman make up is overbearing and to be honest doesn't really resemble a wolf, but Talbot looks like a werebear & the wolf like walk (walking on his pads [toes]) is just silly because why didn't his arms change? The script of London may not have been as good, but I always loved the pillar transformation scene.

@williammacleod5589

Жыл бұрын

The transformation scene was copied brilliantly in an old Twilight Zone episode called the Howling Man. A must watch, and feels very classic Universal.

@jimhedron3009

Жыл бұрын

@@williammacleod5589 Yes, I remember that satanic transformation.

@mochawitch

8 ай бұрын

Yes.

I love the moment when the werewolf pauses at the door to slip on his coat and cap before braving the chilly London night to unleash mayhem. I mean, you have a pelt! Like seeing the Hound of the Baskervilles wearing a doggie sweater!

Such an under-rated movie. Overshadowed by the far more famous Chaney version, it has a great style and subtlety.

@dan1oval

6 ай бұрын

Agreed. I loved the Werewolf of London and was never a fan of the Lon Chaney version at all.

Excellent video as usual. Werewolf of London is definitely an underrated movie in my opinion.

I always thought there was a certain coldness in Henry Hull’s portrayal when compared to Lugosi, Karloff and yes, Lon Chaney Jr. There was also already transformation hairy guy precedent with DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE but in spite of all this, I love the movie anyway. Warner Oland always resonates more with me when he’s not playing Charlie Chan.

@jimhedron3009

Жыл бұрын

I get what you're saying, London has some elements of Jekyll & Hyde, but I still think the script was just poor, a prime example "Thanks for the bullet". I always cringe when I hear that line.

@queenglamazona8789

7 күн бұрын

He was such a Simp, and his Wife never understood the Concept of Marriage. She was always flaunting her Ex Boyfriend(who was still interested) in front of him and she was even still going out with him. I was actually rooting for the Werewolf to get her.

I thought that Hull's werewolf was much more frightening than Chaney Jr's. The subtlety of the makeup, showing more of Hull's face, gave a creepy look, suggesting a creature that wasn't a wolf or a man, but somehow both. Add to that the lighting and the air of mystery invoked by the makers of the film created a truly memorable horror classic. Chaney Jr. Just looked like a goofy dog. 😂. I wish his father, Lon Sr. could've been around to portray the wolfman. The man who created the makeup for 1925's Phantom Of The Opera most definetly would've come up with a scary werewolf. ❤❤

So I wasn't the only one to wonder why 'The Wolf Man' eclipsed 'WereWolf of London', and now I understand better why it did! Thank you for making this awesome video!

Your life and your history with your great great grandfather is amazing!

Werewolf of London is a decent film in its own right, but it's definitely one of the lesser of the original 12 Universal Monster films between 1931 and 1936. I actually prefer this make-up to the Wolf Man design, but the story doesn't hit the same sort of deep, primal fears or purity of concept that Frankenstein, Dracula, The Mummy, or later The Wolf Man does. It's a sort of complicated, confused morass of 1930's Sci-Fi, Orientalism, and foggy London streets, mixed with a mistaken identity plot. It's kind of the same problem with the Kharis Mummy series, where the priests and Tana leaves and New England setting are both unnecessarily complicated and pedestrian. The Wolf Man hits just that right point between the civility of Larry Talbot and the English village vs. the primal darkness of the Wolf Man and the dark forest, mediated by the gypsies who exist on the liminal space between both. Werewolf of London just doesn't tap into that in any meaningful way. It does, however, have a scene in which the ravenous werewolf puts on a coat and hat before stepping out XD

@AntoniaCarlotta

Жыл бұрын

Hahaha I always laugh at that - the one scene I always find myself saying, "oh right, that's a man in a costume!" You have such a great analysis about the other cultural reasons this movie struggled, as well as what was missing/flawed in the script. I think you're spot on.

@MonsterKidCory

Жыл бұрын

@@AntoniaCarlotta "I may be a werewolf, miss, but I am a werewolf of London, and a werewolf of London never steps out without a proper hat."

According to Henry Hull's Grand nephew Cordell Hull, who owns ad runs the Witches Dungeon Wax Museum which features the classic monsters, it was due to the fact that the werewolf was to be recognized as the character Dr Glendon. Jack Pearce originally wanted to do the what would become wolfman makeup but Hull realized he would not be able to be recognized and took it to Carl Jr and it was he who said to Pierce you need to tone it down so he can still be recognized

Bella Lugosi was the were wolf that 1st appeared in the movie. I got that from famous monsters of filmland magazine

Saw you just posted this today. I realized I have NEVER SEEN THIS! So I just watched it to prepare for your video. While admittedly, some of the scenes of transformation were a bit 'rough', the story was fun and held my interest. Valerie Hobson was BEAUTIFUL, and I loved that she wasn't the type to sit around and pine about what's wrong with her man or her marriage. The scene where her husband forbids her to go riding, and she pretty much tells him where he can stuff his restrictions was a delight. I love strong women, and the role was written with a strong woman in mind. Henry Hull was less sympathetic a werewolf than Lon Chaney Jr, but his apology to his wife as he lay dying was sweet. Warner Olund is always great. I would have loved to see the two 'werewolves' duking it out in animal form at the finale, but I was still happy with what we got. The 2 drunk women renting rooms kept me entertained much more than I expected. I enjoyed that bit of comic relief. I always appreciate looking back at this day of film making, so thanks again for sharing your family history. Now that I found this film and enjoyed it so much, I'm going to hop into ANOTHER werewolf film from Universal that I haven't seen-- "She Wolf of London" from 194! Till next time....

I think werewolf of London 1935 make up looks scarier than the Wolfman 1941 make up. He just looks very menacing and evil.

I saw Werewolf of London as a child of around 10, in the 50's and it's been one of my favorites ever since. Way better than Wolfman, in my humble opinion.

Looking great as always!

The great history of these films. Remain favorites today.

I actually like this make-up slightly more than The Wolf Man; it's a great combination of not just man and beast, but the pointed ears and widow's peak make him look slightly satanic... Which is perfect for an unholy beast, which is perfect: as you might know, one of the alternative titles was The Unholy Hour, and I've read that it was released by that name in certain territories. It definitely would have been up several notches if Karloff and Bela had been involved, but it'll always be one of those might have beens. Anyway, another stellar video, and you are as beautiful as ever.🙂 Cheers

I think it's totally amazing that you're the great niece of the executive producer of one of my top 3 classic horror films from the 1930s era! I loved your video!

@AntoniaCarlotta

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! 🖤

This movie is awesome. I’m happy to see that others feel the same.

It's true that Hull's make up was primitive compared to Chaney's but Hull's is scarier somehow. I can't put my finger on why. Make no mistake, I would cower in fear of the Wolfman if I saw him in a dark alley, but the Werewolf of London is terrifying on a level that is primal. Activating ones fight or flight reflex so to speak.

Another great video! Nice to see this film get some love. I always liked it.

GREAT segment, thank you for such an interesting topic!

@AntoniaCarlotta

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

I like the makeup quite a bit…preferring a fusion between some of Universal/Chaney, leaning more towards the former. Wolf-Man, rather than werewolf. Personally, I generally find the later, more wolf-like takes, kinda goofy. Though the American Werewolf in London transformation is iconic! By the way, the smoking jacket sequence ROCKS‼️ 🇨🇦

Your quite a historian, keep up the great work.

Henry Hull's Werewolf would put on his Coat before going out. Lon Chaney's Wolfman would Leap out a Window without his Shoes off. There's the Difference.

@ericw3229

Жыл бұрын

Still Talbot took time to button up his shirt tuck it in and change his slacks even buckle his belt

@queenglamazona8789

7 күн бұрын

This Werewolf was based more on Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde than anything else.

Wolf Man had the benefit of Claude Rains, Bela Lugosi, Maria Ouspenskaya (brilliant in this film) and Lon Chaney Jr. No offence to the London movie but the acting was very stilted and lacked a bit of emotion. Loved the two women who were outside the lodgings room. They brought a fun factor. Watching the Wolf Man, you sensed they had honed the story and legend elements to perfection. Nobody talks about a rare flower in other werewolf movies, but pentangles, silver and being killed by the one you love are all present in others. Wolf Man is a lore setter and that will always stand it on a higher pedestal. Personally speaking, the London makeup is miles better. You can identify the person behind the fur and teeth. Both good movies though. 😀

Love this movie.

Henry Hull's Werewolf is what is commonly called a Simp.

Cortlandt Hull is one of the most amazing people in the world! Go check out the Witches Dungeon Classic Movie Museum!!

That's easy. Lon Chaney Jr. is why. The greatest wolf man ever.

Compared to the top films of the Laemmle era (Frankenstein, The Mummy, Dracula, Bride of Frankenstein, The Black Cat, The Invisible Man), Werewolf of London is kind of a mess. The Tibetan opening is a distraction from the main action, and fails to engage an audience expecting a werewolf film. I realize that Dracula has a comparable drastic change of setting (which is probably what Colton had in mind), but that film had Stoker's template to follow, and the Gothic atmosphere fits with the story where the Tibetan setting does not. I won't fault Hull's performance, but the scenario calls for a more sympathetic character, and Glendon doesn't quite get the audience over to his side - he comes off more like Claude Rains in the Invisible Man, whose character can blame the drugs for his homicidal tendencies. Also, Walker's conception of the monster is muddled. The viewer is confused when the bestial werewolf dons a hat and coat. Glendon's monster is also puny compared to his Universal peers: Paul takes him out with a simple right cross - imagine someone trying that with the Frankenstein Monster, or, heaven forbid, Dracula. All in all, Werewolf of London has some fine aspects (I rather like the makeup, and the Invisible Man-derived scenes in the boarding house work for me), but it's several tiers down from the Laemmles' best work - or Waggner's superlative Wolf Man, the only Universal film to hit that level after the change in ownership (unless you count Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein). It has its supporters, but they have different standards than I do.

@shwicaz

Жыл бұрын

I strongly disagree that it 'fails to engage an audience expecting a werewolf film" I quite enjoyed the Tibetan opening, and I wish the film had stayed there, just because (as you said) I wasn't expecting it. I wanted more. I do, however agree with you on Hull's cold, unsympathetic performance. Karloff may have been Frankenstein's 'monster', but that audience felt empathy to that 'monster', and I wish Hull was able to convey a bit more of that in his performance. YES!, when the werewolf threw on a scarf, coat, and hat, it was me who was howling--not the Werewolf of London.

@studogable

Жыл бұрын

​@@shwicaz out of curiosity, how do you feel about The Invisible Ray?

Off topic: Any chance of getting information on Abbott and Costello Universal movies ?

The only problem with this movie cheaper sets,( lacking the FOG of london, and no huge castles, and less extras)

What I can't understand is how or why did the werewolf near the end was able to talk normal? To me, it makes no sense because if he always had a rational mind and can talk normal, why did he act animalistic?

JP greatest monster makeup artist! next 2 lon chaney, or surpasses in most areas

Chaney's Wolf Man was a total animal. Hull's werewolf was partly human in behavior. Chaney's portrayal of Talbot elicited audience sympathy for his fate while Hull's icy personality doesn't make the viewer feel sorry for him. I liked Hull's makeup (and Oliver Reed's look) more than Chaney's. Anyway, with 5 Chaney movies, he's the definitive Wolf Man.

Lon Chaney Jr.- The Wolf Man is far superior in story, makeup, mood and cinematography. There is no contest. Imho. I do like Werewolf of London, but it's like comparing a Lincoln to a Kia.

Did you talk to his great nephew Cortlandt Hull before you recorded this?

@AntoniaCarlotta

Жыл бұрын

I did not! I don't think I've met him before. Would love to hear his perspective.

I wonder where I’d be able to watch this film.

@AntoniaCarlotta

Жыл бұрын

I put some links to rent/buy streaming in my video description. You can also get it as part of the Wolf Man Legacy Collection here: amzn.to/3IHgt9u

@largeformatmaster2994

Жыл бұрын

@@AntoniaCarlotta Thank you!

@ericw3229

Жыл бұрын

You can rent it on KZread

From the first time I saw this film as a 14 year old kid, I believed that ‘Werewolf of London’ was a more realistic take of what might happen if a man really could turn into a werewolf. I always thought that the 1941 ‘Wolf Man’ was overblown, sensationalistic and not at all believable. I think Henry Hull’s acting is quite good and believable while Lon Chaney Jr.’s is amateurish and not convincing.

I'll always liked the wolfman better but werewolf of London is a close second the makeup was creepier out of the were wolf of London and wolfman

Shucks! Here I go again, having sworn off attempting to reach Antonia when seemingly failing by resorting to no less than three different avenues, none having borne fruit (as yet, anyway). And these missives of mine weren't of the gushing or caustic kind, either, which are so prevalent nowadays, neither being of any real value save as "fan mail". I just wanted to, as it were, regarding your observations pertaining to Universal's 1935 feature, "Werewolf of London", put in my proverbial two cents' worth, aware that my comments won't even be worth that much to anybody who reads them. In brief, it's an "A'" picture; the Lon Chaney, Jr. entries are "B" or "B+" productions, entertaining but lacking the more impressive aspects of the earlier film (not to imply a "B" picture can't be superior to an "A" one!). And why it didn't cause a stir in 1935, being so different for its time, is a bafflement to me (Antonia's views notwithstanding); for it is highly literate in addition to being a thrilling, atmospheric -- even tragic -- motion picture. For that matter, as werewolf movies go, I'd add "The Undying Monster" (20th Century-Fox; 1942) as worthy of consideration. Based on a rather poor novel of the same title, and admittedly with a bit too much comedy, it exudes genuinely intense atmosphere, and mystery, as was put forth from Warner Bros. some years earlier with "Doctor X" (1932) and "Mystery of the Wax Museum" (1933), combining horror with a whodunit theme -- still a rare mix when the aforesaid John ("The Lodger" and "Hangover Square") Brahm feature was released. Another quandary. Why renowned British film historian Kevin Brownlow, as the the prime mover of an elaborate TV documentary on a particular studio's vintage "monster" movies, which aired some years ago ("Universal Horror"; 1998), sidestepped any mention of "Werewolf of London", it receiving not so much as a single mention! Kevin is a friend of mine, and a really nice fellow, but when I asked him about this omission of a significant entry in the film history of the genre, he told me it was omitted to make room for other titles. I found this incredible, and still do! But silent film is his true love, and he admitted, if not in so many words, that his heart hadn't really been in this project. Even so, I'd have thought that, given Kevin's lofty status as a film historian, he would know that "Werewolf of London" was too important to omit from an ostensibly thorough history of Universal horror pictures! Cordially, Ray

Dr. Glendon is just so, well, cranky. That's all. Understandable, under the circumstances, but. . .off-putting. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Fantastic look back on this film! I actually always liked the makeup on Henry Hull! I'd certainly be scared if a guy looked like that and started coming at me! :D I must confess: I always would fall asleep when watching it! It would be on at, like, three in the morning! Back in the day, these movies would only come on once in a blue moon, and if they were on in the middle of the night, you stayed up or woke up to watch it! So I'd usually fall asleep before anything good happened, lol. Anyways, great video, thank you!!!!!