Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

MonsterVision99 Werewolf of London (1935) was a pleasant surprise, not that I wasn't expecting much from the first (mainstream) werewolf film, but I wasn't expecting it to be as good or better than the Wolfman (1941) and I will say that it managed to be on the same level of greatness.Perhaps not all of the actors do a convincing job and some scenes could be considered to be very poorly executed, but I will say that most of the film its quite good. This movie is also responsible for making up most of the werewolf myth, at least the more well known version of the myth.I also noticed the intentional similarities between this film and An American Werewolf in London (1981), more than just the name, they share many other elements, from the two men being attacked at the beginning of the film, to the very end.Overall, its a pretty great horror film, I would recommend it to horror fans, mostly because I don't think enough people have seen it, most people think of The Wolf Man when they think of classic werewolf movies, and with good reason, but this one also had a huge part in the genre.

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.

jwwalrath-227-85487 This was a decent film from the time. Don't get me wrong, if you're not a fan of this era of film-making it won't change your mind.The plot follows a lot of old movie tropes, but they are classic ones. There is an interesting twist in this, but I won't give it away. This film should be remembered for its importance in werewolf lore as it created a few key facts.Henry Hull does a fine performance as the titular werewolf. He can be selfish, demonstrating man's folly of knowing his limits and bringing his downfall, but also sympathetic because he isn't an evil person.There are a lot of comedic bits in this and they're pretty entertaining. A lot of credit should be the comic relief characters, because they're the most memorable parts of the film. Be sure to catch the part with the innkeeper and her friend.Overall, old movie fans will like this.

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.