Wow! Such a good movie.

Absolutely the worst movie.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

My thanks to IMDB for stopping their bad habit of replacing the original write-ups of films like this one with the "Svengoolie" episode number and NOTHING ELSE! For some time THAT was all you'd find when looking up a film like "Werewolf Of London" - just the Svengoolie episode number and NO other information. Let's face it, Friends - in the history of Cinema, whatever Svengoolie does just DOES NOT MATTER! What DOES matter is the actual information about the FILM!

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.

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.

This film was made during the early 1930s when a few of the best monster movies of all time were made. Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula, The Mummy, and The Invisible Man, all excellent films and appealing today still. Werewolf of London was made the same year as Bride, and this was during the "Golden Age" of Universal Monster Movies, so it will be excellent as well, right. Wrong. The film is bad mainly because, in my eyes, the main character played by Henry Hull was really unlikeable. After his character, Dr. Glendon, finds an herb in Romania(?) and tests it back home, he ignores his wife and he is so dull and straight-faced that I don't buy that he loves his wife, Lisa, played by Valerie Hobson, who was also Elizabeth in Bride of Frankenstein. She was only 17 when she co-starred in those two films, and she was not only a great actress, but she also looked very mature for such a young woman. In fact, Lisa is one of the only likable characters in the film, the other being Dr. Yogami, played by Warner Oland, who starred in the Charlie Chan films of the 1930s. Also, Yogami is a werewolf, who bites Glendon in Romania(?) so that Glendon becomes a werewolf.