MovieChat Forums > Werewolf of London (1935) Discussion > Better with Karloff + Lugosi

Better with Karloff + Lugosi


Great movie but makes one wonder how much better it would have been to see Karloff & Lugosi as Glendon & Yogami as was originally intended.

reply

I like the movie too, but would it have been better with Boris and Bela? Sure it would! Both men were better, more nuanced actors. Warner Oland was was stiff in the Lugosi role and Henry Hull seemed brittle and angry in the Karloff part.

Interestingly, a later Universal film, "Made Made Monster", was also originally intended for the two horror stars, and developed around the same time as "WoL". When it was finally made in 1940, Lon Chaney Jr. and Lionel Atwill played roles that were conceived with Boris and Bela in mind. That's an okay movie too, and Chaney and Atwill were certainly better than Oland and Hull. But the presence of Karloff and Lugosi would have lifted it higher. In fact, what a shame they didn't make that film instead of the rather ill-fated "Black Friday", produced that same year.

reply

I thought Oland was excellent, myself, and gave ominous and mysterious line readings. Hull was okay, but Karloff would have been warmer and more tragic in the roll. Still, I think the key weakness of the movie is in the script. Dwelling on Lisa's dissatisfaction with her husband undercut him as a tragic hero and introduced a distracting love triangle which badly weakened the movie. Wilfred and Lisa should have been crazy about each other, like Larry and Gwen were in THE WOLFMAN.

reply

[deleted]

Henry Hull is extremely sympathetic (despite his crankiness throughout most of the film) during his transformation scene where he begins to pray to avoid turning into a werewolf again.

reply

WereWolf of London could have been one of the greatest horror films of the 30s had Karloff and Lugosi starred instead of Henry Hull and Warner Oland. >>>

Really?? How come you left out Vincent Price and Peter Lorre?

reply