The Spider Woman Strikes Back

It's hard to hate anything with Gale Sondergaard in it. This subpar Universal thriller is light on thrills or chills. It's not much fun either. It does move quickly, however. As I realized the film was reaching its climax I was surprised as I thought it had only been on maybe half an hour. Outside of Sondergaard and (visually, at least) Rondo Hatton, the cast is pretty forgettable. The script is riddled with holes, too. When the villain reveals their big master plan I guarantee you'll say "Wait, what? Really? But what about..." It's that kind of movie. Still, it's watchable enough. Fans of Universal's horror classics from this period will enjoy it more than most.

Having read the other reviews of this movie, I am struck with the idea that people must have been expecting another Dracula or Frankenstein or The Black Cat. This movie is emblematic of dozens of B horror films of the period that were fun to watch but were hardly great art. It adds the distinction of great atmospherics: the "old dark house", the fabulously creepy Rondo Hatton, the deliciously evil Gale Sondegaard and the handsome, wholesome hero, Kirby Grant. Citizen Kane it ain't, but in the context of films like "Fog Island", "The 13th Guest", or "a Shriek in the Night" it was certainly more enjoyable. Plot wise, it incorporates elements of vampire flicks (blood sucking), wolf man flicks (rare plant research), and the good versus evil conflict within Rondo Hatton's character. Oscar material? Hardly, but great fun. Lighten up people!

This movie promises to be a sequel to the Sherlock Holmes movie, "The Spider Woman". It isn't. True, Gale Sondergard is the villainess and "Spider Woman" is in the title, but that's where any similarity ends. It's not a horrible film, but it's disappointing to tease the viewer with the promise of something that isn't there.

Rondo Hatton plays a mute, deformed servant. Too bad that he was so exploited.

I do wish Universal had made this a true sequel to the Holmes film. It would have been more interesting.

Despite the title and the fact that Gale Sondegaard stars in both films this is not a sequel to the Sherlock Holmes movie "The Spider Woman". Brenda Joyce plays Jean Kinsley, a young woman who gains employment as a companion to the apparently blind Zenobia Dollard (Sondegaard). However Zenobia is a cunning mad scientist, who with the help of her creepy butler/assistant Mario (Rondo Hatton) is cultivating carnivorous plants in order to drive away the farmers off land that her family once owned. The film is well filmed, fast paced and has an eerie feel to it, helped by the musical score, however the plot is pretty daft and the fiery finale is a bit weak. But the most appealing thing for me is Rondo Hatton, one of the most recognisable classic horror stars. He suffered with a growth defect called acromegaly which resulted in enlargement of the facial bones, hands etc, and unlike Lon Chaney, Boris Karloff, and so on he requited no make up to turn him into a "brute". Strikes Back was released after his tragic death.

Back in the late 1930s into the 40s, Rondo Hatton was a very sad figure in films. Bluntly put, Rondo was an ugly guy...due to the effects of acromegaly. It seems that during WWI, he was exposed to poison gas which damaged his pituitary gland...causing the disorder. This made his hands and face deformed. Sadly, Universal Studios hired him to mostly appear in horror films to take advantage of his face. It sure might have been nice had some of these movies NOT feautured him as a monstrous creature and a bit of sympathy might have been nice. Here in "The Spider Woman Strikes Back" (a film, despite its title, which is NOT a sequel), Rondo plays a mute servant who helps his mistress do experiments with human blood!

The story begins with Jean arriving in a small town to be the personal assistant and companion of Zenobia, a blind woman....or so she claims. What Jean doesn't know is that she's also been hired to supply blood to Zenobia's pet plant...a huge thing somewhat reminiscent of Audry from "Little Shop of Horrors". Now Zenobia doesn't take all of Jean's blood. Instead, she takes a bit while Jean is sleeping...leaving her, naturally, tired and anemic. To combat this as well as to knock her out, Zenobia insists Jean drink lots of milk...something she dislikes. What's next? See the film and find out for yourself.

So is this any good? Aside from the logical problem i mention in the next paragraph, it is pretty good...especially for a cheaply made B-movie. It has a nice creepy atmosphere and despite many no-name actors, it's effecive.

I have no idea why Zenobia didn't let folks know about her plant and the blood. Had she gotten locals donate very small amounts of blood for cash, this might have worked out just fine...instead of stealing it from her assistants. Heck, if the job paid well and they only took a pint here and there, I might have loved the job!

By the way, throughout the film, Gale Sondergaard plays blind Zenobia strangely. Instead of facing people who are talking with her, she stares off into space...something I never noticed any blind people doing. I think this could have been played better.

Also, the sign language Mario (Hatton) uses in the movie is nonsense and not at all related to American Sign Language.