Occhi neri di Londra

In London, five bodies have washed ashore on the Thames. Scotland Yard is baffled.

Simultaneously, Dr. Feodor Orloff (Bela Lugosi) is closing a sale on his latest life insurance policy. Orloff, a pillar of the community, also operates a home for the "destitute blind", overseen by the kindly Mr. Dearborn. We learn rather quickly that Orloff might not be as "compassionate" as he appears to be.

When the Yard comes calling, Orloff is all too happy to help. It seems that his customers are "coincidentally" the poor souls that have been found so waterlogged, lately! Can the police connect the dots before more deaths occur?

THE HUMAN MONSTER is the perfect Lugosi vehicle. It's a very dark crime drama, with mystery and a heavy dose of horror. Bela really plays up the sheer sadism of his part, coming off as utterly devoid of mercy or human feeling. Greed drives him, and any means is justified in securing what Orloff wants.

Special mention is due for Orloff's hulking, blind henchman, Jake (Wilfred Walter), who dominates every scene he's in. Orloff's creepy, zombie-like secretary (Julie Suedo) is also worth mentioning, as she stares impassively ahead, never saying a word.

Co-stars Hugh Williams as the intrepid D.I. Larry Holt, and Greta Gynt as the inquisitive Diana Stuart...

The Dark Eyes of London (1939)

*** (out of 4)

Det. Larry Holt (Hugh Williams) is investigated the bizarre "suicides" of several people who seem to have drowned themselves in the Thames. Most people think suicide but the detective believes something more sinister is going on and everything points to a home for blind people being run by Dr. Orloff (Bela Lugosi). Also known as THE HUMAN MONSTER, this British thriller will probably disappoint some expecting a straight horror film but if you go into it as a murder-mystery with horror elements then you should find yourself entertained. It's easy to see why Lugosi would want to go overseas and make this film and especially when you consider the type of mysteries that were being made in America. This here certainly separates itself from others because of its extremely dark atmosphere and rather bleak storyline. The Edgar Wallace story is a pretty strong one and it makes for an entertaining movie. The atmosphere is certainly extremely rich as the setting at the blind home is just the perfect location to match the mood of the picture. Another major plus is that the murders are a tad bit more sinister and graphic than what we'd typically see. This includes the brute of a killer with his deformed look and sinister moans. There's a scene where he's attacking the lead female character, which is quite thrilling even today as the use of shadows are perfectly executed and this was several years before the whole film noir movement. Williams gives a nice performance in the film as he gets a majority of the screen time and manages to carry the picture well. Greta Gynt is good as the girlfriend and Wilfred Walter is extremely effective as the monster. Then there's Lugosi who is certainly extremely good here. He perfectly captures the "good" character but when he switches it's also handled well by the actor. The entire "twist" in the story is pretty obvious today but I'm going to guess that those in 1939 were more caught off by it. With that said, if Lugosi had been able to use different voices and get past that thick accent (dubbing is used here) then it's clear he could have done so much more. THE DARK EYES OF London has some flaws including a few pacing issues and some ill-advised comedy but there's still plenty to enjoy here.

Bela Lugosi made a lot of schlocky films during his career. While DARK EYES OF London is definitely a low budget film, thanks to decent writing and a very creepy style it manages to entertain even after almost 70 years.

Bela plays a totally amoral criminal who runs an insurance company. He insures people and makes himself the beneficiary after making these people loans. But instead of waiting to collect the money, he drowns them and throws their body in the Thames. While an interesting scheme, he oddly does it repeatedly--naturally arousing the suspicions of the police.

In addition to being an insurance man, Lugosi also is a benefactor to a home for indigent blind men. However, this act of kindness is a front, as this home is where Bela commits his murders with the help of a truly horrifying looking blind assistant. Near the very end, you actually get to see him kill one of his innocent victims and toss him in the river in a very graphic way--hence deservedly earning its special horror rating in the UK.

The film earns some points for an unusual plot and its graphic scenes--it really is a pretty scary film for 1940. However, there are a few lulls, some overacting by the idiot playing the cop from Chicago and the irrationality of Lugosi committing so many murders yet hoping to get away with it when he's the only rational suspect. By the way, speaking of the Chicago cop, do all Brits see us Americans as THAT brash and annoying?! I sure hope not! You also wonder why they even bothered including this character, as he was rather distracting and unnecessary.

Dr. Orloff has been endowing funds to the Dearborn Institute for the Blind, but is using the institute as a home for his sinister activities. Orloff has been ordering the murders of a series of men who have named Orloff as their insurance beneficiary, as collateral for a monetary loan. Scotland Yard Inspector Holt, also teaming up with Lt. O'Reilly (from Chicago) and Diana Stuart, daughter of the latest murder victim, try to uncover the connection of Orloff, the Dearborn Institute, and the murdered men. I enjoyed this movie more than I expected I would. Lugosi gives a very good performance, and the movie has a good aura of mystery about it which only enhance the audience's attention, despite the film's modest small budget. Rating, 7.

Instead of repeating all the details others have, I'll just say the film really gave me the creeps the first time I saw it. Sometimes when you see an old movie like this from the 20s or 30s, it's tempting to think nothing in it can shock you, because movies are not as "sophisticated" as the things you see today. I saw it on television many years back, way before home video, and was delighted to find it in a grocery store's previously viewed tape bin. It hasn't lost any of it's punch. To see how cruelly Lugosi dealt with his very helpless victims chilled me to the bone. The Uday of his time. It has a Hitchcock-type of human horror that is more effective than any rubber suited monster. Not too badly paced, and is still one I get out when in the mood for something dark.