O Monstro Humano

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.

I can't help it. I LIKE this film. Terribly subjective, I know, but... This film is an adaption of an Edgar Wallace novel, like his "The Green Archer", "The Four Just Men", and many, many others, almost all of which have a near-byzantine plot structure amidst the thrills and chills a la Sax Rohmer's "Fu Manchu" stories. They were written in a totally different day and age for a different audience. That a great many more were adapted for film in Europe should give you an idea of their popularity. Like many Wallace's tales, there are dark deeds abounding, naturally having to do with financial gain via insurance fraud and murder, with the Evil Ringleader sitting at the center of it all, dispatching his evil minions to do his bidding, while cloaked in a disguise of (almost) perfect respectability. If you think about it, the big difference, structurally, between this and other films like Humphrey Bogart's "The Enforcer" and Brando's "The Godfather" is that the audience already KNOWS who doing the killing. American audiences even today just don't buy a racketeer being totally anonymous even to the cops(However, if someone were to successfully adapt Forrest Evers' "Take-over" for the big screen, it might change a lot of people's minds).As for me, Don Vito Corleone's hit man, Luca Brasi, doesn't hold a candle to the terrifying henchman,Blind Jake...yes, I like this film. Seen in the proper spirit, it should creep you out, too!

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.

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.

In London, the Scotland Yard Detective Inspector Larry Holt (Hugh Williams) is assigned to investigate a serious of deaths apparently in accidents. However, a further inquiry shows that all the victims are men without family and insurance policy released by the insurance agent Dr. Feodor Orloff (Bela Lugosi) and the beneficiary is a home for blind administrated by Prof. John Dearborn (Bela Lugosi). When Henry Stuart is found drowned, his daughter Diana (Greta Gynt) comes to London and helps Holt and his American partner Lieutenant O'Reilly (Edmon Ryan) in their investigation.

"The Dark Eyes of London" is an interesting B-movie with a good dark story and a great performance of Bela Lugosi. Unfortunately the quality of the VHS released in Brazil impairs the cinematography of the film. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Monstro Humano" ("The Human Monster")