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.

Spider Woman Strikes Back, The (1946)

** (out of 4)

Rare and forgotten Universal horror film has a nurse going to a creepy house to take care of a blind woman. The blind woman actually has her sight and is poisoning cows so that she can run the farmers off. Sound dumb? It's actually very dumb and the title is quite misleading, although I guess they were trying to cash in on the Sherlock Holmes film. This is the type of film where you keep waiting for something to happen but it never does. The performances are all rather dry as is the direction but it does move at a nice pace making the 57-minutes go by very fast. Jack Pierce is credited as the makeup artist yet there's no makeup in the film!

I think I prefer this one to the Sherlock Holmes' adventuure yarn starring the same Gale Sondergard in the lead evil role. This very movie directed by Arthur Lubin may remind you some Jacques Tourneur's gems for RKO and produced by Val Lewton on the stories, mystery and horror mix-up, but certainly not on the atmosphere, so typical in Lewton's productions, Tourneur, Wise, Robson.... This one starring Brenda Joyce and Gale Sondergard is worth mostly because of both of them. For the story.... That's not the most exciting but I still prefer this one to the SH movie, which already was the least I liked in the series. Good little Universal horror flick anyway. No reason to miss it.

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.

This film is not as well known as the earlier Universal flick The Spider Woman; and that's because this one isn't a part of the Sherlock Holmes series, isn't nearly as good, and actually has nothing at all to do with spiders. The plot focuses on a young girl that goes to become a nurse in a blind woman's house. However, it turns out that the woman is not really blind and is actually taking blood from the girl in order to feed it to her plant, which ties in with some plot about murdering cows. Aside from the fact that this film features Gale Sondergaard, I really don't see any similarity to The Spider Woman at all - she doesn't even reprise her role! The name, therefore, is just a cash-in on the success of the original. It's the sort of trick I'd expect from Italian films of the seventies and eighties, but not something often done by Universal studios! You can't blame them, though, as the film really does have no other selling points. It's a poor and rather dull tale. Nothing of interest happens for the entire duration, and I'm not surprised that it only runs for about fifty eight minutes. Overall, there's really no reason to track this film down - Sherlock Holmes fans will not be impressed!