VividSimon Simply Perfect

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

kevin olzak 1946's "The Spider Woman Strikes Back" has no connection to the 1943 Sherlock Holmes feature "The Spider Woman" (a series was intended then wisely dropped). Gale Sondergaard is back of course, this time as Miss Zenobia Dollard, faking blindness as she milks her varied nurses of blood on a nightly basis (food for her poison-producing plants), making any number of excuses to explain away their absences. Brenda Joyce ("Strange Confession," "Pillow of Death," "Danger Woman"), best remembered as a very chaste Jane in five Sol Lesser Tarzan entries, makes for a dull heroine indeed, slow to catch on as to why she's developed a habit of sleeping in late, with former Creeper Rondo Hatton reduced in stature as mute manservant Mario, billed on the posters as 'The Monster Man,' doing little except skulk around in the dark, plus a bit of sign language (there is an indication that he may have some interest in this current nurse, but nothing comes of it). Kirby Grant is a colorless hero, and dependable Milburn Stone is wasted as an agricultural expert. Gale Sondergaard later acknowledged this film's reputation as a campy cult classic, but it never lives up to such high ideals; watchable, but far too slack in its pacing. Either overrated or underrated, this SHOCK! title made an astounding 8 appearances on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater (only the fourth Universal to debut in the fall of 1965): Oct 9 1965 (following 1957's "The Giant Claw"), May 6 1967 (following 1956's "Pharaoh's Curse"), Apr 27 1968 (following 1966's "Track of the Vampire"), June 8 1974 (followed by 1965's "The Tenth Victim"), Aug 16 1975 (following 1967's "Son of Godzilla"), Apr 24 1976 (following 1965's "Nightmare Castle"), Dec 31 1977 (a triple bill, preceded by 1967's "Cauldron of Blood" and followed by 1937's "The Man Who Cried Wolf"), and Nov 19 1983 (solo).

The_Void 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!

dbborroughs In name only sequel to the film Sherlock Holmes movie Sherlock Holmes and the Spider Woman. The plot here has a young woman staying at a house with a strange woman named Zenobia (played by Gale Sondergaard from the Holmes film)as a house keeper/companion. Unknown to the young woman is the fact that Zenobia is draining her of some blood every night to feed to her plants. Standard but somewhat awkward thriller isn't bad, but isn't anything special. The film feels like a program horror film where they just sort of threw elements together and hoped that they stuck. Is it a horror film or a pseudo-Holmes film? Its never really clear and the film suffers for it. The producers even went so far as to put another connection to the Holmes series by having Rondo Hatton as a mute Handyman, but he isn't given much to do other then look menacing.. Its good but nothing special.

Michael_Elliott 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!