The Spider Woman Strikes Back (1946)

Don't Believe the Hype

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Gale Sondergaard was terribly misused by Universal Studio's. She had a great talent but was wasted in grade Z film's such as this tripe. Two years before she had made a big impression as one Sherlock Holmes most diabolical and resourceful adversaries in "The Spider Woman" 1944. She and Basil Rathbone were wonderful as they tried to one up each other right to the end. This movie promised to be a return of that original character. But that wasn't the case.It's a mystery with more plot holes the you could imagine with a story line that makes very little sense.Brenda Joyce is the damsel in distress, and Kirby Grant is her rescuer and hero of the story. Grant went on to play Sky King a decade later. Rondo Hatton is around to be sinister but is just sort of "there".You can figure out what's going on fairly quickly. The question becomes WHY is it going on. When that WHY is reveled at the end of the film it's totally unsatisfying. If you are are a Sondergaard fan you will like the way she gives it her all to keep things going. She's the only reason to watch this picture. Beyond that there really isn't anything to recommend The Spider Woman Strikes Back.

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!

Despite the title and the presence of two of Sherlock Holmes' most formidable nemesis (Gale Sondergaard and Rondo Hatton - hilariously named Zenobia and Mario respectively!), this is one lame film which has nothing whatsoever to do with one of the better Universal Sherlock Holmes entries. As a matter of fact, the story is weak, the premise far-fetched, the resolution predictable and the treatment uninspired! Besides, the fiery climax is clumsily executed and Hatton's fidgeting...er...sign language eventually gets on one's nerves! It's fair to say, then, that director Lubin fared much better with the other two 'horror' films he made for the studio - BLACK Friday (1940) and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1943), even if these weren't completely satisfying either...

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.