Hands of a Stranger (1962)

A Disappointing Continuation

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Hands of a Stranger is nothing more than another version of "Hands of Orlac" (1924/1960). It's a pretty good version of the story.A murderer dies and concert pianist looses his hands in a car wreck around the same time frame. A policeman is still solving the case of the murderer and the pianist's surgeon has given him the murderers hands. Somehow the hands have a mind of their own and murders people while the pianist seems to black out or block out in a way as he takes on the personality of the murderer and the murders taking place from his new hands.it's odd but still makes for a decent horror story.6.5/10

The plot is very standard here. If you have seen The Beast With Five Fingers, The Hands of Orloff/Mad Love, or even the Michael Cain vehicle, The Hand, you know what this is about: guy gets new hands sewn onto his wrists, gets an itch to go out and strangle pe0oople . (This is a twist on the Eyes Of A Murderer concept, which may be reviewed other places. One difference: these are not necessarily the hands of a murderer being grafted onto the gifted pianist's wrists, in fact we never do learn whose hands these were -- but murder ensues nonetheless. So the question is: why watch this? For me, the interest was with the young actor (denied lead billing) and the men's incredibly greasy hairdos. Leaving hair for another day, we have James Stapleton who reminded me of a young Ray Liotta, but (as another reviewer perceptively noted) was directed as Hurd Hatfield. Too bad. One or two Liotta humorless laughs and we would have had an Academy performance. Such is the danger of being born between two film concepts, Hatfield and Liotta. Let this be a warning to would-be thespians: is now your time? Or should you go back to that comfortable barista job? (James Stapleton changed his stage name to James Noah. He got work for years, but not much and I think, given the proper role, could have been dynamite.)

If this film seems familiar, it might be because you've seen "Mad Love" (1935) or either version of "The Hands of Orlac" (1924/1960). "Hands of a Stranger" is essentially a reworking of this story. In all four films, a concert pianist loses his hands in an accident and receives transplanted hands--and the hands are, apparently, evil and have a mind of their own! What makes this film a bit difference is that the surgeon is not evil--just an over-actor! And the same can clearly be said about the pianist's sister--who seems to be trying her best to upstage the doctor's occasionally overwrought performance! Ditto for the pianist. Once he has his bandages removed, so is all restraint--and he begins battling for the best over-acting award! My vote is for the sister...but her crazy brother sure gives her a run for the money! Regardless, this movie lacks subtlety and is filled with many scenes that are simply overdone. And I loved how practically every time the pianist touched someone they died!! It was actually pretty funny--though sadly the film was not intended as a comedy.The bottom line is that I've seen the 1935 and 1924 films and they are excellent--highly enjoyable and clever. "Hands of a Stranger", in contrast, is heavy-handed and a bit dumb...no...a lot dumb. Really, really dumb. But, because it is so bad, it actually is worth seeing just for a few laughs.By the way, looks for a young Barry Gordon as a piano-playing kid. He's pretty cute and has a memorable encounter with the crazed pianist. Also, get a load of the Doctor and his bedside manner. He sure loves slapping patients! I wonder which medical school taught him that!

I remember seeing this late at night in the mid sixties on Chiller theater and it really creeped me out so I was anxious to check it out again when it showed up at the public domain bargain bin section. It doesn't really hold up that well but I can see a why it stuck in my mind in a few well shot and staged scenes.Of the four filmed versions of The Hands Of Orlac (Four and a half if you count sections of Oliver Stones flop The Hand) this one comes in at dead last. It's not awful but it doesn't hold a candle to in inventiveness and weirdness of the Peter Lorre Version Mad Love and it doesn't have the silliness and fast pace of the Mel Ferrer ,Christopher Lee Version The Hands Of Orlac. As noted by others this doesn't credit orlac at all . Although there are marked difference between all of the versions it doesn't take a genius to figure where the story came from even though it ends differently.I liked the opening and the scenes at the carnival and of course nurse Irish McCalla (Sheena, Queen Of The Jungle)isn't hard to look at. Juvenile actor Barry Gordon is sympathetic without being annoying like many child actors and Paul Lukather (who still works) has enough bravado to carry him through the long winded and stilted episodes of prose.If you're a horror completist and don't expect much or if you're into B-movie noir you might give this a glance otherwise stick to the Karl Freund version Mad Love. You can't beat Peter Lorre on a tirade anyway.