Fantastic!

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

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).

Having read the other reviews of this movie, I am struck with the idea that people must have been expecting another Dracula or Frankenstein or The Black Cat. This movie is emblematic of dozens of B horror films of the period that were fun to watch but were hardly great art. It adds the distinction of great atmospherics: the "old dark house", the fabulously creepy Rondo Hatton, the deliciously evil Gale Sondegaard and the handsome, wholesome hero, Kirby Grant. Citizen Kane it ain't, but in the context of films like "Fog Island", "The 13th Guest", or "a Shriek in the Night" it was certainly more enjoyable. Plot wise, it incorporates elements of vampire flicks (blood sucking), wolf man flicks (rare plant research), and the good versus evil conflict within Rondo Hatton's character. Oscar material? Hardly, but great fun. Lighten up people!

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!

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.