The Human Monster

Dr. Orloff has been endowing funds to the Dearborn Institute for the Blind, but is using the institute as a home for his sinister activities. Orloff has been ordering the murders of a series of men who have named Orloff as their insurance beneficiary, as collateral for a monetary loan. Scotland Yard Inspector Holt, also teaming up with Lt. O'Reilly (from Chicago) and Diana Stuart, daughter of the latest murder victim, try to uncover the connection of Orloff, the Dearborn Institute, and the murdered men. I enjoyed this movie more than I expected I would. Lugosi gives a very good performance, and the movie has a good aura of mystery about it which only enhance the audience's attention, despite the film's modest small budget. Rating, 7.

This is one of Lugosi's top movies. It's right up there with Dracula, White Zombie, Son of Frankenstein, and the Raven. Lugosi plays a dual role as a lecherous insurance salesman and kindly Dr Dearborn, a kindly blind teacher. Lugosi is at his sinister best as he knocks off people for their insurance money using the blind to do his bidding.

In one truly evil sequence, Lugosi makes one of the blind men deaf when he discovers that he had tried to warn someone about Lugosi. I won't spoil the ending. Not to be missed for Lugosifiles.

The Dark Eyes of London (1939)

*** (out of 4)

Det. Larry Holt (Hugh Williams) is investigated the bizarre "suicides" of several people who seem to have drowned themselves in the Thames. Most people think suicide but the detective believes something more sinister is going on and everything points to a home for blind people being run by Dr. Orloff (Bela Lugosi). Also known as THE HUMAN MONSTER, this British thriller will probably disappoint some expecting a straight horror film but if you go into it as a murder-mystery with horror elements then you should find yourself entertained. It's easy to see why Lugosi would want to go overseas and make this film and especially when you consider the type of mysteries that were being made in America. This here certainly separates itself from others because of its extremely dark atmosphere and rather bleak storyline. The Edgar Wallace story is a pretty strong one and it makes for an entertaining movie. The atmosphere is certainly extremely rich as the setting at the blind home is just the perfect location to match the mood of the picture. Another major plus is that the murders are a tad bit more sinister and graphic than what we'd typically see. This includes the brute of a killer with his deformed look and sinister moans. There's a scene where he's attacking the lead female character, which is quite thrilling even today as the use of shadows are perfectly executed and this was several years before the whole film noir movement. Williams gives a nice performance in the film as he gets a majority of the screen time and manages to carry the picture well. Greta Gynt is good as the girlfriend and Wilfred Walter is extremely effective as the monster. Then there's Lugosi who is certainly extremely good here. He perfectly captures the "good" character but when he switches it's also handled well by the actor. The entire "twist" in the story is pretty obvious today but I'm going to guess that those in 1939 were more caught off by it. With that said, if Lugosi had been able to use different voices and get past that thick accent (dubbing is used here) then it's clear he could have done so much more. THE DARK EYES OF London has some flaws including a few pacing issues and some ill-advised comedy but there's still plenty to enjoy here.

Instead of repeating all the details others have, I'll just say the film really gave me the creeps the first time I saw it. Sometimes when you see an old movie like this from the 20s or 30s, it's tempting to think nothing in it can shock you, because movies are not as "sophisticated" as the things you see today. I saw it on television many years back, way before home video, and was delighted to find it in a grocery store's previously viewed tape bin. It hasn't lost any of it's punch. To see how cruelly Lugosi dealt with his very helpless victims chilled me to the bone. The Uday of his time. It has a Hitchcock-type of human horror that is more effective than any rubber suited monster. Not too badly paced, and is still one I get out when in the mood for something dark.

I can't help it. I LIKE this film. Terribly subjective, I know, but... This film is an adaption of an Edgar Wallace novel, like his "The Green Archer", "The Four Just Men", and many, many others, almost all of which have a near-byzantine plot structure amidst the thrills and chills a la Sax Rohmer's "Fu Manchu" stories. They were written in a totally different day and age for a different audience. That a great many more were adapted for film in Europe should give you an idea of their popularity. Like many Wallace's tales, there are dark deeds abounding, naturally having to do with financial gain via insurance fraud and murder, with the Evil Ringleader sitting at the center of it all, dispatching his evil minions to do his bidding, while cloaked in a disguise of (almost) perfect respectability. If you think about it, the big difference, structurally, between this and other films like Humphrey Bogart's "The Enforcer" and Brando's "The Godfather" is that the audience already KNOWS who doing the killing. American audiences even today just don't buy a racketeer being totally anonymous even to the cops(However, if someone were to successfully adapt Forrest Evers' "Take-over" for the big screen, it might change a lot of people's minds).As for me, Don Vito Corleone's hit man, Luca Brasi, doesn't hold a candle to the terrifying henchman,Blind Jake...yes, I like this film. Seen in the proper spirit, it should creep you out, too!