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.

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).

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.

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...