Leofwine_draca The Dark Eyes of London - aka The Human Monster, aka The Dead Eyes of London - is an excellent little chiller, based on a novel by Edgar Wallace and featuring an on-form Bela Lugosi at the top of his ghoulish game. This is a densely-plotted little production that sees the police investigating a string of inexplicable murders in which the bodies are washed up at the shore of the Thames.Their findings lead them to both an institute for the blind as well as the business of one Dr Orloff (yep, like in the Jess Franco films) who works in life insurance. Hugh Williams makes for a rather staid hero, but Norwegian actress Greta Gynt is lovely in support as the woman drawn into the case, and Edmon Ryan brings excellent comic relief as the wisecracking American cop drafted in to help out.This murky thriller features plenty of plot strands packed into a short running time. It's filled with atmosphere and great scenes of murder and mayhem, most of them committed by an excellently made-up actor who lurches from one sinister scene to the next. Lugosi is clearly having a ball and as a whole The Dead Eyes of London is demented fun. The only problem with it is that all of the prints are of a very poor, public domain-style quality; we can only dream of seeing this one crisply remastered!

Michael_Elliott 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.

dsayne Human Monster/Dark Eyes of London has some fine moments mingled with the tedious and the ridiculous. The cinematography is excellent in places and competent all the time. The characters are capably acted, even the monstrous Jake whose makeup, if you can call it that, is so corny it's embarrassing. The viewer must deal with the fact that the detectives in the film are agonizingly slow to see what any ten-year old could see right from Bela Lugosi's first scene; namely, that he is up to no good and that there is definitely something not quite right about this guy. In fact, one wonders why his victims don't catch on because Bela really hams it up at times. Now don't be angry at me, I'm a great fan of Lugosi, but he overplays his evil moments as Dr Orloff in the early going, tipping the audience much too soon.WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER!!We are, however, treated to one of Bela's more delicate characterizations in the form of Professor Dearborn. The change in mannerisms is astounding because if you are not very familiar with Bela Lugosi you might not even realize it is he playing the part. I know this is true because it is what happened to my wife. She did not catch that Bela was Dearborn! The illusion is aided greatly by the nearly perfect dubbing of another actor's voice for Dearborn. This was accomplished brilliantly and it is a shame that the voice actor gets no credit. Bela completes the illusion with gentle mannerisms that are both subtle and natural. He is completely believable in the part of Dearborn. He is also convincing as Orloff in the latter part of the film, especially in the climax when it becomes apparent how little value he places on the men he uses. It is at this point that even the ridiculous appearance of Jake is overcome by the acting and the action.Dark Eyes of London suffers from some slow moving moments and poor pacing, but overall it is entertaining and if nothing else is a fine example of what Bela Lugosi was capable of accomplishing given the opportunity.

Edward Reed I was attracted to this film as it is set in London, and I love seeing the Great Wen from this period - shrouded in smog and flat caps. Unfortunately there were precious few outdoor shots and the sets were quite uninspiring too. Saying that though the story was fairly engaging and paced just about quick enough to keep the interest up for the 75 minutes or so. I am not sure why the American police officer was necessary as his role as a sidekick/comic relief to the polite and urbane Scotland Yard officer was ineffective (always wanted to beat criminals with rubber piping or shoot others) unless it was a vain hope to make the film appeal to a US audience.Bela Lugosi was not as terrible as I had imagined (with a couple of priceless glares into the camera for good measure) and nor were the rest of the cast. I would be interested to know what the National Institute for the Blind thought then (and now) of the depiction of the Home for the Destitute Blind (old men making wicker baskets in an environment that looked more like a prison than a home)seeing as they were credited with helping the production. Also I don't think I have ever seen an earlier film with a British woman police constable in it either - which led to some predictably outmoded comments from the male players.If you like this genre then I would say overall an average film with some curiosity value. Not a classic, more safe mid-table effort.