Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Manthast Absolutely amazing

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Scarecrow-88 A talented pianist, Vernon Paris(James Stapleton)has played the greatest concert of his life with a future as bright as could possibly be..until his hands are mangled and broken after his taxi driver, whose attention was diverted, crashes. A dedicated and intensely driven surgeon, Dr. Gil Harding(Paul Lukather), who pushes himself too hard in saving every life under his care regardless of the circumstances, is able to successfully transplant a mysterious murdered man's hands onto Vernon whose own were damaged beyond repair. Awakening to the horror that he no longer possessed the delicate, skilled hands that so wonderfully played such soaring melodies, Vernon rejects the new ones grafted to him. Psychologically traumatized, Vernon begins to violently react towards those he condemns for the new hands that aren't able to adjust to the piano keys that once brought beauty to the world. This includes those who contributed to the surgery and his tragic fate..Gil's doctors and the son of the taxi driver who caused the crash(..also Vernon's glamorous society gal who left him for another after discovering his accident).Overly dramatic, talky, with loud, pounding score attempting to increase the level of weight regarding the characters and story can sometimes make the presentation a bit difficult, but I appreciated the ambitious nature behind the filmmakers in telling a compelling tale about how tragedy effects the lives of many when talent is taken from someone who has prepared his whole life for success. Director Newt Arnold, who also wrote the intelligent and thought-provoking screenplay, uses his camera to emphasize the importance of the hands, their movements and abilities, even focusing on the psychological impact of losing your own and being stuck with those alien to you. I like how Arnold differentiates the changes in the hands, once gentle, bringing only beauty, then strong and powerful creating only death. Arnold establishes that anything(..anyone)Vernon touches, he destroys. The performances are pretty intense and melodramatic, but the situation within the story warrants such heated emotions and debates. Still, one major problem that this film suffers from, I felt, is that Vernon is hard to sympathize with because he seems quite egotistical, arrogant, and the type yearning for the spotlight and fame..he has worked hard for this glory, but it's hard to really embrace him because he's obsessed with beauty to the point that it's the only thing of importance. When this is taken away from him, Vernon immediately sours, pointing fingers at the very ones who, at the very least, gave him new hands. I thought Lukather was very good as the determined surgeon, with a commanding presence, providing his character with an authority. Laurence Haddon is Lt. Syms, who hounds Gil for answers regarding the missing hands from the dead, unidentified man, patient, but steadily getting restless and assertive when the victims start adding up. Harvey, as Vernon's concerned sister, Dina(..and Gil's love interest), can be a bit overwhelming in her histrionics(..her overheated exchange with Gil over Vernon's unfortunate problem is almost cringe-worthy), but when settled/toned down, she isn't too bad. Some impressive photography with Arnold capturing faces/images quite well for extra impact(..the funhouse mirror gag is quite a powerful moment truly displaying the torment Vernon is facing in a visual way).

phdyr51 As others have noted, an extremely talky flick, with dialog so florid you could pin it on a prom date. However, there are some nice touches to be found: the opening sequence is noirishly atmospheric and well-executed, so to speak. Paul Lukather's seething mien carries the film valiantly,although his and his sister's rage at the doctor's eminently logical and humane decision to graft good hands onto Paul's mangled stubs strains credulity. Also, watch for the ending shot, which emulates a famous religious painting nicely.The deaths/killings are egregiously mild by today's standards, but, with the exception of a ludicrously spontaneous immolation, are effectively staged. The low-budget look is offset somewhat by inventive camera work that sustains a grim mood.It's not made clear whether Lukather's character starts killing because he now plays piano like Whack-A-Mole, or because his new hands somehow carry with them the temperament of their previous thuggish owner.Considering the dreck that was around in the early 60's, this is not bad stuff; with less gaseous dialog, it might have been memorable.

horrorfilmx This is the talkiest movie I've ever seen. I have a simple rule of thumb: if you watch a movie on fast forward and it still seems too slow you've got a problem. By editing out the slow, pointless, redundant dialogue you might be able to trim this film down to a serviceable 30 minute short, but in its present form I find HANDS OF A STRANGER just intolerable. I found the sloooow talking philosophical police detective a particular nuisance. I'm sure the writer/director meant to craft an intelligent, literate horror film but all he ended up with is a pretentious bore. Sorry. I'm not a guy who enjoys trashing other people's hard work, but there you have it.On the plus side, there are a couple of creepy touches (including nice use of a fun house mirror --- I'd seen a still of this shot in a horror movie magazine years ago and always wondered what movie it was from!) and the aforementioned good intentions. The hand motif got to be a joke after a while. And the scene where the pianist's girl friend accidentally dies (possible spoiler) was truly absurd. She falls back, knocks a candle off a table and into some curtains, and the whole room instantly goes up in flames. It's like she kept her curtains constantly soaked in gasoline in case of just such an event. And the boy friend just stands by watching while she's immolated in a matter of seconds.By the way, I'm a little surprised by the members who irately commented that the plot was a steal from HANDS OF ORLAC. I thought everyone knew HANDS OF A STRANGER was a remake of ORLAC --- although I suppose it is a bit suspicious that neither ORLAC nor its author is ever mentioned in the credits. Maybe I'm the one being naive.

lorenellroy It is nowhere mentioned in the credits but this movie is a retread of the classic horror tale "The Hands of Orlac",so memorably filmed in 1935 as "Mad Love",and done competently in 1961 under the original title. It sticks in my craw that nobody associated with this awful version has the common decency to acknowledge the source material and the rancid odour of plagiarism hangs over the whole sorry enterprise. The plot is a direct steal from the Maurice Renard source novel-a gifted pianist loses his hands in an automobile accident,and the hands of a brutish criminal are grafted on as replacements.The pianist then finds himself driven to acts of violence ,with his flighty girl friend and the driver who caused the accident his particular targets.Eventually he turns on the surgeon who performed the operation.Poorly acted ,and with a dull script and harsh ,flat lighting that makes the whole thing look like a cheap TV show this is best forgotten.Track down the 1935 film with the great Peter Lorre ,or keep an eye out for the Mel Ferrer version of 1961 but trouble yourself not with this excresence.