Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Coventry "The Hand that Feeds the Dead" is blessed with an enticing title and the presence of cult icon Klaus Kinski, but it's basically nothing more than a cheap, uninspired and exploitative rehash of the French horror milestone "Eyes without a Face". That doesn't necessarily have to be a negative thing, because many decent and entertaining horror flicks are derivative of that same classic – for example Jess Franco's "The Awful Dr. Orloff" or the British sleeper "Circus of Horrors – but this is a prototypical example of a rip-off that doesn't contribute anything to the genre whatsoever. Kinski stars as Dr. Nijinski, former acolyte of the brilliant Professor/Baron Ivan Rassimov who allegedly stood on the verge of a tremendous surgical breakthrough before he got killed in an all-devastating fire. The same fire also heavily mutilated the beautiful face of Rassimov's daughter (who also happens to be Nijinski's lover) and that's why Nijinski now attempts to finalize Rassimov's experiments. The work requires for Nijinski to lure unsuspecting girls to the castle and for his hunchbacked slave to kidnap innocent victims from the nearby village. "The Hands that Feeds the Dead", like many of its supportive characters, appears to be in a constant comatose condition. The period decors and filming locations are definitely adequate, but the pacing is dreadfully slow and the events are painfully dull and predictable. Half of the film is sheer padding footage, varying from pointless lesbian sex to endlessly overlong footage of bubbly potions and flashy machinery inside a pathetic wannabe laboratory where supposedly the skin and facial transplants take place. Oddly enough, the actual transplants are simultaneously gross and boring. The make-up effects are repulsive, but the extreme close-ups of the skinless faces seem to last eternally. Klaus Kinski obviously also wasn't the least bit interested in this film, and gives away the most indifferent performance imaginable. Those incredibly overlong transplantation sequences, for instance, plainly don't even star him. With his ego and reputation, Kinski probably refused to waste his precious time shooting retarded footage like that, and thus all we ever see are the surgeon's hands and uniform. Note: although not an actual character in the film, I assume that the chose to use the name Ivan Rassimov must be some sort of inside joke of the director, as Ivan Rassimov really was a respectable Italian cult/horror actor around that time and starred in, among others, "Jungle Holocaust", "Eaten Alive", "Spasmo", etc..

lazarillo This is another collaboration between crazed German actor Klaus Kinski, hack Italian director Sergio Garrone, and beautiful Dutch actress Katia Christine, and it is a marginal improvement over their other collaboration "Amanti di Mostro". The story is superficially similar to the other film. Once again, Kinski is a mad scientist married to Katia Christine, and once again he is carrying on the work of his late father-in-law (named "Ivan Rassimov" in this movie, which is perhaps an inside joke since Ivan Rassimov was a familiar character actor in Italian exploitation films during this era). But instead of Kinski turning himself into Mr. Hyde and attacking all the half-naked,local women, this movie has an "Eyes without a Face"-type plot where Kinski uses his Igor-like assistant to kidnap all the half-naked, local women in order to transplant their flesh onto his disfigured wife.Sergio Garrone (to borrow a line from "Shock Cinema's" Steve Puchalski) probably couldn't successfully direct his own bowel movement, so it's impressive here that the direction at times approaches borderline competence (or maybe that should be credited to his Turkish co-director?). Kinski generally gave two kinds of performances in movies like this--scenery-gnawing or totally phoned-in. He definitely gnawed some serious scenery in "Amanti di Mostro", but here is performance is pretty much phoned-in (he also may have stormed off the set at some point because they seem to use a double for some of his scenes). If you're a fan of Katia Christine's acting, you'll enjoy this more than "Amanti" because she has much more screen time and essentially plays two different roles, one of which is deliciously evil. If you're more a fan of Katia Christine's body, however, you might prefer the other movie because she generally keeps her Victorian garments on here. There is as much nudity and even more gore than in "Amanti", but it all comes toward the end of the movie, by which time you may have already slipped into a boredom-induced coma.Although the best thing about this might be the literal translation of the Italian title, "The Hand that Feeds Death", this was recently released on Region 1 DVD under the ho-hum title "Evil Face". I wouldn't really recommend this, but god knows I'VE seen worse movies.

The_Void The Hand That Feeds the Dead apparently is often confused with a film called Lover of the Monster. That's not at all surprising; they're both directed by Sergio Garrone, feature basically the same cast (both headed by Klaus Kinski), both were released in 1974, they both feature similar plots and even some of the same footage. Unfortunately, they're also both rubbish. After seeing Lover of the Monster recently, I had it in my head that at least it couldn't be worse than The Hand That Feeds the Dead - but I was wrong, as despite a very nice title; this film is utter dross. The film takes place in the nineteenth century and focuses on a doctor by the name of Prof Nijinski. He stumbles upon an old laboratory in his basement and begins experimenting with life and death (yadda, yadda). Of course, the experiments go wrong and end up messing with the doctors head.I have to admit that the version I saw was sourced from a Turkish VHS and was cut down to about seventy eight minutes. I don't know exactly what was cut out, but I'm guessing it was all the good bits because we haven't been left with much. I'm sure that some of the gore was cut out because I didn't see much of it; there were a few skin graft scenes but overall the film is very lacking on that front. The period setting and obvious low budget gives the film something of a gritty feel that works fairly well with the plot but is nowhere near enough to save the production on the whole. Klaus Kinski is undoubtedly one of the major stars of cult cinema, but even his presence is not enough to lift this production; frankly he looked about as bored as I was. The pace is very slow and the editing is inept, which makes the film even harder to watch. I really didn't care what happened at the end and the climax was not interesting anyway. This film has vanished into obscurity since its release and I'm not at all surprised about that. The Hand That Feeds the Dead is nowhere as interesting as it sounds and is not recommended!

pasalihakan I watched Turkey version of this movie from a very old VHS cassette. The film was re-edited by co-director Yilmaz Duru and just 78 minutes. It seems that those other 9 minutes was very gory for the eyes of Turkish co-producer Tugra Film and they decided to chop that footage. There were neither "yanking the guts out of a dead puppy" by Kinski nor his "spending a lot of time running wild through the woods". He was more of a decent but passionate guy, anyway he was spooky. There were some inconsistencies during the film, or better some long jumps in the narration. After the professor's henchman buries Daniel out somewhere in the garden, then all of a sudden in the next scene we see Daniel trying to free from sarcophagus in the cellar. And the film finishes right after Daniel runs out the manor through the woods and collapses crying on the grasses.