Cast:
John Agar (Prof. Clete Ferguson), Lori Nelson (Helen Dobson), John Bromfield (Joe Hayes), Nestor Paiva (Lucas), Grandon Rhodes (Jackson Foster), Dave Willock (Lou Gibson), Robert Williams (George Johnson), Charles Cane (Police Captain), Robert F. Hoy (Charlie), Brett Halsey (Pete), with Ricou Browning (Gill-man - Underwater), and Tom Hennesy (Gill-man - Land) Directed by Jack Arnold (#420 - The Incredible Shrinking Man, #464 - It Came from Outer Space, and #1290 - Creature from the Black Lagoon)
Review:
Undeniably, it is hard to make a sequel work. But hey, having a director return is at least a promising start. Jack Arnold read science fiction as a child, and he wanted to be an actor growing up before serving in the Signal Corps (and later the Air Corps) in World War II, learning under Robert Flaherty on camera work in military films. From his first film in With These Hands (1950) until his last film (a TV production) in 1980, Arnold had a career of three decades as director, yet it was the films he made involving science fiction that have lasted in the public consciousness. Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) and The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957), his best regarded films, happened to be released by Universal Pictures. The first film had been written by Harry Essex, Arthur Ross, and Maurice Zimm, while Revenge of the Creature would be done by Martin Berkeley and William Alland (who like the first film also served as producer). The film was primarily filmed in Marineland, Florida (a town that has the oceanarium of the same name), as the Gill-man now has his biggest foe: being trapped in a marine park.
If you can believe it, this film is not exactly up to the standards of the prior Gill-man film a year earlier. One way to start is the fact that a good part of its 82 minute run-time is spent with the creature just being trapped away from its surroundings in a tank, while Agar and Nelson serve as our new human focuses, while the only ones to return are Lucas (for the first few minutes, anyway) and Browning. The first feeling one has for this film is "rushed", because this is seriously the best idea they could come up with? Actually, I should have seen this coming, because one would have to be convinced by its opening sequence to even sell the idea of capturing the not-quite dead Gill-man: they blow up the water with dynamite and knock out the creature (hey, it works to get fish, why not a fish/human looking hybrid?). Agar and Nelson lead the film in their study of the creature, and they sure are a boring duo to lead the way through. Bromfield isn't really much better, and Paiva is again only there for a momentary time and is then just out of the film (unsurprisingly, it seems like the creature has less bodies to sort through this time, although there is a slight novelty in seeing a scene with a young Clint Eastwood appear). Somehow, it just all seemed more interesting before with the pursuit of the leading lady by the Gill-man a year before, mostly because one was interested in this ancient amphibious creature of the sea in its sympathy and interest driven by the bare surroundings of life around him (some people even found inspiration in having sympathy for the creature for their own film, such as with The Shape of Water (2017)). Here, it is a bunch of wooden acting that interact with the creature too many times in the water that make it seem like one is at the zoo, which makes it a rather tiresome affair to wait for the inevitable escape. The costume for the Gill-man looks a bit different here, seeming a bit more easier to breathe for its costumer, which may or may not help in terms of seeing googly eyes when the monster does appear in his cell-tank from time to time. The creature even gets the same fate as before, being shot by an array of bullets after his captured lady escapes his clutches, as if this end is any more final than the one before (with a sequel following a year later, owing to the fair success of this film). There seems to be more inevitability this time around, which doesn't benefit a film that looks like it was made just to further the profits along, but it seems to honor one Universal horror tradition in mediocre sequel-making as opposed to abysmal quality-making. It isn't anybody's best feature, but those who would like to see more from director Arnold or for some occasional gill-man horror might be okay with the 82 minute run-time for a lark. It doesn't go enough to recommend it as a positive winner, but average isn't too far off.
Surprise! In a year that spread horror films lightly across the year, it never hurts to further the horror trend with Halloween: The Week After Part II, which will continue with surprises along the way until November 7.
Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment