Revenge of the Creature.

Review #1586: Revenge of the Creature.

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.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

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.

Creature from the Black Lagoon.

Review #1290: Creature from the Black Lagoon.

Cast: 
Richard Carlson (Dr. David Reed), Julie Adams (Kay Lawrence), Richard Denning (Dr. Mark Williams), Antonio Moreno (Dr. Carl Maia), Nestor Paiva (Captain Lucas), Whit Bissell (Dr. Edwin Thompson), Bernie Gozier (Zee), Henry A. Escalante (Chico), Perry Lopez (Tomas), Rodd Redwing (Luis), Sydney Mason (Dr. Matos), Ben Chapman (Gill-man - land), and Ricou Browning (Gill-man - underwater) Directed by Jack Arnold (#420 - The Incredible Shrinking Man and #464 - It Came from Outer Space)

Review: 
It should come as no surprise to encounter yet another Universal monster film for the season. There are plenty of films classified under horror in their catalog, where one can't go wrong with many of their efforts, such as The Phantom of the Opera (1925), or The Invisible Man (1933), where even the lesser ones are worthy of curiosity. The 1950s was the decade of television along with the decade of expanded kinds of horror. Whether it was space aliens, giant monsters, radiated mutants, or some sort of offbeat horror, it certainly must've proved a fun time to make something to try and get some sort of entertainment (or perhaps a cheap buck). Universal persisted with their own horror films as well during the decade, with the obvious standout being the Gill-man. Although he did not appear in as many films as say Frankenstein or Dracula, the creature was the only one with its own trilogy of films in the decade for Universal (unless one counts the Abbott and Costello series, which had three horror comedy features in this decade), with its sequels released in the following two years (Revenge of the Creature and The Creature Walks Among Us). In any case, the Gill-man is the last great Universal monster, an ancient amphibious creature of the sea that certainly draw a small bit of sympathy and interest. The monster was designed by former Disney illustrator Milicent Patrick, whose work was overshadowed by makeup artist Bud Westmore for decades; the costume was made by airtight molded sponge rubber for $15,000. It was filmed in 3D, with polarized light projection, which meant gray polarizing filters (as opposed to red-blue), with producer William Alland having originally being inspired by a story told to him by Gabriel Figueroa about a half fish/human myth in the Amazon, writing notes about a "Sea Monster", which was expanded on by writers Harry Essex and Arthur A. Ross, with story by Maurice Zimm. It is safe to say that this is a well-done classic, worthy of being in anyone's horror curiosity. The monster effects look pretty good, with an eerie quality about the way it looks that makes for such an interesting creature to spend time with, particularly with all those bumps and gills along with that face. The acting is fine, with Carlson and Adams carrying the ship okay in the sense that while not completely full-fledged, they each manage to fulfill the necessary things to give the film something other than a big water monster attacking random folks entering its domain. No one goes too off the deep end in camp nor too much seriousness, with the film generally having a reasoned atmosphere, where the monster looms for two environments and seems pretty formidable for 79 minutes, with Chapman and Browning proving well with portraying the monster when needed. The climax is pretty swift, with a little time spent involving the creature and his thing for the leading lady that goes over just fine, and it proved an inspiration for Guillermo del Toro that eventually resulted in The Shape of Water (2017). All in all, this is a pretty entertaining movie, capable of giving off a few scares and thrills with a solid creature and premise (while not falling apart in clichés) that has a sturdy foundation in its other aspects to make something useful in horror from the deep.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter.

Review #1153: Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter.

Cast: 
John Lupton (Jesse James), Narda Onyx (Dr. Maria Frankenstein), Estelita Rodriguez (Juanita Lopez), Cal Bolder (Hank Tracy/Igor), Jim Davis (Marshal MacPhee), Steven Geray (Dr. Rudolph Frankenstein), Rayford Barnes (Lonny Curry), William Fawcett (Jensen, the pharmacist), and Nestor Paiva (Saloon Owner) Directed by William Beaudine (#463 - Billy the Kid versus Dracula and #535 - Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla)

Review: 
Older fans of mine will remember my coverage of Billy the Kid versus Dracula, which I covered all the way back in October of 2013, which served as part of a double feature with this film.

Admittedly, combining the genres of a western with horror could be interesting. I suppose there really must've been a push to make some cheap thrills and make a quick buck out of it while featuring outlaws from the Old West. The result is two films directed by Beaudine that were both shot in eight days while written by Carl K. Hittleman while shot at the Corrigan Ranch in Simi Valley, California. The only noteworthy thing to look at in this movie is the lab equipment, which came right from Kenneth Strickfaden, who had designed the electrical effects for Frankenstein (1931) and several other projects. It is easy to say both films are awful, but it may prove a bit difficult to figure out which one is "better" - as if one was comparing scab wounds. I could probably edit my description that I said about Billy the Kid versus Dracula and have it work now, as this is also a sloppy mess from beginning to end, starting with the hokey, if not drunkenly written premise of Jesse James in a horror film. Let's not forget that this film not only decides to depict him as having survived the shooting by Robert Ford in 1882, but also encounter the (grand)daughter of Frankenstein. If you can believe it, this film feels like a drag with its run-time of 83 minutes, probably since it takes half of its run-time for the two main characters to meet but also due to the fact that it feels like there are two plots mixed into one, and they are both pretty boring.

Lupton is pretty wooden, not really generating sort of interest in wanting to follow his outlaw character - as reading about the real Jesse James would probably be more interesting. Onyx (in her last film role) is the one who stands out, having plenty of ham and ridiculousness that would probably be suited for stuff such as Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), but then again it actually makes this film seem tolerable, even if it is let down by nearly everything else. Rodriguez (also in her last role prior to her death in 1966) is okay, but the romance between her and Lupton is as stilted as everything else in this movie, not being particularly convincing (I'd also like to point out that James was married at the time of his death - to his first cousin), seeming to fill time and plot. Bolder is bland as the heavy, and the effect used to turn him into the Monster (called Igor for some reason) is awful, since the stitches (on a bald head) is rubber tape. I especially take amusement that the Monster doesn't even wear a shirt, as if that is going to make all the difference for showing strength and terror. You may be surprised that there are two Frankensteins in this film. You may be even more surprised that they are siblings, since the age difference between the two (Onyx and Geray) is 27 years. Speaking of which, Geray isn't awful, having a reluctant nature to him that is somewhat believable to go along with. Honestly, there is nothing here to watch the movie for, since there are no real big spectacles, and the parts when the monster finally comes to life are just as lame as the parts leading up to it. You would actually be better off with The Beast of Hollow Mountain (1956) if you want something with horror and western elements, and that was an incredibly mediocre movie. The only way to watch both this and Billy the Kid versus Dracula is on a night where you want something fast and cheap (they are both in the public domain) and don't care what they deliver as long as they give you some sort of monster and hero to watch. In that sense, they are just fine as a double feature of terror to terrorize the audience in their spooky awfulness.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.