Decent entertainment


Just finished watching this, and I thought it was decent entertainment despite being ridiculously over the top. The creature looked pretty cool, especially under water, but the film comes across as way too hammy, so most of the suspense is killed. In the end, I give it a 6/10. It's decent enough, but it's no classic in my opinion.

Formally known as Coilector

reply

Spoilers ahead!!

LOL! Nice little post. It's very interesting to get an alternative perspective from an adult going into the movie with a clean slate. I wonder what my reaction to this movie would truly be like if I didn't have the intense nostalgia factor from childhood around it. As it stands, I happen to be a born horror junkie and as a wee one, old monster movies from the post 70's like this were the only ones I was allowed to watch, so the classic horror section of video stores was a favorite aisle of mine.

Anyway, I got hold of all the major B@W Universal studios monster movies before too long, Dracula, Frankenstein, The wolf man ect. But of all of em, "Creature" was my fave hands down. There was just something so captivating about it as a child. Looking back maybe it had something to do with the theme of mystery and the unknown. What I can say for sure is that I loved the music, the monster was awesome, the underwatter photography was incredible, the locations were beautiful and it just scared the hell out of me. Georgeous Julie Adams in her bathing suit and short shorts didn't hurt either I guess. It was just awesome.

After having recently rediscovered it on Netflix instant watch after many years between the last viewing, boy is it intersting to revisit old childhood faves with an adult lens while still loking at them through rose tinted eyes. With that said. How does it hold up. Well, I will talk about what's not so hot anymore first. I recently found out that this was actually one of the early block busters shot in 3D, back when it truly was a cheap gimmick to get people back in theaters (as opposed to an elaborate gimmick today, as many would argue, but I digress) anyway, given that knowledge, yeagh, their are a ton of moments all around where you can see that the film makers were trying to bank on the technique and on a regular screen, man do a lot of them seem awkward and needless and just plain stupid. Like the creatures hand and arm shooting straight into the camera, that gets really cheap before too long. Don't even get me started about that totally random moment with the bird in the cave at the end. I just fell over in my chair with the pontlessness of that moment.

Also, as with every monster flick of it's era to feature atrictive young adults with vaginas, Kay has some definate dumbass in distress syptoms from time to time. Again, I was on the floor when the creature was walking towards her and she simply stands up then mommentarily sprains her ankle and falls helplessly to the beach. Good lord how did, people back in 54 not need a break when stuff like that happened in movies? (Though to the credit of the charecter, she does rescue a dude at one point by throwing an oil lamp right on the creature's head and burning him alive, that had to be preity bad ass for a woman to do that at the time)

My biggest problemn now in terms of actual story, I would say is that the plot definately has this bizzare kind of love, well, square going on between the two main male protagonists, Kay and even the creature (no doubt trying to bank in on the King Kong beauty and the beast formula) and it's really underdeveloped. I think it would have been so much more compelling if the two human charecters were more upfront and passionate about their affections for her. I don't know, it would have made a lot of key plot points more compelling.

So thats my bad notes. What holds up succesfully for me. Well, a lot of what I metioned that appealed to me as a kid. The music gives me chills, a lot of the big scare moments still get under my skin, like when the creature first revelas it's face in an underwatter scene is a great example, almost jumped out of my skin. God the thought of how people reacted to that in theaters just made me giddy. I also just love the sense of mystery and adventure the film has. Sort of this fascination bout the wonder and terror of the unknown, just really speaks to me. From a technical standpont, the underwatter photography just blows my mind to this day. Beyond that, so much of the drama and action that takes place under the water just has this thrilling kind of operatic quality about it, it's just wonderfull. And also, I really like a lot of the charecters. The hero is likeable and smart as hell, the anti hero is a jerk but has a noble heart, the beautiful woman is bold and captivating but elegant and empathetic, the ship captain is just charming and infectious, the old scientist reminds me of my grandfather, and the creature is still just awesome, one of the greatest from it's era and probably my persoanl fave from said era. He's menacing and deadly but so stragely tragic and ultimately very sympathetic. I always feel so damn sad for the thing when it's fate at the end plays out. I mean if you really think about it, most of the killings it made were probably done out of defense against the humans who were threatening it's habitat and survival. Anyway, I'm going off into my own zone here.

So in conclusion, since I hate number ratings, I will give this movie, upon a personal adult perspective, a B+ grade from an objective standpoint. But in my heart, creature will always be a perfect A+ If anyone is still reading, thank you for your time and I hope I was able to enlighten. Cheers.

reply

I think it is a very fun film. I always enjoy watching it. I consider it a must see movie if you are interested in monster movies or nature related horror films in general.

Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.

reply

The banal, perfunctory dialogue mainly concerned with flat exposition, is certainly the worst aspect of the film. The acting and story aren´t exactly spectacular, either, but generally it´s an entertaining enough thing. 6/10 is just about right.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

You have a quite valid point. All I might add to the other posts, and it may not be greatly additive, is that a large part of the reason that it is a classic is because of the weaknesses described. Without the creature this would not be "decent entertainment," but nearly unwatchable dreck. It is the fascination with the creature that makes the film entertaining, so it is a classic monster movie.

The Major

reply

For sure we are fascinated with the creature, but I think it is more of a fascination with the beauty and the beast kind of thing.

reply

What makes it different was it's first of a kind monster flick treatment. Before hand films like these had him and commiting evil acts. Here we had the creature in his habitat chasing after women and killing a small group on a study course. It would lead the way for movies like swamp thing, the blob ect. Alot of current horror took cues from this film. The makeup design was flawless and once you get into what makes it tick and it's personify it's very enjoyable.

reply

I always think of this as a classic. I've rated it 8/10.

I've just watched this in tribute to Julie Adams in her swimsuit. Sadly she died yesterday (3rd February, 2019) aged 92.

reply

I thinks it's great 8/10

reply