MovieChat Forums > The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues Discussion > Not Great But Not Horrid

Not Great But Not Horrid

posted 14 years ago by babettegillette
8 replies | jump to latest

Kent Taylor is a real pro and that helps. Some of the other acting is also very good. The beach locale is fairly memorable. Whalen's mad scientist is more goofy than mad. Cathy Downs(often confuse her with Peggy Castle-they are both "wholesome" blondes) is pretty and approachable.

Yeah, the effects are bad instead of cheesy. That just makes me kinda admire the moxy of the producers. Most may disagree, but I like this movie and have seen it several times. Probably because it is a mindless, half-decent diversion. And a dvd won't stress your finances!

[–] MystMoonstruck 13 years ago

Robert Osborne just pointed out that the company responsible for this film soon after became American International Pictures~Roger Corman's AIP! They're noted for their extremely low-budget productions with creatures that varied in effectiveness. They did what they could to entertain us with what they could afford, then reaped the rewards from the drive-in crowds who flocked to their double features.

Just think: Many of AIP's productions are better-known than some of the A-list movies of the period and certainly more than many studios' B work.

~~MystMoonstruck~~

"Cult films don't draw crowds. That's why they're cult films." ~ Midnight Movie (2008)

[–] babettegillette 12 years ago

I agree that many of these genre movies are fun, including the primative special effects. Many if not most of the period's dramas are extremely dated and have a less loyal fanbase.

[–] stargazer1701-1 12 years ago

At first, I had a feeling it was a Roger Corman movie, but I was wrong. Corman did another ‘sea creature’ movie which had a mobster angle to it, if I am not mistaken. I did enjoy this one. It made an effort. Helene Stanton was hot and so was Cathy Downs!

Smoke me a kipper. I’ll be back for breakfast

[–] kairingler 11 years ago

I kinda like the movie to be honest.. it had a decent plot, characters that were very interesting and a great storyline.
are you going to bark all day little doggie,, or are you going to bite

[–] mark11111 8 years ago

100% Agreed, liked it also.

[–] Harold_Robbins 11 years ago

"Not Great But Not Horrid"

My sentiments exactly - there are far worse films! Though I could have done without the wires holding the 'monster' in place. The underwater photography was actually rather decent, though certainly not in the same class as CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON.

"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."

[–] ajgenard 10 years ago

I'm gonna have to disagree. This movie is downright awful no matter how you look at it. The script, most of the acting, that creature.... man, it's so bad I can't help but LMAO just at the thought of it. I always believed nothing could be less frightening that that hairy turd suit that Corman used in Creature from the Haunted Sea - which is similar to this story and equally as corny. But man oh man, I laughed just as hard at this one. Not to mention some of the dialogue seems like it was written (and subsequently performed) by someone whose never heard the English language in conversation. - "Why so gloomy? Dad's just been acquitted of murder." LOL

This movie definitely dwells in the so-bad-its-good territory. What a truly abysmal film, a solid 1 star movie, but was so much damn fun I may watch it again. Today I found this gem in a MGM Midnite Movies 4-pack along with The Beast With 1,000,000 Eyes, War Gods of the Deep, and At the Earth's Core for $3 at Big Lots. So if anyone's interested you may wanna check there.

[–] mark11111 8 years ago

I agree, the monster was bad, but the acting and story was decent, typical of that time but I enjoyed it actually.