MovieChat Forums > The Monster That Challenged the World Discussion > Characterization

Characterization

posted 18 years ago by artvandelay1950
16 replies | jump to latest

Funkyfry's user comment about characterization was right on. I watched this movie today and noticed there was a lot of "fleshing out" for the minor characters. The phone operator constantly talking to her mother when it's obviously not allowed, and the historical society clerk who kept blabbing on about getting funding for his storage room were amusing breaks in the movie. Yes, it was a cliched story line but those minor nuances gave this movie a leg up over some of the other standard 'atomic monster' films.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 17 years ago

I just finished watching this and found it to be a snore and a half. If anyone cares about "good" SF from 1957 watch "The Monolith Monsters" and "Kronos." they're far superior to this bore.

Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.

[–] inneroscator2 17 years ago

Yeah, but the creature makes the film. Even today these giant prehistoric mollusk horrors are still scary.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 17 years ago

Maybe if yer a 6 year old.

Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.

[–] inneroscator2 17 years ago

a very apt nick, very apt indeed.

[–] feekie 17 years ago

Even though I know this is a low-budget movie that was probably shot quickly, I think it is great fun! I've watched it around 10 to 15 times and still enjoy the heck out of it. There are lots of humor in it. My particular favorite secondary character is the museum curator who is obviously crushed that the town voted down proposition 14A which would have provided a document room for his one map. I also detected a couple of errors -- one where Commander Twillinger mispronounced his own name -- calling himself Twillin--GUR instead of Twillin-JUR. The other error was when the fellow in the boat accidently identified himself as Butterboy instead of Flutterboy. Almost all the secondary characters are well-known and familiar actors. I'm glad another person loves this movie as much as I do. I love 50's black and white sci-fi/horror films but this one is probably my very favorite.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 17 years ago

I always thought it was just plain Butt Boy.

Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.

[–] demode-2 16 years ago

One notable item was the use of "Twillinger" as the commander's name. If anyone saw
"The 5000 fingers of Dr. T" will remember that Hans Conried was named Dr. Terwilliger and was the villain in that Dr. Seuss story. Hans was in both films and I wonder if there was a bit of chicanery going on with the screen writers.

[–] MikeAnsaraFan 16 years ago

Ive watched this movie plenty of times, but I actually jumped out of my skin when the monster attached the lock keeper....I always forget that bit.

[–] drmality-1 16 years ago

Loved the movie. The folks who worked on this obviously put effort into it to make it seem more than just a monster movie. The characters are great...you would never see a hero like Twilliger today. He looks and acts too much like a real human being. Also thought Hans Conried's scientist was very realistic...different than the usual eggheads in 50's films.

If this had been released a few years earlier, it would be hailed the same way "Them" is.

[–] smokehill retrievers 15 years ago

Absolutely -- I think this was one of the better script efforts of 50s sci-fi. Not just the usual wooden acting & screaming, but actual characters with personalities. It doesn't get the credit it really deserves.

And the monster itself was great, considering the budget and available SFX of the day.

Someone obviously made an extra effort on this one. And they actually hired some real actors instead of the usual cardboard cutouts. Tim Holt was definitely a competent actor, and of course Hans Conreid never got enough credit for his skills, either.

[–] nigeltext 15 years ago

Agree with all the positive comments on this thread. What I don't understand is how this flick slipped "under my radar". I have no recollection of it as a kid...and I watched plenty o' black n white 'monster movies' back in the day.

But it was great checking it out for the first time today. Long live classic SciFi!

"What's wrong with a little good, clean violence?"

[–] pathfinder616 15 years ago

yes, i agree with all the positive comments on this thread also. i don't understand those that feel they need to post their condescending comments with comparisons to other films (like i care). these SciFi classics fulfilled their purpose back then, to scare the crap out of kids during a saturday matinee. i'm sure the movie poster alone wet everyone appetite, its a classic image. the only thing i missed this afternoon was a theater full of kids screaming their heads off! those were fun times! i'm not gonna sleep tonight! :)

"only one food for the rest of my life? That's easy, cherry-flavored Pez. No question about it."

[–] nigeltext 15 years ago

No doubt...those movie posters were so 'loud' and, in some instances, so politically incorrect! They made it ESSENTIAL you see THAT movie! I miss the days when I was genuinely scared in the theater. (sigh)

"What's wrong with a little good, clean violence?"

[–] essex9999 9 years ago

I love this movie, too, and agree that the acting and good characterizations put it a notch above most others of its kind (not that I don't enjoy most of these movies anyway). The filmmakers actually seemed to care about making as good a movie as they could within the limitations of genre and budget, as opposed to just quickly cranking out another B monster flick.

I also like that they made the scientist an affable, kind and sympathetic character instead of a cold fish or a villain. Hans Conried was very effective in the role, as was Tim Holt in his. Audrey Dalton was maybe a little too glamorous and gorgeous for a small-town secretary, but her acting was fine.

[–] LightningLad 13 years ago

I find it genuinely saddening when the mother says the thing about how she could cut her tongue out for the things she said to her daughter, it's a very identifiable, human situation -- I'm sure a young Spielberg watched this movie and took note of the difference in a monster movie with tangible characters.

-----
Reason is a pursuit, not a conclusion.

[–] socorso 13 years ago

Nice observation.
I was thinking of 'the little Kinter boy's mother' when I saw that scene earlier this evening.

Cold sober, I find myself absolutely fascinating.