A newlywed's husband vanishes; her search for him takes to her to the Bayou where she discovers the suffering people of the title.
This entertaining movie is serious in tone; but the ludicrous monster at the end is probably the reason behind the low IMDb rating. The silly premise is handled intelligently.
I rated it a 6. What did you rate this movie? And what do you think of it?
... Justin
I gave this film an 8 out of 10. I thought it was a lot of fun. Beverly Garland was her usual fine and lovely self in the lead. Lon Chaney, Jr. contributes a lively turn as well. Richard Crane does a nice job as the grotesque, yet pitiable Paul. The premise is admittedly absurd, but both director Roy Del Ruth and the cast treat said ridiculous premise with admirable sincerity and seriousness. I enjoyed this nifty 50's creature feature a whole lot.
I enjoy keeping busy. Satan finds work for idle hands.
I did, too. Leonard Maltin's movie guide calls this "strictly routine," but it has a good story that engages our attention and keeps us in suspense. If I were rating it strictly by how much it entertained me, I probably would have given it an 8, too.
This is the kind of old movie I wish Hollywood would remake. It's flawed but has a lot of potential. They only remake movies that are already perfect.
But even if they did remake this, they would leave out what's good anyway and give us a movie that's much worse.
... Justin
Same here. It probably doesn't deserve it, but it was enjoyable for a low budget flick.
shareI gave it a 4/10When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
What was the worst thing about the film?
...Justin
I gave it an 8 out of 10, which by my standards is a B. I rate most movies an 8 if they managed to keep my entertained through their duration. I give 9s to really good movies and 10 only to great films. Anything lower than 6.5 is a failing grade in my opinion.
shareHave you given a 10/10 to any 1950s monster movies? I rated Thing from Another World 10/10. I gave Them! 9/10.
...Justin Glory be, Delbert, you should eat! You're a count, for God's sake!
I rated it a 6.
I was going to give it a 5, but the scene where Paul succumbs to the dreaded quicksand had the added touch of air bubbles bursting on the surface as he went down.
I really appreciated the attention to detail there.
/s
I'm no expert, but . . . .
I'll have to look for that detail if I ever see it again.
...Justin
I gave it an 8 out of 10. The movie was certainly much better than I had expected, as well as the acting, especially by Frieda Inescort, who always gives elegant-honest-interesting performances.
Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop
Occasionally these junky old creature features turn out to be fairly intelligent and very entertaining. Curt Siodmak's Bride of the Gorilla (1951) with Lon Chaney and Raymond Burr is another good example.
...Justin
7. i tryly enjoyed this movie.
--------------------------------------------------
If you want horror - tune in the news channel.
Just re-watched it and gave it a '6' also - it's a fun movie and while it may promise a bit more than it delivers scare-wise, it's still rather well-done, considering its budgetary limitations - nicely atmospheric sets, and the performances are excellent (though Chaney, as usual, is rather hammy).
"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."
I rate it a 7 because they killed the doctor (the protagonist) a bold move and sadly his unauthorized testing and the mom. The antagonist bit the dust, and the truly good guy, the husband. And in the end, the doctors don't follow their oath, but lied to the remaining female protagonist. No happy endings all the way around. But most importantly, no clear roles of good and bad in some of the characters.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world
[deleted]
I give it a 9 . Did Stan Lee watch it and help him inspire the Lizard
in Spiderman Comics? . He was working on regeneration of limbs .
Fix the error reports on this site