Why is the rating so low?

No, not at all. Too many people nowadays watch a film like this expecting (practically salivating over the thought) to see a really cheezy film that they can rip to shreds compared to their new, more accomplished, enlightened and technically proficient films.

They don't expect a masterpiece at all, they expect something bad, just for the sake of it being bad and being able to bare their teeth about it.

(Even people who LOVE old cheap movies wind up granting this thing, and others like it, a paltry 3 or 4 points. Goodness forbid they should be caught as the one who happened to enjoy all the swamp trash nonsense in this, who loved seeing Yvette strut her stuff and get marched into the swamp by a shotgun, who got creeped out by the silly critters sucking on everyone in their cave. That's just uncool!)

The question becomes, just what other movies are they comparing this to? (For that matter, and it's a fair question, what other movies SHOULD it be compared to? Can you really make a fair comparison between a movie made in the 50's and one made nowadays? Is it really bad by 50's standards? [Yeah, but not nearly as bad as some I could mention, not nearly bad enough to deserve such a terrible rating!]) If people really think this is such a terrible film, they haven't even begun to watch, haven't even scratched the surface of, the REALLY terrible ones! (Someday I'm gonna have to make a list! But I wouldn't wish those on anyone!)

But that's another problem: people on here vote according to their tastes, not just their tastes in what they like, but in what movies they're willing to watch. Someone might like noir but hate foreign films. He'll vote for noir films (since they're the ones he's seen) but not at all for any foreign films (not even "Rififi") because he hasn't seen them. In the end, that tips the scales incredibly one way or the other...yet there's no real way around that, since you can't possibly expect everyone to have seen everything. (It's virtually impossible for ANYONE to have seen everything...and since there are more films made every year, we get farther and farther away from that "ideal.") So horror fans vote for horror flicks, romance fans vote for those, etc. If there's a big movie out, everyone goes to see it and votes, but now you have the horror fans and the romance fans and the drama fans and the comedy fans all voting for the same movie, which probably only fits the criteria of one or two of those segments voting. That skews things quite a bit.

Along the same lines, there's the "recent favorites" phenomenon. Not only a trend towards liking new movies better than old (at least the original "Haunting" is back above the new one...although the new one is still a "popular" title as opposed to the old!), but the temporary impact that a new film, even a very good one, has in throwing things off. Are the "Lord of the Rings" movies good? Yes, VERY (so don't get me wrong). But do all three of them belong in the top 250 on here? I honestly don't know, I'd prefer time to tell. But there they already are. (An easy way around that would be to defer placement on the top lists until a film was over 10 years old, or whatever. But lotsa luck there.)

And then there's my pet peeve (as if the others aren't! lol), just what is it that we're using as criteria for our rating? The overall cinematic quality? What is this, some advanced college course in filmmaking?

Personally, I think we (as, after all, amateur critics but as pseudo-professional film LOVERS) should be rating films based upon how worthwhile we think they are to see and enjoy. Sure, classic films like "Citizen Kane" deserve a 10...but, by giving "Plan 9 From Outer Space" a 3, are we really recommending that people DON'T see it?

Hardly. Most of us advocate seeing "Plan 9," yet we back it up with a miserly rating. What sense does that make?

Perhaps someone with the background of an Ebert or a Maltin can reasonably deal with the dichotomy of saying a film is bad on the one hand but you'll enjoy seeing it on the other...but what credentials are most of us bringing to the table?

Without some clear-cut definition of exactly what it IS about a film we're rating, there will always be that problem on this site (and just about all others).

But I live for the day when I see people rating films according to how they actually FEEL about the film instead of how they think they should feel. Mind you, by those criteria this still wouldn't be a masterpiece (nowhere even close!), but it would be in the 5's, at least. It's a lot of fun!

It ain't good, but there are tons and TONS of worse films out there--films with better budgets, casts, and effects. I'll put it this way--I'll readily sit through an hour of AOTGL before I sit through 2 and a half hours of Transformers 2.

I agree the rating is too low. I don't think it's that bad at all. I've seen much worse. The acting is not great, but it's good enough. Ken Clark was good as the lead. The ending left it open for a sequel.

I was happily surprised by this film. I didn't expect much.
Anyway, I'm watching and saying to myself how good this film is, and then BAM! At 61 minutes, the movie just came to an end. I couldn't believe it. I wanted more, it seemed like there needed to be something more out there.
My pet peeve is movies that are less than 90 minutes, roughly. Any less than 90, and I feel ripped-off. (Yeah, I know all about B movies and programs and blah, blah, blah...) I gave this a 4 because of the too quick ending.

I liked this film very much,, had decent acting,, good storyline,, I was rooting for the leetches to get that cheating couple..
are you going to bark all day little doggie,, or are you going to bite

The ratings are low, not because it's a good or half way baked movie. It's because a low rating is a badge of honor for Roger Corman movies. All, including this failed double feature, are bad.

It also has the badge of being on MST3K. Bad movies that are good and fun to watch have been down voted to 1 since the inception of IMDB so they get more coverage and viewers so people can experience it and not get lost in the lists.

Now body wants to see Baby Geniuses 2. But they would want to watch Manos or The Giant Leeches.

So if you want less people watching and enjoying this, then go ahead and upvote.

It's bad sure but also great at how bad it is