MovieChat Forums > Attack of the Giant Leeches Discussion > Most nightmarish scene ever

Most nightmarish scene ever

posted 18 years ago by tgemberl
39 replies | jump to latest

I know people generally rate this a bad film, but I still think it has the single most nightmarish scene I've ever seen. "Alien" as a whole is more nightmarish (I had nightmares about that monster for about 20 years!), but in my book, it has no scene to equal the one where the men are in the underwater cave being fed on by the leeches. Yes, maybe by 2006 standards, the special effects etc. would be laughable, but when I saw it at about 15, it was a real shocker for me and several others. One thing that adds to the creepiness factor is the man pleading with the leech during that scene.

My sister bought a DVD of this several years ago and invited me to watch it with her again, over 30 years after we saw it on TV. Apparently, my teenage nephews laughed the film off. Maybe I wouldn't think so much of that scene if I saw it again, but I told her: "No thanks. That's just too horrible." That's one adolescent experience I wouldn't want to relive.

One other point. I think we usually assume Low budget = bad, but before about the time of Alien (1979), I think the scariest horror/science fiction movies were usually the low-budget "B" movies. They had a sort of rawness about them that could be really shocking, whereas what we call the "classics" of that period (say, The day the earth stood still) weren't usually very scary. I was never scared by Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolf-Man, or any of those things often considered classics. I wonder if they might have been scary to people of my parents' generation. But Attack of the giant leeches scared me to death as a teenager.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

[–] bok602 18 years ago

I agree completely! The cave scene with the leeches feeding on the victims is both deeply chilling and profoundly disturbing.

Also of note is the scene where the cuckolded husband forces his cheating wife and her lover into the swamp at gunpoint. Their pleading and fear seemed somehow more genuine than anything I've seen in "better" pictures.

"If you don't know the answer -change the question."

[–] tgemberl 18 years ago

That's interesting. I don't know if I remember the scene with the cuckolded husband forcing them into the swamp. Maybe if I can somehow avoid seeing the cave scene, I'll try to watch that. But the buildup to the cave scene was pretty exciting and tense: do you remember the one guy saying, "where are the gators?" And then he insists on going back to shore? But it's too late. A leech turns over their boat before they can reach shore.

There is one thing in the story that is real unbelievable. At the beginning, when the first victim is discovered, the people investigating say, "whatever did this was cunning." Now, it's a bit hard for me to believe a leech, however big and radioactive it might be, would ever be cunning. But you've got to remember this is just a story. You can't expect perfect plausibility.

I remember that I and my father, my mother, and my uncle (three households) all happened to watch the movie the same Friday night. In Seattle we had a "Nightmare Theater" on channel 7 Friday nights. When my mother mentioned the film a few weeks later, my uncle said, "did you see that? That was horrible!" I think it was about the most horrible thing anybody had seen up to that point.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

[–] bok602 18 years ago

Well...a giant, radioactive leech monster would have to be pretty cunning to convince a townful of whiskey-soaked yee-haws that it was anything but an overgrown bobcat, or maybe a "boating accident."

"If you don't know the answer -change the question."

[–] tgemberl 18 years ago

bok602,
It's been a long time since I've seen the film, but I notice there's a "Doc Greyson" in the story. In this sort of film there's usually a doctor or scientist on hand to figure out what the monster is.

Have you seen "Bone Snatcher"? Not "Bone Collector," a different film. Bone Snatcher has a particularly interesting case of a learned man figuring out what the monster is. It's really worth seeing. A couple of chilling scenes, but nothing like the cave scene in this.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

[–] Reverend_Dr_Syn 17 years ago

I think the scariest thing about Corman movies is that people continue to give this third rate hack work directing. Why he never wound upo homeless after this flick is beyond me.

When you make Bert I Gordon look like Scorcese, you know you're abysmal.

[–] wilbrifar 10 years ago

He didn't direct this film, for one thing. For another, maybe you should have a look at Masque of the Red Death, Pit and the Pendulum, The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, or some of the other great films Corman actually did direct. Congrats on the most ignorant post I've stumbled across on imdb in quite some time.

[–] Woodyanders 17 years ago

I thought that scene was genuinely gross and unnerving as well. The way the victims pathetically scream as the leeches suck their blood makes for a truly scary sight to behold.

Q: What's the biggest room in the world? A: The room for improvement.

[–] Reverend_Dr_Syn 17 years ago

I found it rather hard to regard any scene in the flick with anything but a laugh, a roll of the eyes, or both. The monsters looked so fake and the screaming so cheesy and overdone.

Let's not forget that none of the victims were particularly likeable, so I couldn't really feel anything for the victims. They were usually inbred hicks. THe only person I could feel anything for was the fat guy, who was getting cheated on. Even the "hero" was stiff, wooden and unlikeable.

[–] tgemberl 17 years ago

It's funny how today in 2007, people look at movies from 40 years ago and apply all the standards of special effects, etc., of today to those times. But they do it selectively. Because they've heard of the original King Kong as a "classic," they ignore the cheesy special effects in that, but they demand perfection of a "B" movie from the 50's or 60's.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

[–] Reverend_Dr_Syn 17 years ago

Bad is bad, regardless of the year.

[–] porfle 17 years ago

Because they've heard of the original King Kong as a "classic," they ignore the cheesy special effects in that

The SPFX in KING KONG were not "cheesy." It's inevitable that the passage of time will bring more advanced techniques, but that doesn't diminish the artistry and imagination of the great effects artists of the past.

http://www.bumscorner.com
http://www.myspace.com/porfle

[–] Reverend_Dr_Syn 17 years ago

Compared to most films of it's time Kong was top of the line. It only looks outdated compared to the feects of now.

But "Leeches" isnt just outdated and bad because we're comparing it to now. There were TONS of films around or even before 1959 that flew circles around Attack of the Giant Leeches in terms of special effects quality. Not to mention acting, script and likeable characters. Even Bert I Gordon's films had higher standards of special effects and script quality

I would even go so far as to say King Kong back then. At least you could tell they were genuinely making an effort. Give me a stop motion ape and T-Rex over two jerks in costumes made of GLAD BAGS. You FELT for Kong. All I feel in watching "Attack of the Giant Leeches" is amusement because the director had the intent of quality horror but fell flat on his face.

Just face it folks, Attack of the Giant Leeches was a bad, BAD movie with bad, BAD special effects. made by a man with a history of bad, BAD movies. I still enjoy watching it, but I don't fool myself into thinking it's anything more than shlock from Roger Corman.

[–] eugeneconniff-1 16 years ago

In fact, I'd actually say stop motion - when done well - is SUPERIOR to CG. Especially in horror movies.

But let's face it, when effects are the linchpin of your film, you can't ever expect it to age well. You can only hope that a time comes when your film is SO old, that it gets lumped together skill-wise with well-crafted films that were even old by your standards, thus giving it an undeserved protection from. Which is exactly what some people are foolishly doing in this thread :p

[–] tgemberl 15 years ago

I hesitated to respond to porfle in the past and now feel like I want to for the benefit of those who will read this thread.

Okay, maybe the special effects in the original King Kong aren't "cheesy." I stand corrected. But the point I was trying to make is: does that King Kong look real to you? I'm guessing the answer is no. I'm not denying there was artistry in the making of KK in the early 30's. Of course not. But why say there was no artistry in Attack of the Giant Leeches in the late 50's? That's why I think there's a double standard. If someone has heard that something is a "classic," they'll cut it lots of slack that they won't cut "B" movies like AOTGL.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

[–] gorgar-3 17 years ago

Yeah, dude. But I can' deny the fact that I was entertained by the film, got a good laugh, made my skin crawl a couple of times and that's all I can ask for in a great "B" movie. Also, you have to possess an active sense of humor in order to appreciate Roger Corman's films and his contribution to pop culture is both significant and appreciated by many.
Just look at Ed Wood's work. Who doesn't enjoy a nice cheese-ball like "The Sinister Urge"? Besides, there would be no MST3K or RiffTrax if low-budget film makers didn't 'do their thing'!!!
M-Kay?

[–] mam13143 17 years ago

This movie, when it first came out (I'm 64 so I remember) had the same effect as Night of the Living Dead did when it first arrived. Poorly made grainy black and white with no name actors (though Vickers did have a bit of a name and a figure). But as another said, the "rawness" of both films - at the time -made for a scarier chillier experience than say "The Thing" or "It Came From Outer Space". I saw Night... when it first came out with a buddy and we both walked out because it was too chilling. People would laugh at that today, but audiences were not used to seeing that sort of thing back then. Unless you were brought up during those times you can't understand. As I tell my kids, the movies you ooh and aah over today will be ridiculed by your offspring too.

Having said all that, a classic is a classic usually for nostalgic reasons, not because they are so incredibly great. Even I can't watch Casablanca anymore!

[–] tgemberl 17 years ago

mam13143,
I agree with you.

As for "rawness," I remember another B-movie from when I was about 10, maybe about 1962. It was about a man who worked at some sort of chemical facility and was poisoned by a noxious substance. He was getting sick, and at the beginning of the film, he's asking a scientist to get the antidote for him. The scientist is in no hurry to do so. The next scene, you see the man's skin has shriveled up. He looks like the Incredible Hulk, and when the scientist tries to give him an injection of the antidote, he touches his body and shrivels up, too. It kills the scientist instantly.

I assume at that point, the first man goes around and wreaks havoc, but I was so scared by that that I had to get up and leave. My father and sister sat through the rest of the film, but I spent it out in the lobby of the theater! I don't know what the film was called or even if it turned out to be much of a movie, but those first scenes were real shockers. Does anybody remember the name of that?

Another B-movie I do remember the name of was Homicidal. I guess it was somewhat of a ripoff of Hitchcock's Psycho, but it's also a real shocker. (Spoiler alert). It may have the single most shocking first scene I've ever seen. It would be as if the shower scene in Psycho were right at the beginning. And believe it or not, the ending is actually even creepier than Psycho's, in my opinion. So B-movies could be real shockers. Of course Homicidal doesn't reach the level of real artistry that Hitchcock achieved, but it's just as scary, I think, as Psycho.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

[–] Dr_Hess 17 years ago

n/m

[–] mam13143 17 years ago

Thanks for your comments - and another movie which scared me so much when I watched it on TV late at night many years ago was "Eraserhead" by David Lynch. Just a damn weird scary movie that is undescribable and disturbing to watch. It is sometimes shown on cult movie festivals.

[–] chongajuly 14 years ago

The movie you refer to seems to be "The Hand of Death," starring John Agar as the scientist who becomes a shriveled kind of monster,the only time he played the monster,rather than the hero.Directed by Gene Nelson in 1962,but rarely seen since.

[–] tgemberl 14 years ago

chongajuly,
Thanks for identifying that. I didn't think I'd ever find it again. Actually, I'm still not sure I'd want to see it. The beginning really shocked me as a kid. Who knows, maybe I'd laugh at it today.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

[–] chongajuly 14 years ago

I think you would enjoy THE HAND OF DEATH, I know I did, though I only saw it in the 90's. Reading through the entire thread, I feel I must put in a few words of my own commentary. Films like ATTACK OF THE GIANT LEECHES or BEAST FROM HAUNTED CAVE or FROM HELL IT CAME or THE ASTOUNDING SHE MONSTER were all made for one reason, to make money. They were never intended to be anything more than quick playdates earning back their cost (hopefully, even more than that). That said, it is impossible for today's jaded audiences to actually appreciate these films for what they represented at the time. I was born in 1964 but grew up on these films during the 70's, right between Cleveland and Pittsburgh, so I got to see the best of both cities. Pittsburgh's channel 11 featured CHILLER THEATER, hosted by Bill "Chilly Billy" Cardille, which debuted in 1963 with the John Agar vehicle THE BRAIN FROM PLANET AROUS. Yes, the films were invariably cheap, so without the resources to provide the best special effects, virtually all of them were comprised of dead end scenes of exposition to pad out the running time. HOWEVER, there were always one or two showcase scenes per picture that would create some measure of word of mouth, and a decent profit was had by all. 1981's GALAXY OF TERROR recently aired on TMC, proof that Roger Corman never lost his ability to cash in on horror and science fiction (in this case, both). Everyone remembers the cavern sequences in ATTACK OF THE GIANT LEECHES, and with gorgeous Yvette Vickers to carry the early portions of the film before the horrors were fully revealed, the Corman brothers had the formula down pat. Their BEAST FROM HAUNTED CAVE was made the same year, and I never forgot the climax in the cave, with the spider-like monster sucking the blood from its victims, encased in cocoon-like webs (sound familiar?) Nostalgia plays the key role here, and as a result, future generations may have difficulty trying to defend today's "modern" horrors to their own offspring. THE MAGNETIC MONSTER, THE PHANTOM FROM 10,000 LEAGUES, INVASION OF THE SAUCER MEN, INVISIBLE INVADERS, INVASION OF THE STAR CREATURES, love 'em or loathe 'em. THE CRAWLING HAND was one that aired on Cleveland's HOOLIHAN AND BIG CHUCK, on channel 8, the same station that gave birth to GHOULARDI in 1963, and the beloved "Big Chuck" Schodowski, and characters like The Kielbasy Kid and Soulman, remained on the air for over 40 years, until his retirement in June 2007 (CHILLER THEATER ended in 1984). Horror hosts all across the country had their day in the sun, born in the late 50's when the famed SHOCK THEATER and SON OF SHOCK were first issued to television, 73 features in all, mostly from Universal (DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, THE WOLF MAN), with a dozen from Columbia thrown in for good measure (THE BLACK ROOM, THE DEVIL COMMANDS). In magazines, FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND debuted in 1958, CASTLE OF FRANKENSTEIN and CINEFANTASTIQUE followed by 1970; personally, I wonder if future generations will have as much fun as we had. In conclusion, those who have nothing good to say about a given film are entitled to their opinion, but when I read comments from smart alecks who indulge in trying to ridicule the film in question, I wholeheartedly disagree with that attitude. It may be easy to dismiss many of these films, but they will always be there, good or bad.

"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond

[–] tgemberl 13 years ago

chongajuly,
Thanks for your reflections on these films. I agree with you. It's neat that you got to enjoy both Cleveland and Pittsburgh shows when growing up. I grew up in the Seattle area and used to watch Channel 7's "Nightmare Theater" on Friday nights. Do you watch either of the Retro TV Network B-movie shows on Saturday nights? They recapture some of that fun we experienced as kids.

The RTV show at 11:00, "Offbeat Films," doesn't always show horror films. Some of them are about youth culture. For example, they showed "Reefer Madness" recently.

I did watch "Hand of Death" on Youtube. I think when I saw it as a kid, we must've got to the theater late, because the part I thought was at the beginning was about 20-30 minutes into it. It's a good example of how differently I remember things I saw decades ago. It wasn't quite as horrible as I remember it being. I think if something makes a big impression on you as a kid, your mind embellishes it somewhat and makes it worse than it was. But I still have no desire to watch the cave scene in "Attack of the Giant Leeches." It's just too horrible. I watched the film on Youtube up to that point and then turned it off.

Another movie that scared me as a kid was "Caltiki, the Immortal Monster." I saw that on Youtube recently, too. In that case I can understand better why it scared me so much. The film sets up a real scary scenario for the story at the beginning. The film is a bit slow-moving, I think because they didn't have better special effects at the time, but I think about the first 20-30 minutes of it are classic. Mario Bava created some really horrifying visual images for it, and the story grabs you.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

[–] chongajuly 13 years ago

Earliest memories... when CHILLER THEATER aired "Mars Needs Women," I was so young I thought it said "Mrs. Ned's Women." I recalled the dungeon set from "Blood of Nostradamus," which last aired in 1971, when I was 7. But the one that scared me the most was "Black Sabbath," Karloff and Bava, particularly the wide, staring eyes of the medium's corpse. Now, of course, I can tell it's made of wax (Bava's father made it), but it's still very effective. I'm told I used to hide behind a chair whenever the theme from "Dark Shadows" came on! AND, I attended a screening of the infamous double bill of "I Drink Your Blood" and "I Eat Your Skin," which surely would warp a child for life, my sister even delighted in holding my eyes open during the scary parts!

"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond

[–] tgemberl 13 years ago

I'm sorry your sister forced you to watch it. I was a little embarrassed, but my father and sister never made me watch anything. I think that could be traumatizing to a little kid.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

[–] Jake-219 15 years ago

Um, guys? Why do I seem to be the only one here that isn't blaming Roger for this pic?

It is NOT a Roger Corman picture, he was executive producer, he held the purse strings (probably with a very tight grip, as was his wont...but then, the purse came from Nicholson and Arkoff). Bernard Kowalski directed it, and not everyone can do with tiny budgets what Roger could. (Though, looking over his massive television resume, I'll bet working under Roger's restrictions taught Bernie a lesson or two in good stead for tv!)

I won't deny for a minute that you can see Roger's influence here and there in this picture, but come on!

This is a rather curious situation:

There are people on here who vehemently deny Val Lewton's contributions to his RKO flicks, saying that he was only the producer, and all the credit should really go to Robson and Tourneur and Wise as the directors. (Come on! You guys don't see at least a bit of a thread of continuity between those nine films, even with three different directors?)

Meanwhile, poor Roger exec-produces this thing and winds up getting all the blame for it!

If something's good, it's despite Val, but if something's bad, it's BECAUSE of Roger?

(Yes, I realize that you guys probably aren't the same ones that were denigrating Lewton, but I can't avoid seeing some irony here.)

Besides, I find the movie very entertaining (if nonsensically silly), and isn't that a good thing to take away from a film?

[–] ann_74 15 years ago

Anyone for coffee?

[–] gregzilla68 15 years ago

I agree with tgemberl and bok602. I find those scenes quite effective in spite of the rest of the movie. Now if only the rest of the movie wasn't so terrible we'd have something interesting.

I can accept poor SFX, bad acting, sloppy camera work and an annoying soundtrack as long as it can produce an interesting experience. Unfortuantely, For me, That doesn't happen here.

[–] DocEmmettBrown 15 years ago

I'm glad this post is here. I recently watched the MST3K version of this movie and I thought the cave scene was quite chilling. For me it was the fact that these people were being kept alive, that was quite a shock for such an old (and let's face it, crappy movie). We're used to seeing lingering suffering on screen today but back then there was usually far more suggestion.

--------------------------------
"Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?"

[–] tmanbball 14 years ago

there are all kinds of bad things in this flick, especially the leech costumes, the poor dialog and crazy scenes like the leading man with his gun pointing directly at the leading lady while comforting her! that said, i love this movie. always have, even with cheesy lines, the acting ain't half bad. i recommend it to any b-movie lover, a must see!

[–] borg1005-1 11 years ago

but in my book, it has no scene to equal the one where the men are in the underwater cave being fed on by the leeches.

Dammit, you guys. Six years later I ran across the title on YouTube and came here to see if it was worth my time. Like many, I thoroughly enjoy these old groaners, but draw the line at some.

However, your comment drew confirming answers from enough people I thought I'd give it a shot.

I'll get back here after I view that scene from a perspective of 80 years.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] prettynoose69 11 years ago

Yes, the film seems to have passed into public domain. Its all over youtube!
Happy viewing.