Monster from the Ocean Floor

I rented this film because the composer was a good friend of my musician father Felix De Cola (who may have played the piano on the score!). It's a silly movie with an absurd monster, but there's a scene around minute 40 where the heroine encounters a shark that had me quite startled. The fish appears to be 2 meters long and its open mouth comes at the camera and then at the girl in several shots. Even if she was an experienced diver, this must have been an unsettling experience. And no, it's almost certainly not an animatronic.

This was a time when the psychotechnology of horror films was developing at its fastest, so you can see how the director (clumsily) tries to manipulate our fears. Crude films often teach us more than well-made ones.

As for the music, there's a distant similarity between Brummer's music and John Williams' Jaws theme, but I doubt the link is real.

Monster From the Ocean Floor was the first monster movie from Roger Corman and I quite enjoyed watching this, despite reading some bad reviews.

A series of deaths and disappearances turn out to be the responsibility of a one-eyed octopus which only comes ashore on nights when the moon is out full. It also kills a cow. A woman and marine biologist team up and destroy it and also fall in love.

This movie also includes an unusual pedal powered submarine, sharks, the marine biologist singing and a mad local native who wants the woman dead so the creature won't appear again (according to local legend). There is also some nice scenery and a good music score.

The cast includes Stuart Wade (Teenage Monster), Anne Kimbell and Corman regular Johnathan Haze (Little Shop Of Horrors).

Monster From the Ocean Floor is a good way to spend just over an hour one afternoon or evening.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

Roger Corman was ONLY 28 Years old... And at the very beginning of one of the longest and most prolific movie carreers in the History of CINEMA! Here he is listed as a PRODUCER.... Bet there have not been many in that role at such a tender age! (At least.... for a PRODUCER!) Of course, for a LOW BUDGET mid-50s Horror Movie.... Well, OK...Better than MOST... But THAT really isn´t saying MUCH.... Is it???

Strictly from a technical standpoint... and of course compared to other mid-50s flicks... Perhaps a tad above average in that respect! Somewhat weak in the originality department... But to put things in the right perspective.... This was really one of the first in a genre that would go on to be one of the most overworked of the 1950s and 60s! So, taking that into consideration... You could almost say that simple fact alone puts a bit of an AVANT GARDE spin on the production!

Perhaps had I posted this Review 50 Years ago... I might have rated it a CAMPY 7*******... But I have seen so many films of this ilk in the past half century... That I have to say this one just doesnt stand out all that much!

If You just LOVE these sleazy old cheesy movies.... Well, go ahead! Be my guest! Otherwise... You would probably be much better off if You simply DON´T give MONSTER the EYE!!!

Plot - Legend has it that a one-eyed monster lurks off Mexican shores, though most non-hispanics don't believe it's real. Despite her science-imbued male friends, adventurous Miss Kimbell believes the legend and attempts to seek it out, along with boy friend Ward in his real-life one man submarine. So who will win out, woman or beast.

Seeing the name Corman as producer, I naturally expected a cheeze fest, having spent my teens imbibing his silly drive-in roasts. Surprisingly, that's not the case here. In fact, the undersea monster gets only a couple of cameo appearances and are not that badly done. It may be that an exceptionally cheapo 28-grand budget limited the effects, along with a storyline that takes place almost entirely along the LA area coast. Though limited in area, these scenes from both top and bottom of the Pacific, are well-done and keep viewer interest alive amid a skimpy script.

Of course, it helps guy viewers that the curvaceous Kimbell, gets a lot of screentime in a goody swimsuit. Plus, she's quite a good actress, in an unfortunately brief acting career. In fact, the script delivery amid the five principals is much better than the usual Corman brand. Then too, the science vs nature comments make up something of an unusual Corman subtext, along with the female hero, a move in advance of its time.

Despite the comic book title and skimpy budget limitations, the flick almost amounts to a respectable B-movie rating. Clearly Corman is feeling his way along at career's outset; that is, before he found riches serving up fun-filled late-nighters to drive-in freaks like me. I'm glad that as of 2021, he's still with us. Good.

Julie Blair (Anne Kimbell) is an American vacationing at a sea-side village in Mexico. She hears stories about a man-eating creature dwelling in the cove.

This film is a low budget science fiction film in every sense of the term low budget. Director Wyott Ordung (1922–2005) doubled as an actor (playing Pablo), and this was his first of only two times in the director's chair. In fact, his only real experience before this was a writer on another low budget flick, "Robot Monster".

Most notable is the producing credit of Roger Corman, who took a modest $30,000 budget and earned more than ten times that back at the box office. No small feat, especially from someone just starting out in the business. This also marks a collaboration between Corman and cinematographer Floyd Crosby; Crosby had been making films over twenty years, but would be possibly best known later on for shooting Corman's finest films.

This was also the debut of Jonathan Haze, a gas station attendant that filled the small role of Joe. He must have done something right, because Corman hired him for numerous productions over the next decade, including the starring role of Seymour in "Little Shop of Horrors".

As for the film itself, there are things to like and things that could have been improved. The monster is actually rather cool looking, and when revealed is no disappointment. To use him sparingly, they also have a shark and an octopus, which may cause a few people to jump. The film is also rather short -- only 64 minutes -- so there is little time for the pace to slow down. Variety praised the film, calling it an "oddity" but "well-done", noting that "Corman's production supervision has packed the footage with commercial values without going overboard."

The negatives are few, but worth pointing out. The forced romance was a bad idea, though probably almost necessary for a film of its day. This is somewhat compensated for by having the main character be a heroine rather than a hero -- not the strongest female lead, but a female lead nonetheless. The biggest issue is the sound. Clearly they had not invested in a boom mike, because scenes were either overdubbed, or the conversations were drowned out by the ocean waves...

While not the best film of 1954, it has its historical merits and is fun in its own way. For a low budget film now sixty years old, I think it holds up respectably well.