IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,8/10
2253
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuThe blood of a primitive fish exposed to gamma rays causes a benign research professor to regress to an ape-like, bloodthirsty prehistoric hominid.The blood of a primitive fish exposed to gamma rays causes a benign research professor to regress to an ape-like, bloodthirsty prehistoric hominid.The blood of a primitive fish exposed to gamma rays causes a benign research professor to regress to an ape-like, bloodthirsty prehistoric hominid.
Anne Anderson
- Student
- (Nicht genannt)
Louis Cavalier
- Student
- (Nicht genannt)
Richard H. Cutting
- Tom Edwards - Forest Ranger
- (Nicht genannt)
Eddie Parker
- Donald as a Monster
- (Nicht genannt)
Hank Patterson
- Townsend - Night Watchman
- (Nicht genannt)
Ronnie Rondell Jr.
- Student
- (Nicht genannt)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Made in 1958, here is a general reworking of all the came before. It's Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde married to any werewolf movie. Yet, it never entirely verges into camp or silliness. The performances are strong, even from the dog. The music, though borrowed from other movies like 'The Incredible Shrinking Man' and 'Tarantula', is used effectively giving the action a boost where needed.
The special effects were nothing special. The transformation from man to beast and back again were smoother than 'The Wolfman', but the resulting creature was almost too obviously a rubber mask. Closeups do kill the effect somewhat so they filmed him at a distance which pulled the visuals back into plausibility. Much of it works well.
But why was this made? As noted, there's nothing new. It is played as a very straight forward no nonsense monster movie. It has its moments of real horror but it also doesn't even try push boundaries. If you had to judge it against all other of this genre, it's a C+.
A good solid movie for a rainy day and popcorn.
The special effects were nothing special. The transformation from man to beast and back again were smoother than 'The Wolfman', but the resulting creature was almost too obviously a rubber mask. Closeups do kill the effect somewhat so they filmed him at a distance which pulled the visuals back into plausibility. Much of it works well.
But why was this made? As noted, there's nothing new. It is played as a very straight forward no nonsense monster movie. It has its moments of real horror but it also doesn't even try push boundaries. If you had to judge it against all other of this genre, it's a C+.
A good solid movie for a rainy day and popcorn.
If you're a 50's "B" movie fan like I am, this is a gem. I saw this film back when i was a kid, something like 1962 or so, and it hasn't been on T.V. in years. I have a VHS copy of it but would love to find it on DVD sometime in the future. When a caveman throws a hatchet and it hits a cop square in the face, it leaves an impression on you when you're 10 years old. Of course, by today's standards, it looks kinda hokey, but you have to keep in mind that movies like this one "pioneered" this type of movie. I wouldn't trade a 50's "B" flick for all the new garbage in the world. Like, what could measure up to movies such as the transparency of "The Amazing Colossal Man" and "War Of The Colossal Beast?" Ah yes, those were the days. Back when sci-fi movies didn't have to be VULGAR to be entertaining. The special effects didn't even have to be good - we STILL loved it! I sure wish the Time Tunnel was a reality - I'd go back there in a new york second!
Ah yes! The good old days when Sci-Fi was simple. All you needed was a little radiation and most anything was possible. This movie was one of the last 50's Sci-Fi movies from Universal coming out in 1959-same year I did. Audiences then were not as sophisticated as they are now and quicker to give a movie the benefit of the doubt. This was the day of the Drive-In movie. Anyone my age or older should enjoy the simplicity of this film and the nostalgic quality of it. Good solid performances by Arthur Franz and especially Joanna Moore (whom would later become notable as one of Andy Taylor's girlfriends on TV). Plenty of the good old character actors from Universal's other Sci-Fi films give it a familiar feel. This movie doesn't ask you to think too much; when I was a kid watching Shock Theatre on a Saturday afternoon I didn't want to. Sure, the make-up could have been much better but from a distance the monster is quite scary.You don't have to look close to find a few blunders: lace-up shoe or loafer? You'll hear music from practically all of Universal's Sci-Fi and horrors movies: Tarantula, Frankenstein, the Mummy movies.This movie is probably not very entertaining to the younger generations of viewers other than finding it quite campy. How far we've come as an audience. But this movie tries hard and with its budget I've got to give it credit. It holds a warm spot in my heart and a solid place in my video library.
Jack Arnold's last sci-fi horror for Universal isn't as good or as much fun as most of his previous efforts (including the oft-overlooked "Tarantula") but it has its own virtues to recommend it. The story is a clone of "I Was a Teenage Werewolf" -- except that in this case, we have a college professor who keeps accidentally coming into contact with chemical agents which transform him into an aboriginal "throwback."
Not much killing, or action at all for that matter, and in retrospect the film's manner in general is too straight and serious for its flimsy materials. Not much sympathy or interest is generated before the film runs its course, but an audience may get a few laughs from some of the stilted dialogue and from the oversized "throwback" creatures that appear from time to time to terrorize unsuspecting coeds and jocks.
The female lead was written to have a very unappealing personality -- for one thing, when the scientist she supposedly loves is getting really interested in his work, she goes over his head to his boss (who "happens" to be her father) to have him investigated for insanity! Maybe he just wasn't paying enough attention to her.... anyway, I don't think many in the audience would have minded if she HAD gotten hers from the monster in the end....
Not much killing, or action at all for that matter, and in retrospect the film's manner in general is too straight and serious for its flimsy materials. Not much sympathy or interest is generated before the film runs its course, but an audience may get a few laughs from some of the stilted dialogue and from the oversized "throwback" creatures that appear from time to time to terrorize unsuspecting coeds and jocks.
The female lead was written to have a very unappealing personality -- for one thing, when the scientist she supposedly loves is getting really interested in his work, she goes over his head to his boss (who "happens" to be her father) to have him investigated for insanity! Maybe he just wasn't paying enough attention to her.... anyway, I don't think many in the audience would have minded if she HAD gotten hers from the monster in the end....
A previous commentator writes that: "The story is totally ludicrous and a feeble, shameless attempt to promote evolution. Only a leftist loony would believe this stuff."
Just to set the record straight, the concept of "evolution" promoted by the film is a gross distortion of actual evolutionary theory, suggesting as it does that evolution involves some sort of mystical forces and that certain so-called "living fossils" contain some sort of substance which somehow counteracts these forces. None of this actually makes in any sense, however, in terms of the actual science.
To sum up, evolutionary theory is perfectly valid science, and there's nothing particularly shameful about promoting it as science, contrary to what the above poster might think. OTOH, the movie's conception of what evolution actually means is just plain silly.
Just to set the record straight, the concept of "evolution" promoted by the film is a gross distortion of actual evolutionary theory, suggesting as it does that evolution involves some sort of mystical forces and that certain so-called "living fossils" contain some sort of substance which somehow counteracts these forces. None of this actually makes in any sense, however, in terms of the actual science.
To sum up, evolutionary theory is perfectly valid science, and there's nothing particularly shameful about promoting it as science, contrary to what the above poster might think. OTOH, the movie's conception of what evolution actually means is just plain silly.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesWhen Professor Blake calls Madagascar he speaks to Dr Moreau, a reference to the H.G. Wells novel, "The Island of Doctor Moreau".
- PatzerWhen we see the "anthropoid's" face for the first time, the bottom of the mask is clearly visible.
- Zitate
Professor Donald Blake: Ah, the human female in the perfect state - helpless and silent.
- Crazy CreditsThe one-sheet poster lists "The Beast" as the sixth cast member.
- VerbindungenFeatured in Movie 4 Tonight: Monster on the Campus (1971)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Monster on the Campus?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Monstruo en la noche
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirma
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 17 Min.(77 min)
- Farbe
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen