Opiniones de usuarios

The Creature from the Black Lagoon is back! This time he's captured by scientists and transported to an aquarium in south Florida...

Jack Arnold returns as director, and he has brought Ricou Browning back as the creature. 1950s science fiction lead John Agar is also here, making this a pretty solid sequel. (And who can be opposed to a film with Clint Eastwood in it?)

I guess a lot of people harp on this film. Mike Mayo calls it "insipid" and "a joke." Howard Maxford calls it "run-down". Well, I like it better than the original. I really, truly do. I feel more happens and the plot is more developed. I would have to watch both again to make a definitive statement, but I watched them both back to back and was bored by the first compared to the second.

Director Jack Arnold and company took great care in this one to make the 3-D effects look more natural. While there are no chairs or spears thrown at the camera, there are still plenty of thrilling moments when the creature advances into view and even a couple of false frights, as when a threatening shadow turns out to be no more dangerous than Lori Nelson's hand.

Admittedly the screenplay has its weak links. Depending largely on unlikely co-incidences, the storyline pays scant regard to consistency or logic, while the dialogue is not only trite and banal but seems to go out of its way to provide a persistent assault on the viewer's intelligence by explaining what we can actually see for ourselves. No-one can walk to the bathroom in this film without someone providing a running commentary. Worse, the characters prove little more than pasteboard figures which indifferent actors like Agar and Nelson struggle to bring to life. Miss Nelson is further handicapped by the large amount of make-up she was forced to wear for the 3-D cameras. True, the effect seemed not only attractive but perfectly natural when the original film was projected through a 3-D filter and then viewed through polaroid glasses. She still looks great when framed through a Marineland window, but in bright sunlight the effect now looks ridiculous.

Of course, the Creature himself seems far less menacing (and far more obviously a stuntman in an ill-fitting rubber suit) when exposed to the glare of flat, over-bright 2-D scrutiny.

Nonetheless, the skill of Jack Arnold's direction, particularly in his efforts to disguise obvious 3-D tricks and use depth to produce shock in a seemingly more realistic way, gives the movie sufficient interest and vigor to overcome all script and histrionic short-comings.

Production values benefit from location filming and it's good to see Scotty Welbourne handling all the photographic chores on this one, both underwater and main unit. Of course, in 2-D the picture looks over-lit as it was lensed with 3-D's 20% light reduction firmly in mind.

In all fairness this movie should be judged for what it is .... a 1950's B Monster movie flick. I give it high marks in this area. It may not have the shock and scare value as it predecessor "The Creature of the Black Lagoon" but I find it to be a good representative of it's genre. A lot of this film was shot at Marineland in Florida at a time before there ever was a Sea World. As a kid I was amazed at some of the scenes in the film such as "The Creature" over turning a car as he was escaping the Aqua Park, and jumping out of a huge aquatic tank to attack the audience. Recently I talked with Ricou Browning (who played "The Creature") and determined that Universal Studios used wires to turn over the car that was supposedly thrown by the Creature. Wires were once again used to pull the Creature out of the large tank at Marineland as the Creature attacked actor, John Bromfeld. Seconds later he was attacking the Marineland crowd. As a young theater goer I found this fascinating. This film has been taking a lot of heat from some of your web site critics. I think it is well worth watching to see how the old Hollywood crowd use to scare us at the Drive-In. If nothing else it serves as a pleasant stroll down "memory lane".

More like revenge of the director.

Maybe it's the smug aura of John 'what is it I don't know' Agar, but this one seemed less like a horror flick and more like an inaugural presentation for Sea World. Wouldn't that have been a a great match up: Gill Man vs Shamu! This orca ain't no alligator you can snap in half.

Helen Dobson is a nice distraction from the relenting slow pace quite apparent in the film. Her expertise in ichthyology is most impressive especially in that white swimwear. Can you really blame the Gill Man for trying? Give this movie credit for the creature's special effects. Keeping in mind this was made in 1955, the articulate detail for Gilly adds this other worldy effect and it's so bizarre seeing any scene where his gills flap in and out.

Poor GM, he was just misunderstood. How would you react to repeated cattle prodding?

"Revenge Of The Creature" is at best a sequel that pales in comparison to the original, and pretty well done, "Creature From The Black Lagoon." A lot of what made the original movie work is missing here. The performances aren't as good, Lori Nelson (while attractive) isn't as head turning beautiful as Julie Adams was in the original, and, being set mostly (except for the first few minutes) in Florida rather than the Amazon, the sequel lacks some of the mystery of the original.

In "Revenge," the gill-man is captured by scientists and brought to some sort of public aquarium to be studied and to serve as a big attraction for the tourists. Admittedly, one thing this movie had that I didn't find in the original was a bit of sympathy for the creature. You can't help but feel a bit sorry for him chained in the tank and jolted with cattle prods on a regular basis as the tourists gawk at him. The creature is much more the focus of this movie, and the violence he commits is shown much more graphically (although all within the acceptable tastes of 1955, of course.) Where the creature isn't the focus, the movie weakens dramatically. The romance between Clete and Helen was a sort of "ho-hum, who really cares" experience, and why in the world we needed to be introduced to so many cutesy animals doing tricks (the porpoise, the chimpanzee) was beyond me. One thing I couldn't figure out was - even given his obsession with her - how the creature kept managing to find Helen in a variety of places.

Admittedly, the creature is a fun monster to watch; the movie unfortunately is less so. 5/10

Yep, the gill-man from "Creature from the Black Lagoon" is back! This time, they capture him and put him in a Florida aquarium. But sure enough, the poor sucker has the hots for a beautiful young woman.

"Revenge of the Creature" is simply a fun movie to watch. Admittedly, a lot of it is VERY dated, but we can understand that. To be certain, a specific shot of Lori Nelson must have given millions of boys their first carnal experience. Of course, one of the most significant things about this movie is the appearance of Clint Eastwood in his debut: he plays the lab technician who can't find his mouse. Dirty Harry isn't feeling so lucky in that scene after all! Anyway, it's the sort of movie that you just watch to enjoy. They must have had fun making it. Also starring John Agar (Shirley Temple's first husband).

Like I said: millions of boys must have LOVED that one shot of Lori Nelson!

Well, I've seen worse, lots worse. In its favor, the movie still features one of the coolest (and best implemented) monster designs ever to emerge from the old B&W films of that era, and the underwater photography is still quite arresting - apparently the actor in the creature costume was capable of holding his breath underwater for incredible amounts of time, and so the creature looks entirely at home and natural in the water.

Against it? A weak screen play where nothing interesting happens for almost 30 minutes in two different parts of the movie. Some of the worst movie dialog actors have ever been forced to utter (I can just imagine how John "I worked with John Wayne once" Agar must have died inside while trying to deliver some of his bon-mots.) A distinct lack of chemistry between Agar and Lori Nelson and a screen play that does nothing to give them anything to draw them together (except for the old "you are so "the only person around" problem).

Worse, the creature himself seems over-exposed here. Since the movie yanks him out of his creepy, isolated, backwater lagoon in the first 15 minutes, he loses the mystery and most of his menace from his original surroundings once he is moved to his bright, shiny Sea World. After that, he's just a good costume and a set of talons.

The guy who wrote "Keep Watching The Skies" remarked about "Revenge Of the Creature" that the only good things about this sequel are the elements they kept from the first one. I'd have to agree that this is about right - everything the film makers tried to add and expand on in the sequel just didn't really click.

Still, as a little kid, this would have been great fun.

Scientests capture the gill man and bring him to Florida as a tourist attraction, but unfortunately the creature won't be held for long...

Sequel to the 1954 horror classic The Creature from the Black Lagoon is admittedly a come-down from the original, but manages to be a fairly entertaining follow up. The biggest flaw with this film is the fact that the title monster loses some of the mystery that made it so frighteningly good in the first film, as our monster is literally placed for all to see. Still, director Jack Arnold's return proves to be helpful. The monster is still an impressive sight.

B movie hero John Agar heads a pretty decent cast with Lori Nelson as a likable female in distress. Look for a young Clint Eastwood as a lab assistant.

** 1/2 out of ****

I don't know what revenge the Gill Man was taking in Revenge Of The Creature, but I do know that he was a Gill Man with some definite needs. There are no women of his species around to fulfill his needs so he's settling for the next best thing.

After Creature From The Black Lagoon was found in the Everglades and came to a sad end, another expedition finds a Gill Man in the Amazon head water country. This of course is a scientific expedition, but they have expenses and someone gets the bright idea that an exhibit at an aquarium will make the creature pay for itself.

Carl Denham when he was exhibiting King Kong had the same idea and we know how that turned out. A lot of the plot elements of King Kong are present in Revenge Of The Creature. The Gill Man fixes on scientist Lori Nelson to the distress of both John Agar and John Bromfield. I guess there are no blonds in the Everglades or the Amazon.

Look quickly and don't blink and you'll spot Clint Eastwood in a small role. The whole film is on the silly side, but definitely a lot of fun.

There are many moments to savor in this exciting, intriguing follow-up to "Creature From the Black Lagoon." The lovely heroine (Lori Nelson) stares at the captured creature (In Marineland of Florida, at the time only 17 years in existence, and called Marine Studios), through the glass of the aquarium, two strangers in a man's world. She talks about her career while her peers have already married and had children while also feeling sorry for the creature, a lonely alien in civilization. Later, she takes a shower in a motel, with the escaped creature outside, in a chilling pre-"Psycho" sequence. Taking a swim in the Florida Everglades, (echoing the famed Julie Adams-Creature pas de deux in the original), the "gill-man" watches from below, but she is joined by her boyfriend (John Agar), who kisses her mid-scene. Since this occurs in the last act, and the "Gill-Man" has already had his eye on Ms. Nelson, and even grabbed her, it makes no sense to be shyly staring again. The creature costume is changed this time - apparently goggles were inserted into the mask to make it easier for Rico Browning's underwater swimming, as well as for Tom Hennesy, the 6'5" top side Creature actor. It also gives him eyes underwater, hollow in the first film. For those theorizing how this species can survive in both freshwater and saltwater, the Creature is a Euryhaline fish, able to adapt to both environments. Great, eerie night-time photography at the end and thrilling scenes make this a winning sequel.

No doubt designed to make a fast buck in the 50s, you still get the Gill Man, one of the coolest of all monster designs ever, and a woman to throw cars for and swim thousands of miles for in beautiful Lori Nelson.

Even in a production without much life, the Gill Man still seems

powerful and mysterious, and his biological drive to mate with Ms. Nelson is interesting considering the long lineage of sympathetic monsters in love with knock-out blondes and brunettes. Sadly, the idea of the monster, the tragic beast longing for what is impossible to him (Wolf Man, King Kong, the Mummy) is a distant memory in filmdom. There was the recent DARK MAN, and Nicholson's WOLF, but these are obvious throw-backs to a time when monsters were more than scurrying guerrillas attacking from the shadows or machine-like mass murderers who cannot be killed. I won't count fluffy-haired vampires, whose allure as suave parasites is not "monstrous". A monster, in classic terms, in love with a beautiful woman, is denied her by the facts of their existence. Either because of grotesqueness or species-differences,

the monster endures pain, capture, and often death in his attempt to carry a Lori Nelson in his arms through a moonlit swamp.

In REVENGE the Gill Man is probed, prodded, and stared at by tourists, definitely the worst fate, though this allows the Creature to establish a magnetic attraction to Lori Nelson. You get a great escape, more Lori Nelson in bathing suits, a big bohunk who has an unhealthy fetish with wrestling the Gill Man hand-to-hand, and lots more Lori Nelson in a bathing suit. What you don't do is watch this movie for any reason but to see the Gill Man thrash in the water and smack

bohunks...and if you're a fan of the Creature and classic monsters, you'll understand the tragic consequences when you're a walking fish-man who's half-man enough to love a human woman, and whose tears probably would never show, in the depths of the deepest lagoons.

The first sequel to 1954's low-budget hit "Creature From the Black Lagoon" looks even more cut-rate than its predecessor, despite that film's financial success. An exploration team in the Upper Amazon manages to capture the Creature quite easily (by setting off explosives in the lagoon which render the Gill-man incapacitated). A scientist hears the news and puts himself in charge once the Gill-man is shipped to an aquatic park in Florida, where he performs tests on the Creature with the hope (one presumes) he can be taught to obey tasks like a trained porpoise. Naturally, the Gill-man doesn't like being prodded with an electric pole or swiping at a ball on a chain--however, a pretty blonde science student has caught his eye (when a local newscaster tries inducing public panic after the Gill-man escapes, we know that all he really wants is the woman). While the first Creature feature wasn't exactly clever or witty, it had terrific 'jungle' ambiance and shimmering black-and-white photography. With the exception of a swimming duet between John Agar and Lori Nelson, the underwater visuals here are muddy or fuzzy (mainly due to overtures to the 3-D process). Nelson has her pick between strapping explorer John Bromfield (who could be Richard Egan's twin brother) and lab professor John Agar (who looks so out-of-shape, his clothes hang off him). Most viewers will end up rooting for the Gill-man who, in one instance, protects his lady-love by flinging a college student against a tree (a special effects scene I thought was well-done, but one many fans feel belies the film's low-end production cost). Clint Eastwood makes his debut as a lab tech (you hear his unmistakable voice before you see his face), and there are some good location scenes shot at Marineland, but the script fails to come up with one good idea after the Creature escapes. Followed in 1956 by the final chapter, "The Creature Walks Among Us". ** from ****

Creature from the Black Lagoon isn't a perfect film but it is a lot of fun and one of the better monster movies of the 50s. Revenge of the Creature misses the mark in comparison, but there are definitely worse sequels out there, it is better than its reputation and while The Creature Walks Among Us(the other sequel) needs to be re-watched I do remember Revenge being better than that. The story is not as good or as suspenseful this time round, it takes too long to set up, while the romance is very half-baked and the monster is used a little too much which dissipates the impact. The dialogue wasn't a strong point in the original, but it still wasn't anyway near as corny and awkward as the dialogue here. John Ager also gives a very wooden lead performance. It is however well photographed- as with the original the underwater sequences do look wonderful- and solidly directed with extravagant locations, and the monster still looks good(one of the better man-in-a-monster-suit monsters of any 50s monster movie) and manages to be menacing and sympathetic even in surroundings that are not quite as effective this time around. The score succeeds in exuding haunting atmosphere and jaunty energy, and there are some good set pieces with the monster, especially with the overturned car and aquarium. Also the shower motel sequence with it watching, not quite as scary as it lurking beneath the sea watching Julie Adams swimming on her own in the original, but it's the closest it gets to anything as effective as that. Like Creature from the Black Lagoon the characters are not particularly well-developed, the leads in fact are very underdeveloped, but they don't annoy either. Lori Nelson does acquit herself quite well, filling in big shoes and doing so quite admirably, while Clint Eastwood in his first screen role makes a brief but interesting appearance. Overall, has a lot wrong with it but not a bad sequel. 5.5/10 Bethany Cox

This movie is a sequel to Creature from the Black Lagoon. The creature basically gets captured and taken to Florida and stuck in an aquarium. Scientist study, him and then he gets loose. That is basically all there is to it. John Agar is the scientist and he is as wooden as ever. The gal in this one is pretty cute though and the monster looks all right especially considering it is the 50's. The monster doesn't look to threatening in a pool though so the fact it is in an aquarium really takes away from the movie. At the end the monster kidnaps the girl and Agar has to find her. I still don't think though that you can use a shocking pole underwater without getting electrocuted yourself and I don't think that some creature is going to care about a globe on a stick. And why bring a creature into basically a marine land type setting where if it escapes it can do the most damage. And where did these guys buy the chain to hold the creature cause it doesn't hold up well. On the plus side you get to see Clint Eastwood make a brief appearance.

The Creature was the last of the classic Universal monsters I got into, which only happened in 2001 via the original DVD release of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954). I loved the film immediately, however, and was very much interested in watching its two sequels - REVENGE OF THE CREATURE and THE CREATURE WALKS AMONG US (1956).

Now that I've caught up with both of them, I'd say that Universal did well enough by this particular monster, and that having arrived so long after the Studio's other notables (Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Invisible Man and The Wolf Man) proved fortuitous, because The Creature wasn't allowed to become redundant in his own 'starring vehicles' as was the case certainly - and sadly - with both The Frankenstein Monster and The Mummy.

As for the film itself, it isn't up to the original (with which I should be re-acquainting myself over the week-end) - despite having the same director. The change in setting is interesting, and it works most of the time; the main problem, I guess, lies with The Creature's alarmingly limited characteristics: it can only either swim (in the water) or go on a rampage (on land) - although, to be fair, The Mummy is perhaps even duller! Still, the film offers reasonable entertainment and the leads are O.K. if, again, failing to match those of the original.

The deadly Gill Man returns in this sequel where a change in venue really doesn't do it any favours. It's just not quite the same without the Amazon setting; as a result, the overwhelming atmosphere and sense of mystery of the original are nowhere to be found here.

That's not to say that the basic story is bad. It's a logical enough extension of the story of the original in which the Gill Man is successfully captured and brought to Florida's Ocean Harbor oceanarium. While he's on display he's subjected to various experiments (it would be pretty hard not to feel some sympathy for the poor beast) while the "beauty and the beast" theme is continued and the creature fixates on a lovely young scientist named Helen (Lori Nelson).

The always likable John Agar is the lead here, and does his usual solid job. A good supporting cast includes John Bromfield as the macho Joe Hayes and Nestor Paiva, reprising his role of Lucas from the first film. Nelson is fine eye candy, even if she won't make anybody forget Julie Adams. A very young Clint Eastwood makes his first (uncredited) screen appearance as a none too bright lab assistant who misplaces a rat.

The main problem with "Revenge of the Creature" is the fact that by the very nature of its tale it suffers from the Showing The Monster Too Much syndrome. Still, as mentioned, seeing what the creature is subjected to here will certainly strike a chord with the audience. You wish that humanity would have just left him the hell alone.

The underwater photography is still wonderful, and there are some very effective moments, such as Agar and Nelson having a carefree swim not knowing just how close the creature is. Director Jack Arnold, also returning from "Creature from the Black Lagoon", does his usual capable job.

While not in the same league as its predecessor, this is still watchable enough, if slow and talky at times. No matter what, it's always fun to see the Gill Man do his thing, so fans of the Universal-International product of the 1950s should be adequately entertained.

Seven out of 10.

Everything was interesting about the original film. Not so for 'Revenge.'

I thought it would be a fun monster mash, this time with Gill-Man running amok in the big city. But instead it's forty minutes of a romantic drama set in Sea World and to be honest I started to fast forward through all the scenes without Gill-Man, which turned out to be most of the movie, and I'm not saying it's easy to make a movie but all they had to do was have Gill-Man exceed the body count of the previous film amidst different surroundings but the studio or the director or somebody decided to shoehorn The Most Boring Romantic Subplot which eats away about 40 minutes of its running time. Now, the original had a romantic subplot, but it was taut, full of conflict and meshed with the broader themes the film dealt with. In 'Revenge' there seems to be two different films being made at the same time, which wouldn't be so bad if the Gill-Man's vengeance took center stage, but that sadly doesn't happen. It's crap.