The Creature Below

If your a horror or Lovecraft film fan, you'll probably give this a pretty decent rating. It had the same production values of "The Resurrected" AKA Shatterbrain with Chris Sarandon of course without Chris Sarandon.

I'm a huge fan of H. P. Lovecraft literature, one of the major fathers of modern horror. If you don't know the name and your a horror movie fan, it's time to pick up a book. Anyhow, there are a great number of specific film adaptations of Lovecraft but many decent movies based on the theme. I had been waiting for some time to get my hands on this one. Due to a trailer I had seen the movie seemed to be heavily influenced by and related to Cthulhu, one of Lovecraft's major antagonists.

This doesn't have any big-named actors and is a lower budget affair but I was pleased to say I enjoyed it and found it an entertaining addition to other "Lovecraft Themed Films". Basically it's about a deep sea research diver who brings up a semi parasitic creature she discovers on a deep sea dive. The creature grows and begins to influence her to... This film story is very similar to another Lovecraft themed movie a foreign 1981 film "Possession" with beloved Horror Icon Sam Neill but isn't a twisted and difficult to follow and it's in English.

If your a Lovecraft film fan, these is definitely worth the watch. They never directly mention the mythos but the crude cave drawing, images, monologue and the ending leave no doubt.

If I have one grip about this, it may be the further development of a human antagonist. They were doing a fairly good job with the story and the main character and I think they might have gone further if they hadn't deviated from it but I'm satisfied with the viewing experience nevertheless.

It starts off with sharpness and moves along at a brisk pace. Not very gory, not a terribly frightening movie, which to me are good points, just solid fun science fiction, like the old 50's movies but sharper and more stylish.

Lovecraftian is a good description. Low-budget, of course, but the director did very well with what he had. The lead actress is very good, the other actors provide good support.

I really enjoyed this.

This movie has some bad, but really bad, CG. well, all the CG in this movie are bad, not just some.... and there's not a lot, most of the "creature" parts are made with the old puppet way, seems to be cheaper from using CG.... music is not bad, but sometimes completely different types of music got into the main score, and we just paused the DVD to make sure none of the neighbors is listening to the radio...acting is terrible, OMG it is SO terrible, the lead actress is a disaster, and this is what might turn this garbage into a cult film, the other actress, the sister of the heroine is better, she is actually trying to act, which is not so good, because if she was as bad as her sister - this movie would surely get an Oscar for worst acting.

What kept running through my mind as I watched this movie was "what motivates someone, anyone, to make a movie like this?" I'm not speaking about the genre or subject of the movie, but rather a very legitimate question of what is the driving force to make a movie with the primary actress having no acting ability, the writing being almost non-existent, no real direction, and the lowest production value imaginable. Essentially it seemed like not a single person involved had any desire to make this movie.

My review isn't even regarding whether this movie is good or bad, as it's clearly meant to be a campy movie, as that's perfectly fine and often quite enjoyable. But rather there's something so completely off about this movie that it strikes me as extremely out of place. Like when you see a business in your town that seems to never have any customers, nor even seems to want any, but has been around forever supposedly making plenty of money and you get the idea that there might be something more to their business model. That is this movie. It wasn't made to be watched.

Really I'd give it a 1 but I did make it completely through the film, and there was 1 redeeming line near the end which I won't spoil but I presume was the only tag line planned for this entire film.

A good concept, not an original one but with a real potential to be both fun and scary, and a creepy-looking DVD cover were what drew me into seeing 'The Creature Below' in the first place. Also have gotten some entertainment out of low-budget creature films, though there are too many weak or less ones.

'The Creature Below' is not good, let alone great. It is also not terrible, let alone a complete shambles, and has good points that make it semi-watchable. There are certainly far worse films in the genre, of similar creature films and overall and it didn't leave me angry or cringing, just that it is very underwhelming that doesn't do a good job with its objectives of being fun or scary.

Starting with the positives, the monster does have some creepiness. There are moments where 'The Creature Below' is moderately scary and fun, and it doesn't take things too seriously or go overboard on the camp factor.

It's effectively lit and shot too sometimes. The soundtrack has eeriness when it isn't being intrusive or obvious. Michaela Longden tries.

Conversely, a lot of things bring 'The Creature Below' down. The acting is generally not good, Anna Dawson being especially terrible in the lead and it does kill the film. The characters are dull and sometimes annoying, meaning there is never much of a reason to make one care for them. Some of the decision making as such bordered on silly.

Although the creature was not bad in personality, the creature effects are very cheap-looking. Even for low-budget, 'The Creature Below' is pretty slapdash, especially in the editing. Excitement, thrills, creepiness and suspense are too far and between. The scares are generally not enough and suffer from predictability and lack of tension. The story is far too minimal, another thing that affects the pacing with the padding and over-stretching, bland and often ridiculous.

Overall, semi-watchable at best and mostly mediocre. 4/10 Bethany Cox