The Navy vs. the Night Monsters

How could you not like a movie with such an outlandish plot and such an infamous cast.

Mamie Van Doren is scrumptious as the Navy nurse heroine. Anthony Eisely ("Journey to the Center of Time") is the hero. Popular song-and-dance man Bobby Van ("Kiss Me Kate") is comic relief. Billy Gray ("Father Knows Best", "The Day the Earth Stood Still") is one of the brave young sailors who battle the Night Monsters (invading plant-creatures from space, ala "The Thing").

The monsters resemble huge mobile weeds (ala "The Day of the Triffids") which have acid for blood (ala "Alien"). The setting is Antarctica (ala "The Thing" . . . sort of), but the climate is a warm and well-lit (ala a studio set).

If all this sounds silly enough to be fun, take heart, it is (but beware of several gory scenes). The film was released by a company called Realart (this is "real art"?).

The Navy Vs. The Night Monsters is basically The Thing From Another World Meets Day of the Triffids. If you like either of those movies, you might like this one...or you might hate it even more for stealing plot elements from both those movies and executing them badly. A plane carrying a load of specimens from the Antarctic crashed on a South Seas naval base and a horde of long-dormant killer plants is released.

My biggest complaint is that this movie would have been better in black and white. The monsters are basically a dark black color anyway, and a lack of color has never hidden Mamie Van Doren's...umm...charms...before. I think black and white would have improved whatever atmospheric quality the director was reaching for as well. The way it stands, the film reminds me of something Sid Pink directed.

The movie has all the standard and rather-cliched characters you would normally find in a 1950's monster movie. Unfortunately, this film was made in 1966. No explanation or reasoning is ever given for the homicidal and suicidal fits that the pilot is prone to...he spends most of the movie laying in a hospital bed or choking people.

The only thing that would have made this movie a lot better would have been a nude shower scene with Mamie. The real night monsters of this film are the ones under Mamie's blouse. And those really are monsters! But seriously, this movie is not half bad once you get past the idiot plot. The cast, such as it is, is worth a look-see in spite of the plot and terrible dialog. The romantic triangle subplot is a mere throwaway and the monsters look like people and midgets camouflaged and moving like the walking carpet in THE CREEPING TERROR. But this movie is a lot more entertaining than that film. For a drive in type horror movie, it's okay as they go, but almost entirely predictable and you can even play the "okay who's the next celebrity cameo who is going to get devoured by these fugitives from a greenhouse.

I would think the title alone would be enough to scare off anyone looking for a good science fiction show. After watching the movie, I was really impressed. I mean I was expecting something stupid, However, you can't judge a book by it's cover. The Navy vs. the Night Monsters was and is a good low budget film. The scenery was above average (making you feel you were really there).The acting was decent and the story was well written. But the title is very misleading and I can understand why it was probably overlooked by most people. Oh well, I gave it a chance and it paid off. If you should come across this movie somewhere, why not check it out. If your a nostalgic sci-fi buff like me, you will enjoy it.

My following views only make sense, in the 'sense' that I'm a UK resident: Back in 1966, I took my little brother to a fleapit cinema to see a NEW movie with the come-on title THE NIGHT CRAWLERS. I was 14, he was 11 - and I was sneaking him in on a regular basis to catch up on horror movies.(That title was the UK title for NAVY VS NIGHT MONSTERS).

Every time something was about to happen, the film 'jumped' to the next scene. We came away deeply dissatisfied, believing that despite the obvious deficiencies of the movie, the stuff that had obviously been 'cut' must have been really, REALLY horrible. I should add that I was already a fan of the source novel: Murray Leinster's THE MONSTER FROM EARTH'S END. Call me 'picky' - but the point of the novel is that you don't know WHAT the hell is attacking the naval crew (Big shades of HP Lovecraft's AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS).The movie poster tells you straight away- - so why bother with the mystery in the movie.

35 Years later, I purchased a copy of the uncut video.

So THAT'S what they cut: A crewman having an obviously false arm pulled off by a man-eating plant, and Bobby Van being pulled into a pantomine tree. (Hmmm - in retrospect, we might have really gone for that in 1966). P.S.) To a former reviewer, the pilot goes mad 'cause the plant squirts acid in his face.

Geisterzug