The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues

Phantom From 10,000 Leagues is a terribly wooden movie. The acting is wooden, the dialogue is more wooden, and the script is even more wooden. The story concerns the discovery of a radioactive deposit on the ocean floor, and the creature that is said to be guarding it. It looks as though Professor King might be the main man responsible for the devastation the radioactive deposit creates, and the creature that kills almost all who come near the deposit. Professor King has a slimy assistant who has a thing for spear guns, and an ultra-nosy secretary. A mystery man reveals he is Dr. Ted Stevens, and has been assigned to act as a sort of science detective to the findings of bodies with radiation burns. There is also a real detective around, and the two join forces. Dr. Ted Stevens finds romance with Professor King's daughter; while a blonde spy torments the slimy, spear gun-toting assistant. Phantom From 10,000 Leagues is a science fiction thriller without thrills, a horror movie with little horror, and a detective story that really offered nothing to draw me into the movie. There's dullness many times, and nothing that really provokes thought. A fisherman's body washes ashore near the beginning of the movie, and the two men who come across the radioactive burned body don't seem to be upset or excited at all. -- They go about their conversation concerning the corpse in a total deadpan manner. The mystery and crime aspects do not work. The horror aspects do not work. The creature is barely shown moving from it's spot, and is not well crafted. I will say the movie was not badly shot, but that is not enough to keep Phantom From 10,000 Leagues from sinking to the bottom.

The vote drop-down menu is not very useful in this case. Of course this movie is awful. What would you expect from a film with this title from the 1950's? But what is note-worthy about the film is really how awful it is. I suppose this grade-Z pic was trying to cash in on the success of The Creature from the Black Lagoon or that Kurk Douglas Disney League jaunt, but I'm sure very few parted ways with their 1950's scratch to see this one. I though have to claim (of few that would make such bold statements) that I purchased this one, and I loved it. On par with Plan 9 and Beast of Yucca Flats this is a gem. Utter half-wittedness, no-budget, bad sound, horrible editing, no continuity, guys shooting each other with harpoons, the gratuitous sexy (which is a stretch) half naked woman, the same one boat used in all the scenes that call for a boat, the same stretch of beach, dumb doctors spouting esoteric formulas while (constantly) running around in suits on the beach...most bad films are just boring, and usually help you fall asleep after the late show, but trust me stay awake for awhile with this one, maybe just long enough to catch the goofy monster.

If you really like movies, if you like to understand them, then you need to balance your viewing.

Sure, there's a short list — an amazingly short one — of films that are whole creatures and that you should watch.

But you really should spend some time with these artificial creatures as well.

Why?

Because when you have a stable genre, when everything is thoroughly predictable, the shell of the movie sort of falls away. You no longer have to look at the movie, you can look at the machine behind it. That's something that's harder to do with stuff that actually engages, like Tarkovsky.

In this case, we have all the standard pieces: radiation, a marine monster that happens to be the right geometry to house a man, foreign spies and so on. Every element is from the catalog. Every assembly is from a mass production rulebook. The music is also off the shelf: viola for suspense, harp for underwater movement and so on.

But look and see the famous "rule of twos." Sooner or later you'll have to make up your mind about the extent to which structure in art is an impediment or an aid. But before you get that far, you have to see the structures that are being used.

Here we have two government investigators, one brainy the other brawny. We have two women, one young and alluring the other old and vengeful. We have two scientists, one honorable the other not.

There are minor, very minor plot twists as we switch all of the doubles. Each of the pairs has a hidden third: the embodied "government," the dead son, the girl friend (a third woman) who is an espionage seductress.

Already, in your mind's eye you can see the chart.

Is this an aberration of nature, like the monster within the story? Is it a creation that can give power in the short run, but at costs? Is is good science or black magic?

Before you jump to conclusions, see my comment on "Seabiscuit" for another example of the rule of twos, but in an environment of higher production values.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This is a group of horrible mediocre people doing horrible mediocre things.

Boring and uninteresting.

The creature...blah.

Give it a miss unless you can make a drinking game out of it!

While this Science fiction story lacks any real sense of credibility and our monster-The Phantom disappoints due to a lack of action and a rather plain appearance, there's enough inherent strangeness and weirdness going on here to make this an intriguing watch to fans of cult movies - the science fiction variety. Seeing Kent Taylor and Philip Pine is a treat here as always and they , along with Cathy Downs and Michael Whelan do give competent performances. Recommended mainly to those with a lot of patience and a love for Grade-Z movies.