Monster on the Campus

Although this film reportedly wasn't one of director Jack Arnold's favorites, I personally have enjoyed it very much through many viewings. The story is a Jekyll-Hyde variation, but it offers real suspense and some genuine scares from a director that knows how. The only (minor) disappointment is the creature's makeup (not seen 'til near the end), which unfortunately is revealed to us in a brightly-lit room; makeups like this are more effective when glimpsed fleetingly in the dark. That small quibble aside, this film offers lots of scary fun for those in the mood. (The same can be said of Arnold's earlier films for the same studio, "It Came From Outer Space" (1953) and "Tarantula" (1955).

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!

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.

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....

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.