IMDb RATING
5.8/10
2.3K
YOUR RATING
The blood of a primitive fish exposed to gamma rays causes a benign research professor to regress to an ape-like, bloodthirsty prehistoric hominid.The blood of a primitive fish exposed to gamma rays causes a benign research professor to regress to an ape-like, bloodthirsty prehistoric hominid.The blood of a primitive fish exposed to gamma rays causes a benign research professor to regress to an ape-like, bloodthirsty prehistoric hominid.
Anne Anderson
- Student
- (uncredited)
Louis Cavalier
- Student
- (uncredited)
Richard H. Cutting
- Tom Edwards - Forest Ranger
- (uncredited)
Eddie Parker
- Donald as a Monster
- (uncredited)
Hank Patterson
- Townsend - Night Watchman
- (uncredited)
Ronnie Rondell Jr.
- Student
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blood of an ancient fish, treated with Gamma radiation to preserve it, transforms those infected with it into a vicious dog, giant dragonfly or monstrous Neanderthal entity. Arthur Franz is very convincing as an archaeological college professor, teaching Troy Donahue and Nancy Walters, while romancing Joanna Moore. Jack Arnold ably directed this somewhat maligned film; it's actually creepy and well-shot, succeeding in delivering the shocks, especially in the last act, where we finally see the title creation and it's a startling effect. Helen Westcott is memorable in two scenes, as the school nurse, conveying some romantic attraction to Franz, all with a dose of humor. It was recently released to DVD as part of the "Classic Sci-Fi Ultimate Collection", which includes "Tarantula" (1955), "The Mole People" (1956), "The Monolith Monsters" (1957), and "The Incredible Shrinking Man" (1957), all on par: great title sequence, fine musical score (some patchwork), beautiful monochrome photography, well-scripted, capably acted, always intriguing, with "Shrinking Man" the jewel of the crown.
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).
Monster on the Campus (1958)
*** (out of 4)
Entertaining Universal Sci-Fi about a college scientist who turns into a monster after his blood is mixed with that of a prehistoric fish. I've been wanting to see this for quite some time but never got around to buying the VHS since it was released just as I was jumping on the DVD format. The wait was certainly worth it even though the film isn't really anything other than your typical Jekyll and Hyde story. The film goes by at a very quick pace and the monster looks great, although it's a shame we only get to see him twice. I was somewhat shocked at the rather violent third death scene. The film also contains one of the dumbest girlfriends in sci-fi history.
*** (out of 4)
Entertaining Universal Sci-Fi about a college scientist who turns into a monster after his blood is mixed with that of a prehistoric fish. I've been wanting to see this for quite some time but never got around to buying the VHS since it was released just as I was jumping on the DVD format. The wait was certainly worth it even though the film isn't really anything other than your typical Jekyll and Hyde story. The film goes by at a very quick pace and the monster looks great, although it's a shame we only get to see him twice. I was somewhat shocked at the rather violent third death scene. The film also contains one of the dumbest girlfriends in sci-fi history.
Did you know
- TriviaWhen Professor Blake calls Madagascar he speaks to Dr Moreau, a reference to the H.G. Wells novel, "The Island of Doctor Moreau".
- GoofsWhen we see the "anthropoid's" face for the first time, the bottom of the mask is clearly visible.
- Quotes
Professor Donald Blake: Ah, the human female in the perfect state - helpless and silent.
- Crazy creditsThe one-sheet poster lists "The Beast" as the sixth cast member.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Movie 4 Tonight: Monster on the Campus (1971)
- How long is Monster on the Campus?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Monstruo en la noche
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 1h 17m(77 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content