Le monstre des abîmes

Ah yes! The good old days when Sci-Fi was simple. All you needed was a little radiation and most anything was possible. This movie was one of the last 50's Sci-Fi movies from Universal coming out in 1959-same year I did. Audiences then were not as sophisticated as they are now and quicker to give a movie the benefit of the doubt. This was the day of the Drive-In movie. Anyone my age or older should enjoy the simplicity of this film and the nostalgic quality of it. Good solid performances by Arthur Franz and especially Joanna Moore (whom would later become notable as one of Andy Taylor's girlfriends on TV). Plenty of the good old character actors from Universal's other Sci-Fi films give it a familiar feel. This movie doesn't ask you to think too much; when I was a kid watching Shock Theatre on a Saturday afternoon I didn't want to. Sure, the make-up could have been much better but from a distance the monster is quite scary.You don't have to look close to find a few blunders: lace-up shoe or loafer? You'll hear music from practically all of Universal's Sci-Fi and horrors movies: Tarantula, Frankenstein, the Mummy movies.This movie is probably not very entertaining to the younger generations of viewers other than finding it quite campy. How far we've come as an audience. But this movie tries hard and with its budget I've got to give it credit. It holds a warm spot in my heart and a solid place in my video library.

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.

I've always enjoyed this film that turned out to be Jack Arnolds last horror film and I really do not understand why some people think this is awful. There are some flicks that you don't have to take seriously and all you have to do is sit back and have fun watching. Sure, its silly but most 50's sci-fi is. Why is this worse than others? The music that is used is from other Arnold films most notably "Tarantula" and I'm sure Universal used the same score for countless other movies. A lot of Arnold regulars pop up like Whit Bissell, Phil Harvey, Ross Elliott, Richard Cutting and of course Mr. Ziffel, Hank Patterson! Eddie Parker plays the monster here in make-up, not Arthur Franz and Parker was also in "Tarantula" in two roles. Both as lab assistance who die of that deforming disease. Troy Donahue in one of his early roles is Jimmy and he's especially wooden. But Arnold knows exactly how to tell a story no matter how silly and the scene with the giant dragonfly is fun, so is the whole movie.

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....

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.