therealcmr

Not that Joe's old cult film needed a remake, or a sequel. Andreas Schnaas, who clearly must have loved the original film growing up, probably always wanted it to be more gruesome than it actually was. Because let's face it, the original film is a cult film mainly for the word of mouth of the infamous two scenes that were mainly cut from most versions available for years. When many of us finally saw the infamous fetus scene, honestly, we laughed! It was hard to believe it was cut at all. How could anyone take it seriously, it was so poorly done! I think Schnaas made the movie he wished D'amato had made. Which is mainly an extreme gorefest and nothing else.

If you are watching this movie for the splatter and gore, you definitely could pick a worse film. The gore, for the budget, is some top notch stuff. Some of it is so over the top that it becomes more hilarious than outright disturbing. Which is trademark Schnaas.

If you are watching this movie hoping that a filmmaker came along to try and actually make a better film out of Anthropophagus, than you might want to know that this is not the movie, and Andreas Schnaas is not that filmmaker. Say what one will about exploitation maestro Joe D'amato, but his original film is leagues better than this movie. And it mainly comes down to the simple fact that, although it may have lacked a lot of gore and splatter, it made up for it with its grim atmosphere and the performance of Eastman as the Man Eater.

Anyone that has watched any of Schnaas's VS movies, or any of his work before this will immediately know that he clearly was trying here. Having said that, he just has no knack keeping things interesting in between the gruesome FX work. The movie is boring and the viewer is left waiting for the next grand gore piece. Thankfully, the gore really does make up for the films awful pacing. When it comes you will immediately forget you were bored to begin with.

I like Andreas Schnaas and I like most of the splatter garbage he has been spitting out for years. And I do like this movie because I enjoy his work. But it's undeniable just how subpar this one is when comparing it to the original film. If you like Schnaas and his work, than you will probably like this. If you are a gore fan just looking for a good splatter flick, you won't necessarily be disappointed. But you may want to keep the fast forward button on stand by, just to get to all the good stuff quicker.

The first time I ever even heard of this series of movies was quite some time ago. I was in a Tower Records looking to purchase some movies and I saw a DVD for a movie called Beast of Blood featuring some of the most inviting horror artwork I had ever seen, a beast ripping its own head off! I had to make the purchase based solely on that artwork alone, and thus would begin my foray into this series. Sadly, this would be the only film of the series I would see until recently, as Severin would release the entire series on Blu Ray, allowing me to finally see the rest of the films. Obviously, I have started from the beginning.

Terror is a Man, as many other reviewers have stated, is basically another Island of Doctor Moreau film. However, it is quite a different sort of horror film as most of the typical elements found in the genre are drastically downplayed. The film plays out more like a slow burn mystery film, even if we already know where the plot is going. The films gives the viewer a lot of chatter to digest, and for the most part, it's actually well acted and thought provoking. Not so much the actual science of it all. Most of that is as silly as you might imagine. No, what makes it thought provoking is that the film doesn't preach any specific moral view point. A lot of these sorts of films really lay down the moral thickness, where any other opinions regarding "playing God" are shunned outright. This movie doesn't quite do that. It plays with it, but there is always some sort of rational counter to the morals at play. As a result, both sides of the spectrum seem on equal ground. That's really unusual for a film of this era.

As for the films other positive qualities; it's wonderfully shot. The black and white cinematography really does wonders for the films atmosphere. I love scenes where someone is hiding in the shadows, or watching the Beast towards the end of the film on the cliffside in black and white. Nothing against color, as there is plenty of uses for that as well in film. However, when black and white is used correctly in a horror film, it really helps create an atmosphere that is impossible to get with a color film. This movie uses the black and white very well.

I mentioned before but the acting is actually way better than I had expected when I turned it on. Honestly, my expectations were telling me it was going to be a talky, poorly acted borefest. I am glad my expectations were proven wrong. The cast isn't big, but mostly affective. We have Richard Derr (mostly a TV actor) playing the lead Fitzgerald, who is shipwrecked on the eponymous island. Derr's performance is mostly quiet and understated. But this allows for some decent back and forths with the films other lead, Francis Lederer (again another TV actor) who plays the role of Charles, the mad doctor. The dueling performances between the two actors might be quiet and understated, but it all feels natural and not over the top. It all feels like it just works like real people talking. I really enjoyed listening to the two men quietly bantering with one another over the moral dilemmas of the whole affair, but never coming to any actual conclusions. Charles has two people that help him in his experiments (reluctantly), his wife Francis, played by Greta Thyssen and Walter played by Oscar Keesee. Greta is one of my caveats with the film. I don't think her acting works here. She is understated to the point where it looks like she doesn't even want to be on set. Example; late in the film Walter attacks her and there is an implication that he could rape her. But her acting is so half baked that it looks like she isn't even trying. As for Keesee as Walter, this character is a sleazy one, and honestly any old character actor could have played the role. He is fine in the part. But honestly, the two leads are really what is worth watching in the film, and not so much the two secondary actors that do not add much to the plot.

Another caveat, a small one, would be the complete lack of any actual special FX. The movies low budget does show wholeheartedly when it comes to showing the actual beast. For the most part he is kept off camera and all we see are occasionally some claws and "mummy wrappings". But when we do see the beasts face towards the end of the film, it is fittingly gruesome and the black and white helps to give it an even more gruesome appearance. As far as makeup FX go, that's about it. There is one scene mid way through the film that does have a very small piece of gore to it. It's even accompanied by a bell to let the audience know something awful is about to be shown. The footage, which only last several seconds, appears to me to be actual surgery footage of a scalpel cutting into what could be flesh. It's hard to tell. Regardless, it is a small yet gory little moment. And for the late 50's I can see how that would be quite revolting. But as far as gory violence goes, this movie isn't even trying for it. Again, this movie is mostly about the chatter between two men than it is about showing gruesome exploitive SFX.

Terror is a Man is not a perfect film in any context. I can see how many would deem it too slow, talky, or just outright boring. And maybe that's because the other films in the series do feature a lot of those exploitation vices that many of us love from the genre. That's why I really recommend viewing this movie in a different perspective. Expect the things I have mentioned about the film and you might find yourself enjoying it. Or use this review as a way to know that you do not want to view it now that you have a good idea of what to expect. Regardless of what you do, I highly recommend the film. Aside from some small issues, it kept me thoroughly interested throughout, even when I knew exactly what would happen. Give it a shot, it really isn't as bad as others have made it out to be.

Well, that is sort of true depending on which version of the film you might see. The original film, Island of the Fishmen, is basically The Island of Doctor Moreau, just... with fishmen. The original version is only mildly entertaining, featuring none of the gore and splatter the film would later be known for. The now cult re-edit of the film, Screamers aka Something Waits in the Dark, excises quite a good deal of content from the original film in favor of newly filmed scenes featuring actors Mel Ferrer and Cameron Mitchell getting brutally murdered by the fishmen in the films opening. This condensing of the film, along with the material that really has nothing to do with anything (it does sort of feature a zombie like man that could be turned inside out?), actually makes the film a lot more fun to watch.

The plot is still basically the same, however it features a new sub plot that has to do with Cameron Mitchell playing a boat captain who brings Mel Ferrer and his wife to the island to look for gold. This is all rectified immediately as the fishmen waste no time brutally murdering everyone. After all of this the real movie begins with a group of shipwrecked convicts ending up on the island and getting killed one by one by either the fishmen, tainted water, or general booby traps laid about (stuff like spike pits). Eventually they make it to Richard Johnson, essentially playing the role of Dr Moreau. There they discover all about the mad experiments and have to survive before they too are turned into fishmen.

The film does feature quite a good cast for a film that really isn't that great. As mentioned, Cameron Mitchell and Mel Ferrer open the film, and are promptly killed off. The rest of the cast who actually star in the film are Richard Johnson, Claudio Cassinelli, Barbara Bach, and Joseph Cotton. One would think with all of those talents it would make for a pretty decent little Moreau offering. But Martino's typical, middling direction just bogs the original version down. It actually keeps the films pace at a crawl and never turns up any sort of horror or adventure.

Thankfully the Screamers cut definitely makes the film way more viewable. Mainly due to the entire opening scene. We get a head being ripped off, guts being ripped out, throat ripping, a zombie that might be turned inside out. Overall, this entire opening sequence is a blast to watch and sets the movie up a possibly entertaining piece of trash in the vein of Humanoids From the Deep. But what we get after this great opening sequence is a haphazard edit of the original film.

I'll never forget my disappointment as a kid, when I first rented this. Like so many others, I rented it solely on the cover art (a man turned inside out) and was thrilled with that whole opening scene. But after that, deep disappointment set in as I would once again be duped by awesome cover art! Leave it to Corman! However, as an adult, I do enjoy the Screamers edit way more. It's still not a good movie. Actually, this cut is probably worse than the original in terms of storytelling. But it's way more fun than the original mainly because of the way the movie was exploited to make money. At least that's how I feel.

For those interested, there is a sequel directed by Martino called The Fishmen and Their Queen. It makes the original film look like a masterpiece in comparison.