Rish Reviews
First of all, in my opinion (and I ain't all that smart, folks), the Fifties were the absolute worst decade for movie Horror. Little cheap men-in-rubber-suit flicks, campy talky dung like The Brain That Wouldn't Die, bland pre-P.C. politically correct fare, and scientifically ludicrous atomic radiation crudfests abounded. But The Creature From the Black Lagoon is one of two big exceptions I can think of--a really fine, smart, thrilling piece of filmmaking that belongs right alongside the classic Universal Monster movies beloved by millions.
On an expedition to the Amazon, a group of scientists discovers the Gill Man, a missing link between man and fish that has existed unmolested since Hector was a pup.
I enjoyed this film greatly. It was simple, but very entertaining, and probably some of that was due to the simplicity of its story (sort of a King Kong retelling without the city background). Florida and California sub for the Amazon locations, but do a good job of it . . . even if it wasn't in the darkest reaches of South America, I wouldn't go swimming in that place in a zillion years. But hey, that's just me.
There's a lot of nice underwater photography, but there is A LOT of it. I'm reminded of how overboard the first Star Trek movie went showing all the newfangled expensive special effects, and maybe this was the same sort of thing. This would have been much more costly than its predecessors, and I suppose they scrimped by not shooting in colour. And that's too bad--the film might have been better in colour, with the multi-hued jungle and sky and water, etc. Also to differentiate between the characters: all the rich white Americans sort of blended together, confusing me. Underwater, it was hard to identify them, and the fact that they were played by entirely different actors underwater doesn't help. Still, part of that has to be my fault, since I'm not familiar enough with actors from the Fifties to recognize certain faces, but at the same time, movies should be for everyone, of any generation, and if you can't tell people apart, that detracts from the movie.
Of said characters, Lucas, the cool Latino capitan, and Kay, the girl, were my two favourites. Kay (Julia Adams) was a very attractive woman, really babetastic, and the girl wasn't useless to the storyline for once--she was intelligent and every so often did something other than scream and look pretty.
Because this film is in black & white, I had always assumed it was made around the same time as the other monster movies Universal put out, when in fact, it was made over twenty years after Dracula and Frankenstein.
Originally shot in 3-D, there are a couple of objects-pointed-at-the-camera shots, but very few. I would love to see it in its original form, but this one (unlike some) works just as well in 2-D.
It featured a person-taps-another-on-the-shoulder Fake Scare, which was cool. Also, a very early Camera-As-Killer worked well to hide the creature. The creature makes pig sounds at first, but is silent the rest of the time. Again, we have a monster that is dangerous and alien, and the choice the characters have to make is, do we study it or kill it? In this case, though, unlike most, the Creature deserves to live-–it would be wrong to arbitrarily exterminate it. The Creature isn't evil. It was attacked and it seeks revenge. I really enjoyed the iconic scene of the Creature carrying the damsel in his arms.
My biggest complaint is probably the score. The music, while cool at first, got annoying really fast. It doesn't help that literally every time any part of the monster is shown, the same three note dirge is played.
Creature is really an Action movie rather than Horror, only with a monster. And what a monster! The costume is incredible. An amazing creation, the Gill Man, with his astoundingly detailed body, moving gills, and great fishy eyes, remains one of the most visually striking monsters ever created. The way I reacted to Ridley Scott's/H.R. Geiger's Alien was probably nothing compared to how Fifties kids reacted to this monster. The creature is cool, on many levels, from the design, to the camerawork, to the way it moves. I suppose the man in the suit had to hold his breath the whole time the camera was rolling, didn't he? And that's the best thing about the film, really. The Gill Man, like the Frankenstein monster, is fascinating, but sad. Only this one, probably because he is expressionless, is much less 'human' than Karloff's character. But no less alive.
I'd Recommend It To: Monster movie and classic Horror fans.

The tyranist's thoughts
My that Julia Adams is a fine looking woman. And, of course, you couldn't have a good monster movie in the '50s without such a beauty to be threatened. There are a lot of theories about why we tell scary stories and make horror movies, but I think that this period really had it right. Everything worked on the damsel in distress theory. Sure, the Creature is very cool and you have the second villain in Mark the funding guy. Classic conflict between man's need to explore and the unknown. But anyone who's watched this movie knows it's all about keeping Kay (as played the by the lovely Ms. Adams) safe.
There are some great underwater sequences and the monster really is unrivaled in its time. Running time is a little short, but at least they don't get all talky. I thought that the characters played out well and the setting was very well done. There are a few key signs that the budget and craft aren't up to today's standards, but really, if you let yourself get lost in this one, it promises a good time.
This is usually included in the Universal Monster stable even though it post-dates the beginning of those movies by 20 years and the rest of the franchises were in their death throes. Still, it has the same great feel of the others and only lacks the humanness that was so common in the others. Well, except for the human emotion of lust. The Creature appears to have that in spades and who could blame him?
Posted: July 18, 2002