Revenge of the Creature (1955)

Jack Arnold was very prolific in science-fiction horror. But, unfortunately, not even one masterpiece, only dozen films. And this "Revenge of the Creature" is no exception. The actors strived, they gave their strength but the story was bankrupt at birth, everything is awkward. Clint Eastwood as Jennings, uncredited, in his first film. Just another Hollywood nonsense!

"Revenge of the Creature" has all of the markings of a film that was quickly thrown together to capitalize on the original's popularity the previous year. I am partial to horror films, however, I will be the first to admit when something is just not good.....and this film is just not good.Multiple nonsensical events are portrayed here....like the boat captain telling the explorers, while they are cruising to their destination, what happened to the previous expedition the year before when five people were killed....what? They are just hearing about it now, when you arrive at the Black Lagoon? How about having this discussion when they first ask to hire you to make the trek? That, you know, this might be really dangerous, five people were killed, etc.? Just silly. Then, they manage to capture the Creature, but back in Florida they put it in an open-air tank, despite knowing it has killed at least those five people (from the first film) and it can walk, it's not a fish that is restricted to the water. THERE IS A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY THAT THIS THING CAN GET LOOSE AND CLIMB OUT OF THE TANK. But that's OK we'll just put a chain around his leg, that works. Wow, so stupid and so bad. No one would do this. After the Creature eventually escapes (surprise!), he then proceeds to live in the ocean, despite his previous existence in the Amazon River Basin, which....um...is fresh water? There is no way the Creature should be able to live in the salt water of the ocean. Total idiocy. In addition to being a complete rip-off of the plot of 1933's "King Kong," this film is, sadly, nowhere near as good as the first "Creature." I was surprised how bad it was.Most egregious was the fact that for a horror film...it was incredibly slow and boring. This cannot be forgiven. I think the total body count was three (four if you count the dog), and none of them occurred until an hour into the film. And one of those was incidental, an unfortunate casualty of the Creature when it was trying to escape. The other two were near the very end. Where is the horror? Where is the suspense? The film felt like a bad soap opera until the Creature finally gets loose. But then the shoddy story-line continues, because the Creature, who apparently has a crush on the girl in the film (hello again, King Kong) shows a fantastical ability to find the girl no matter where she goes in Florida. In her house, at a restaurant, you name it...wow really? This was just so poorly written it cannot be excused.Current rating of 5.6, poor as that is, is actually over-rating the film; it's no better than a 3. Not even Clint Eastwood's uncredited film debut can save this clunker.

In 1955, with interest having waned in their other monster-based franchises such as Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolf Man, Universal tried to capitalise on the success of their brand new monster - the Gill-Man - from the year before. Jack Arnold's Creature from the Black Lagoon was a rather sophisticated creature-feature: creepy when it needed to be, and effortlessly entertaining for the remainder. Arnold returned for directorial duties on Revenge of the Creature, but fails to inject the same level of excitement that saw Black Lagoon become a genre classic. It does what most sequels do and treads on familiar ground. Once again, the creature is set on a murderous rampage by the actions of humans, eventually falling in love with a beautiful woman it will inevitably kidnap.After surviving the events of the previous film, the Gill-Man is rendered unconscious in his native swamp by some well-placed dynamite and transported back to the Ocean Harbour Oceanarium in Florida. Before he is even resuscitated, he becomes an instant media sensation, with flocks of sandal-wearing tourists arriving to catch a glimpse of the oddity. The Gill-Man is studied by square-jawed animal psychologist Clete Ferguson (John Agar) and student Helen (Lori Nelson), whose scientific methods include chaining the poor creature to the bottom of a water tank and zapping it with a cattle- prod any time it shows signs of aggression. It's not long before Clete and Helen are falling in love, and the envious Gill-Man gets to watch it all unfold through a tiny window. Naturally, events see the creature see free to stalk and terrify the surrounding areas.Revenge of the Creature is an obvious retelling of the King Kong story, with a mystery of nature kidnapped from its habitat to be gawked at by humans. Despite his barbaric treatment, it never feels like the film is trying to generate sympathy for the Gill-Man. I certainly did feel sorry for him, but there was no sense of any of the characters involved acknowledging their error. It's hugely inferior to its predecessor, with little fun to be had with the charisma-free actors when the action is away from the monster. There are only two things of note in Revenge of the Creature: the costume for the Gill-Man is fantastic and is performed well underneath the prosthetics by both Ricou Browning and Tom Hennesy; and a cameo from a goofy, comic-relief character named Jennings, played with no suggestion of the legendary career to come by Clint Eastwood. The film was followed the next year by The Creature Walks Among Us, although Arnold didn't return.

Revenge of the Creature (1955)*** (out of 4) Sequel to CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON has a new group of explorers heading to the Amazon to capture the Gill Man. They're able to do so and they take him back to a Sea World like center where they plan to put him on display. Once there a scientist (John Agar) and a grad student (Lori Nelson) try to determine how intelligent the creature is and sure enough he begins to have feelings for the woman and finally breaks free.REVENGE OF THE CREATURE is an exceptional sequence that actually manages to match the first film in terms of quality. I've never found the original to be among the studio's all-time greats like FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN or THE WOLF MAN but there's no doubt that it deserves its classic label and I'd say this film also deserves to be called a classic monster movie. The story obviously takes elements from the first film and mixes them with elements from KING KONG and for the most part the entire film is quite successful.I think one of the best things that they carry over from the original movie is the sympathy angle towards the Gill Man. Here this element is really laid on because the movie manages to make you feel really bad for the creature who is chained up as an attraction and he's unable to do anything or that get electrical shocks as the scientist tries to teach him the meaning of "stop." There's no question that the movie manages to work so well because of the Gill Man and the way director Jack Arnold makes you sympathize with him but there's also scenes showing how dangerous he is so you still wouldn't want to run into him no matter how bad you felt for him.The actors are also quite good here with Agar and Nelson filling their roles nicely and they manage to work extremely well together. Another major plus is the underwater photography, which is quite excellent and a major step up from the first film. I'd also argue that the kill scenes here are a lot more effective. There are some faults to be found and especially with some of the stuff that is copied from the original movie (like him falling for the woman) but overall REVENGE OF THE CREATURE is a success.