Wow dumb - Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) Discussion

[–] gbennett5 17 years ago

Gee, whenever I think of "Creature From The Black Lagoon", I always
think of Miles Davis too. Must be the resemblance.

To me, this film is gorgeously photographed, nicely cast, quickly paced
and features a STORY that is (relatively) believable (we're always
discovering other life forms, so that element works for the piece).

Since you don't like "horror films", I wonder why you're posting. And
comparing a musical artist (!) to cinema. Add this to your nasty
'tude and I'd say you have an agenda at hand.

Not that I care.

reply

[–] djed718 17 years ago

you are an idiot. if you don't get it, don't post ridiculous comments like this. let people enjoy their ideas about it. and go ahead and smother yourself with a pillow because this is a beautiful film.

reply

[–] helpless_dancer 17 years ago

why don't you let people enjoy their ideas?

reply

[–] Harold_Robbins 17 years ago

People are still watching and enjoying this film after 53 years - that definitely awards it some kind of "classic" status - I've been a fan since the mid-1960s and since its availability on VHS and DVD probably watch CREATURE once a year - for 79 minutes I'm a kid again!

"I don't use a pen: I write with a goose quill dipped in venom!"---W. Lydecker

reply

[–] markadamiec 17 years ago

Well said Harold...you've done all of us "kids" proud!

reply

[–] Times_Up 17 years ago

This has to be the dumbest post I've ever read on the opinion of a movie.

"There are right people to lynch." Who? People not well connected.

reply

[–] pygmalion6 17 years ago

People are still watching and enjoying this film after 53 years - that definitely awards it some kind of "classic" status - I've been a fan since the mid-1960s and since its availability on VHS and DVD probably watch CREATURE once a year - for 79 minutes I'm a kid again!

DING DING DING!! Harold gets the prize, and said it perfectly. Judging by the failures of todays films (especially the scores of remakes), I feel really sorry for young people today. 50 years from now when they are Harold's age, are they really going to look back fondly on these failures? "Wow, remember that 5 second clip of CGI debris flying from the explosion towards the camera? The one that was put in every single film throughout the whole of my teens? And remember that fantastic remake or War of the Worlds that sucked slightly less than that remake of Wicker Man??"

What in the world are they going to look back fondly on?

reply

[–] abchulett 17 years ago

Wow, another "sorry for young people today" post. Well, I'm 48 years old and I remember the original "War Of the Worlds" and like the recent remake much better. As for "Creature," it's a mediocre movie with campy acting and sexism that happened to have a monster in a convincing suit. Kinda fun to watch, but not much more so than any other '50s monster movie. Or didn't you notice that the girl did nothing but stand around and look sexy, fake smoking a cigarette, smile more often than humanly possible, and provide a love interest for the monster? And btw, how was there only one of these creatures? C'mon, for anyone with many brain cells this is a pretty dumb movie. Fun to watch, somewhat, but ripe for the MST3K treatment.

reply

[–] pygmalion6 17 years ago

Or didn't you notice that the girl did nothing but stand around and look sexy, fake smoking a cigarette, smile more often than humanly possible, and provide a love interest for the monster?

As opposed to today's actresses? (and I use the word 'actress' advisedly)

And I'm sure people will still be talking about that spectacularly successful watershed War of the World's "remake" 40 years from now.
/sarcasm off

reply

[–] abchulett 17 years ago

Let's address your rebuttal point by point.

1) I fail to see how "today's actresses" is germane to the discussion. Be that as it may, let's compare the status of the female prop in this movie to that of others from her own day. Also released in 1954: "On the Waterfront," "Rear Window," "Carmen Jones," "Sabrina," and "La Strada," for example. Each of these great films had a complicated three-dimensional female lead character (or strong support) who came across as a real person. CFTBL conversely featured a gorgeous prop who was allegedly some kind of scientist but was deemed worthy of doing nothing remotely scientific; she stood around, looked very pretty, smiled a lot, and had to be rescued. Pathetic.

2) I couldn't possibly care less if anyone is still talking about either of these movies 50 years from now. This was not the point. The '50s version of WOTW was not dumb at all. But CFTBL is way, WAY dumb.

reply

[–] pygmalion6 17 years ago

Also released in 1954: "On the Waterfront," "Rear Window," "Carmen Jones," "Sabrina," and "La Strada," for example

You're comparing completely different genres. For crying out loud, I think the Marlon Brando/James Mason film of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" appeared sometime around this period, but I wouldn't dare compare it with a horror film like CFTBL.

As for not caring about who remembers which version of War of the Worlds generations from now, it is pertinent. It shows the complete lack of originality today as opposed to the earlier versions. 1950's horror and sci-fi was fresh and took what back then was the "dirty literature" of sci-fi and made it accessible.
Today they perversely insist on taking these old, solidly good stories and saying "Gee, wouldn't it be GREAT if we ran this through our CGI graphics programs???" without giving a thought to what made the originals admired, even after 50 years.

I think it would be best to continue this conversation after the 2008 version of Creature from the Black Lagoon is released. Once they come up with a reason for the Creature to spit goo, because "it looks SO COOOOL with CGI!"
I'm sure that's the reason for the delay. That remake too will bomb, as have ALL the other remakes, universally, since no one learns from their mistakes.

reply

[–] abchulett 17 years ago

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

As to comparing different genres, no, I'm comparing different performances by actress within the same era. However, certainly not the same thing was expected in CFTBL as from "On the Waterfront," you're right. It's still bad.

I see you're one of those people who automatically rejects remakes. Consider the following, which were ALL remakes.

1. The Maltese Falcon with Bogart
2. His Girl Friday
3. Ben-Hur with Charlton Heston
4. The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston
5. John Carpenter's "The Thing" (1982--yes, it was much better than the James Arness version, and is still widely discussed as such)
6. The Man Who Knew Too Much with Jimmy Stewart
7. A Fistful of Dollars
8. The Fly (1986)
9. Dangerous Liaisons
10. The Magnificent Seven
11. The Last Of the Mohicans with Daniel-Day Lewis
12. Pride & Prejudice

Sure most remakes are not much good. But some are spectacular. See what happens.

reply

[–] Twitterpated 17 years ago

I love posting to stuff like this because you can see how inept so many people's knowledge of film is. You can't compare a movie from the '50's by today's notion of propriety and have it favour comparably. For the person who complained it was sexist- find me a modern movie of the same genre that isn't. It's a horror movie. If you don't like horror than why are you even posting? Movies have to be isolated and studied for what they achieved in their time as well as in retrospect- not simply in how they measure to today's audiences. Creature of the Black Lagoon had immensely sophisticated special effects for it's time- all those scenes underwater in costume without visible air tanks- even today you can see the air tanks most times people go diving, the filmmakers had to borrow the technology from the U.S. Navy. As for acting the style in favour in the 50's was generally more over-the-top than preferred today, and in movies like this where most of the budget was spent on effects and location the slightly lower quality highlights the style. Watch any drama from the 50's or comedy and you'll notice acting style overall is different. Also please keep in mind, if talk of style and genre flies over your head, that if you are already inclined to dislike this movie than you have no right to say whether it is bad or not. You are, of course, entitled to say you like or dislike it but that's not the same as judging it good or bad. Please note the difference for future reference.
P.S. Most importantly in telling whether this film is a "classic" is how popular it is today...I was born 30 years after it was made and care enough to post this and most of the others who replied to this thread are more than likely in the same boat, that any of us care enough to argue about it's merits- for good or ill- speaks volumes of its impact.

reply

[–] abchulett 17 years ago

First off, I'm glad to know that you're so young and appreciate older movies. Too many of those your age wouldn't even watch a B&W film at all, let alone take it seriously. Bravo for your open-mindedness.

Unfortunately your youth also leads you to a personal attack. Youngster, I probably have forgotten more about film than you know today, but that's neither here nor there; I was born about a quarter-century before you. As for a modern movie of the same genre that's not sexist, I have to say no more than "Alien." And I could name dozens upon dozens of horror movies of all eras that I really like, going back to "Dracula" and "Svengali" (both 1931).

Certainly I understand the elementary points you discuss above. That does not negate my point that I find the female character in CFTBL to be laughably bad. In fact, to dig deeper, I would point out that the boss of the outfit is just as stupidly portrayed, equally one-dimensional and cartoonish. Also I repeat another criticism that made me laugh derisively; there's only ONE of these monsters? That's clearly a matter of budget restrictions, can't take it seriously and be the least bit scared in any way. This is a horror film, right? Supposed to be scary?

Hey, at least the underwater scenes looked great, but face it, these movies just weren't made for adults. They are kid's stuff, most of them, with the exception of classics like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "When Worlds Collide." Watching childish movies for nostalgic purposes is nice; I do it too. But CFTBL is dumb. Period.

Not that I don't like some dumb movies myself, but I felt compelled to add my comments to those arguing over whether it's dumb or not. Heaven's sake, of course it is. At least admit it. "Somewhere in Time" is one of my faves, and it's VERY dumb, but it appeals to me. Get over yourselves, folks! Just because you like a movie doesn't make it intelligent or even artistic. It just appeals to you. That's cool. Happy new year!

reply

[–] pygmalion6 17 years ago

Wow, another "sorry for young people today" post.

If they are so commonplace, maybe there is a legitimate critical reason for it.
When the spate of remakes universally bomb, and even draw such public outrage at the lack of originality and talent, maybe Hollywood will get a clue.

reply

[–] pygmalion6 17 years ago

this movie is awful by any standard today

THAT is the key phrase: "any standard today". WHAT standard today? "Standards today" are nothing to be proud of. The abysmal failures in Hollywood (especially among the obsession with remakes that invariably bomb because of their inferiority to the originals) show that "today's" standards are nothing to boast about.
I'd keep "today's standards" to myself if I were you, because they aren't doing Hollywood much proud.
Without knowing it, "awful by any standard today" is paying this movie a SUPREME compliment.

reply

[–] hawkblue_inaz 17 years ago

i grew up watchin this movie and it really is sad for people to be talking bad about it. you can't compare it to modern day movies..IT WAS MADE 50 YEARS AGO for crying out loud. I've watched it countless times starting in 1988 or so when i was three and it has stood the test of time for me. you can't compare it to modern movies as far as special effects go. but, c'mon, not many modern movies impress me with dialogue any more than this movie does.

----------------------------------------
Sometimes, nothing is a real cool hand.-Luke,1967.

reply

[–] pygmalion6 17 years ago

you can't compare it to modern movies as far as special effects go. but, c'mon, not many modern movies impress me with dialogue any more than this movie does.

Right on the mark what you said about dialogue in modern horror movies. My chin hit the floor while watching "Bedlam" (Boris Karloff), which is even older than "Creature". I could not believe the high level of literate dialogue when compared to today. If Bedlam were remade (assuming it hasn't been already) you know they'd have to "modernize" it (which is Hollywood's euphemism for "dumb it down"). I'm not suggesting that the 50's Creature is some masterpiece of dialogue, it certainly is not. But I know from experience what the remake will be when put through their "today's audiences" filter. And, as always, the focus will be on CGI which will lead the writing by its nose.

I know that there were skunkers made 50+ years ago, just as there are good movies made today. But the ratio has drastically changed and it's become far more time consuming to find the good ones. I equate it with looking for a diamond in a pile of crap. With each passing year, the more crap you have, the harder it becomes to find the diamond. But I'm finding many "old" films that are new to me and I land in crap far less often the further back I go (even to the silent horror films of the 20's). Thankfully for me, DVD's came of age right when Hollywood decided to go remake-mad.

reply

[–] hawkblue_inaz 17 years ago

exactly. you really have to put these movies into context. of course they arn't going to have these amazing computer graphics. when these movies were made, the only computers that existed filled an entire room and had little more computing power than a modern day calculator. these people made movies with what they had in front of them and i think there is something to be said for that. the creature is not the best movie ever made, but it is by no standard a bad movie. sure the acting isn't top-notch. you could pick this movie apart on amny different levels. but you have to except it for what it is, and no matter what anyone says, i've watched this movie since i was three, and it only gets better everytime i watch it.

----------------------------------------
Sometimes, nothing is a real cool hand.-Luke,1967.

reply

[–] obit1 17 years ago

"...she stood around, looked very pretty, smiled a lot, and had to be rescued. Pathetic. "

The same could be said of Tom Cruise in the new War of the Worlds.... :D

http://www.woodywelch.com

reply

[–] hawkblue_inaz 17 years ago

haha, good one obit
----------------------------------------
Sometimes, nothing is a real cool hand.-Luke,1967.

reply

[–] obit1 17 years ago

Thanks....I calls 'em like I sees 'em. :D

http://www.woodywelch.com

reply

[–] hawkblue_inaz 17 years ago

i must say that tom cruise is by far the most over-rated actor of our time, so i couldn't agree more with the comment.

----------------------------------------
Sometimes, nothing is a real cool hand.-Luke,1967.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] runforthesun 17 years ago

The conclusion we can draw here -

some people lack the capacity to appreciate this movie.

Rather than -

"I don't like this movie, therefore it's dumb, stupid, dated, etc."

did you ever think that it could possibly be -

"I don't like this movie, therefore it was created for somebody other than me, somebody with different tastes and sensibilities than mine, I'm never gonna get it no matter what, and it's time for me to move on to something I like."

You guys who trash the movie are trashing the tastes of people who love it - and frankly, it's not logical for you to do that. It doesn't follow that it's bad - it just means that you're missing some component necessary to appreciate it.

I LOVE this movie. The atmosphere it creates is amazing and one of a kind.

If you don't see it - I feel bad for you.

You can think it's a piece of junk all you want to.

To me, that just says - you don't get it. You never will. The movie wasn't made for you. Move on to something you like.

reply

[–] yfguitarist 11 years ago

I agree and am a little surprised by the relatively high rating. It hasn't held up at all. I'm sure it was influential and a lot of people grew up watching it, but the acting, script, and score are awful. I will admit that the costume still looks good.

reply

[–] Disardor 10 years ago

Yay, it's another one of these posts! "This movie sucks because it sucks and it was boring and I don't care that it's influential and by the way I don't even like the genre anyway." These posts -- which exist on every the board of every movie on this site -- add absolutely nothing of substance to any sort of discussion because those writing them either lack the ability or can't be bothered to offer any concrete criticisms of the films they despise, then bail on their threads after the initial post. Incidentally, OP, a lot of people trash your buddy Miles Davis's albums because they don't care for jazz music -- would you be tolerant of their dismissive POVs toward his work since it follows the same logic as your dismissal of Creature from the Black Lagoon?

reply

[–] yatzo376 10 years ago

Love The suit..., and the Aurora monster model of the Creature that I got for Xmas when I was 5 years old.

The movie is 50s teenage camp that although is nicely filmed, is an outdated cornball of a movie.

It can also be seen as a proto version of Jaws with all the boat/water stuff.

reply