Monster from the Ocean Floor

"Monster from the Ocean Floor" is historically important as the very first film produced by a young Roger Corman, so it's a shame it's not more entertaining than it is. It does have some schlocky charm, but owing to an obviously very low budget, it gets bogged down in talk and becomes fairly dull. It's not even that much fun on the "so bad it's good" level. It's too bad, because if you're a B movie enthusiast you'd certainly *want* to like it. It does have its moments, but they're spread too far apart.

There is some enjoyment to be had from watching the amateurish acting. The pretty Anne Kimbell plays Julie Blair, an American artist on vacation in Mexico. She hears stories of locals disappearing from the waters and learns that there's a legend believed by the natives. She meets a handsome marine biologist named Steve Dunning (Stuart Wade) - their initial encounter is amusing, to say the least - and while he's a practical, hard headed kind of guy, she becomes convinced some sort of mysterious beast is the culprit - and she's right, of course.

It's naturally a good thing that the monster in this film - resembling an octopus with one great big red eye - is seen so little. Our anticipation is built up, and the payoff isn't bad. I can believe that people who'd seen this movie as little children would have been frightened. The problem is that for a movie running only one hour and five minutes, there's too much padding on this thing. Still, "Monster from the Ocean Floor" isn't without its assets. Corman works with ace cinematographer Floyd Crosby - who shot his colourful, widescreen Edgar Allan Poe adaptations - and Crosby creates good atmosphere. The underwater photography is likewise well done. Kimbell has one harrowing scene with a shark. And the original music by Andre Brummer is enjoyable.

Cormans' stock company player Jonathan Haze (billed as Jack Hayes) makes his film debut as the character Joe, director Wyott Ordung plays the key supporting role of Pablo, and Corman himself makes an uncredited on-screen appearance as Tommy.

This does have high curiosity value just to see the humble beginnings of one of the great independent filmmakers of all time.

Four out of 10.

Roger Corman was ONLY 28 Years old... And at the very beginning of one of the longest and most prolific movie carreers in the History of CINEMA! Here he is listed as a PRODUCER.... Bet there have not been many in that role at such a tender age! (At least.... for a PRODUCER!) Of course, for a LOW BUDGET mid-50s Horror Movie.... Well, OK...Better than MOST... But THAT really isn´t saying MUCH.... Is it???

Strictly from a technical standpoint... and of course compared to other mid-50s flicks... Perhaps a tad above average in that respect! Somewhat weak in the originality department... But to put things in the right perspective.... This was really one of the first in a genre that would go on to be one of the most overworked of the 1950s and 60s! So, taking that into consideration... You could almost say that simple fact alone puts a bit of an AVANT GARDE spin on the production!

Perhaps had I posted this Review 50 Years ago... I might have rated it a CAMPY 7*******... But I have seen so many films of this ilk in the past half century... That I have to say this one just doesnt stand out all that much!

If You just LOVE these sleazy old cheesy movies.... Well, go ahead! Be my guest! Otherwise... You would probably be much better off if You simply DON´T give MONSTER the EYE!!!

On the surface, this film appears to be just another entry into the 50's cinema monster mill. But when we dive deeper we find some subtle and entertaining differences. The heroine is remarkably modern. She is brave, independent, determined, and completely oblivious to what the rather effete male characters think of her. The film is actually developed around her persona, and her dogged determination to seek the monster lurking below. The underwater scenes are beautiful examples of early open water cinematography in the lush, cool Pacific Ocean. The submarine is great. I really wanted one when I was a kid and first saw this film. The spunky actress seems to have done her own diving too. The scene in which she tries to fend off the shark is exciting. If you forget the rather weakly done monster, its minimal time on screen, and instead, focus on the enchanting heroine and her quest, this is not a bad film at all. I certainly find it entertaining. I have it on DVD and watch if often.

Julie Blair (Anne Kimbell) is an American vacationing at a sea-side village in Mexico. She hears stories about a man-eating creature dwelling in the cove.

This film is a low budget science fiction film in every sense of the term low budget. Director Wyott Ordung (1922–2005) doubled as an actor (playing Pablo), and this was his first of only two times in the director's chair. In fact, his only real experience before this was a writer on another low budget flick, "Robot Monster".

Most notable is the producing credit of Roger Corman, who took a modest $30,000 budget and earned more than ten times that back at the box office. No small feat, especially from someone just starting out in the business. This also marks a collaboration between Corman and cinematographer Floyd Crosby; Crosby had been making films over twenty years, but would be possibly best known later on for shooting Corman's finest films.

This was also the debut of Jonathan Haze, a gas station attendant that filled the small role of Joe. He must have done something right, because Corman hired him for numerous productions over the next decade, including the starring role of Seymour in "Little Shop of Horrors".

As for the film itself, there are things to like and things that could have been improved. The monster is actually rather cool looking, and when revealed is no disappointment. To use him sparingly, they also have a shark and an octopus, which may cause a few people to jump. The film is also rather short -- only 64 minutes -- so there is little time for the pace to slow down. Variety praised the film, calling it an "oddity" but "well-done", noting that "Corman's production supervision has packed the footage with commercial values without going overboard."

The negatives are few, but worth pointing out. The forced romance was a bad idea, though probably almost necessary for a film of its day. This is somewhat compensated for by having the main character be a heroine rather than a hero -- not the strongest female lead, but a female lead nonetheless. The biggest issue is the sound. Clearly they had not invested in a boom mike, because scenes were either overdubbed, or the conversations were drowned out by the ocean waves...

While not the best film of 1954, it has its historical merits and is fun in its own way. For a low budget film now sixty years old, I think it holds up respectably well.

I know many people judge a movie solely on its of special effects. This one doesn't have a lot of eye-candy, even considering the time it came from. But the story and the acting are above par for movies of this type and when all was said and done, I enjoyed myself watching this movie.