La Créature est parmi Nous

I seem to differ from many of my fellow "monster movie" fans because I find this film the best of the series and in many ways one of the better horror flicks from this era. The reason for this preference on my part is because the human characters are rich, the actors do an excellent job, especially Jeff Morrow, and the focus is on the relationships between the characters against the backdrop of the adventure of again capturing the creature and then dealing with what to do with him when they get him. These relationships are as complex as my last sentence. The film opens with establishing a very strained relationship between Dr. Barton and his wife Marsha by inference of their nonverbal behavior. We soon find that Dr. Barton is not simply a very suspicious man afraid of being turned into a cock old by his young sexy wife. He is exploding with paranoia and she is repelled by him. This sets the underplay of all the remaining events in the film. Dr. Barton is a narcissistic, arrogant man besides paranoid. And, these are his more charming features. Jeff Morrow, who usually played a good natured hero, gets to show his muscles an actor by making himself totally repulsive in this role. Rex Reason is very good in his role and does so by using his good looks, great voice and easy charm to underplay his part. Thus, he makes himself a pleasant contrast to the splenetic Dr. Barton. Leigh Snowden as Dr. Barton's wife Marsha is, well, very good and also underplays her sexuality so well that it becomes intense. For those who look at a "monster movie" and think the plot of the movie is the monster, which in a good monster film would never take place, this film is not for that person. For those who like a little gem of good acting and interesting characters- enjoy this film.

MORD39 RATING: *** out of ****

Why Oh Why do so many fans never let go of an original film and denounce any improvement that might be made? While the original film is a classic of the fifties, I think that was purely because it was the first (a distinct advantage most first films in a series have!)

The second film was only "okay," and was a rehash of the first one. But why I like #3 so much is due to the daring change made to the Creature himself. He looks truly menacing and powerful when he becomes a land being, but more importantly he becomes much more human-like. We get to see how docile he truly is, and how it turns out to be that destructive animal known as Man who really makes him wild.

When the Creature DOES get wild in this one, he's a REAL killing machine! The rampage he goes on in this movie still packs a jolt for me.

In the third and final installment of the "Creature" trilogy, it is clearer than ever that the real monsters are the scientists themselves, with their constant prodding and poking of nature. The Creature is bestial, but no more evil than a wolf or a lion, when you come down to it. He is a natural part of his landscape. But Man is not content to leave him there.

In the first movie, the scientists didn't really know there was a living Creature. That story was one of survival...kill or be killed. In the second film, Man is not content to let the Creature live his isolated existence, so he is captured, brought to civilization and displayed like a sideshow freak. In "Creature Walks Among Us", science now thinks it can "improve" the Creature. As one might expect, the results are tragic.

Millionaire scientist Bill Barton is obsessed with capturing the Creature and "tweaking" him. Barton himself is a seriously unbalanced man...abusive to his beautiful "trophy" wife and insanely jealous when she is in the company of other men. Barton is the ultimate control freak and as his hold over his wife weakens, he increases his control over the Creature, capturing him. When the Creature is severely burnt by a fire, Barton and his team of scientists convert him into a hulking, ungainly land beast that even wears clothes.

The "land" Creature is a pathetic sight and evokes tremendous sympathy. Despite the constant babbling of the egg-heads to the contrary,the Creature is not meant to be a land dweller. Graceful and natural in the water, he is a stumbling, confused brute in the air. Yet his instinct always guides him back to the water where he belongs.

As Barton's marital and mental condition deteriorates, it is also clear that humans are more purely hateful, grasping and neurotic than animals. Finally, both the Creature and Barton erupt into violent conflict.

The movie has its slow spots but is extremely well-directed, almost like a film noir. The scene where the Creature catches fire is breath-taking, but it's the haunting last scene of the movie that will stay with you. At the end, there is nothing "monstrous" about the Creature anymore. He is a victim, pure and simple. This radical concept makes this movie daringly different from almost every other 50's monster flick.

The acting is pretty good, with Rex Reason playing a sympathetic scientist who is the voice of reason. Jeff Morrow (who co starred with Reason in "This Island Earth") is nasty but nuanced as the grasping Barton. Leigh Snowdon is lovely as Barton's sexy young wife and also gives a pretty good performance.

More than just a monster movie, this is thought-provoking entertainment. "The jungle or the stars?" asks Dr. Morgan, concerning mankind's destiny. Watching "The Creature Walks Among Us" doesn't make me too optimistic about the stars...

"The Creature Walks Among Us" begins much like the first two Gillman films, "Creature from the Black Lagoon" (1954) and "Revenge of the Creature" (1955), with some doctors and a crew taking a boat down river to capture the merman. Instead of a small steamboat on the Amazon, however, it's a big ship speeding through some imaginary Everglades. Apparently, the filmmakers had no idea what the Everglades actually are, nor any concern that their audience might, as one would have more trouble finding a spot in the tropical wetlands to stand without their head being above water and where they weren't being eaten by alligators than they would from becoming unconscious from diving too deep in clear waters, which is what happens in the film. Regardless, there's more of the same lovely underwater photography and a tense sequence as they hunt and are hunted by the amphibious creature. Once again, the monster is captured and wreaks havoc when on the loose, too. Otherwise, this final creature feature is substantially different in tone and characterization.

The woman is quite the distraught and abused wife this outing, and like the rest of the main human cast, a disagreeable character. The Gillman seems to think the same, as he's less interested in her than he was in the last films' damsels. Out of boredom, she shoots sharks for sport and endangers the mission by her incompetence at deep-sea diving. Two other members of the crew hit on her repeatedly, one on whom is rapey about it, and the other makes clunky colonialist metaphors about men reaching for the stars or the jungle. Worst of all, though, is the woman's sociopath and jealous, beady-eyed husband, who dreams of being a mad doctor in the vein of a Frankenstein or Moreau by turning the Gillman into a Lung-man. The creature catching on fire during the film's best scene, however, along with a tracheotomy, causes this mutation for him, as his scales are burned off to reveal an under-layer of human skin, and X-rays reveal that he can breath without his lost gills because he also has lungs. No vivisection required.

The marriage drama is gloomy, and I could see how it might upset some horror fans' expectations, but I appreciate the change of pace, especially since the last two films were so repetitively similar. On the other hand, the pacing isn't as good here, especially compared to the first film, and is rather repetitive, replaying the same situations of marital squabbles and lecherous other men. There are a few too many characters, most of them being of no consequence, although this does lead to an early unintentionally-funny scene where they introduce each other with a greeting along the lines of, "Dr.... Dr.... Dr." And there's no explanation as to why the Gillman suddenly bulks up after shedding his scales. Yet, while spelling the end of the series by the Gillman also shedding his gills, the new makeup allows us to see the actor's eyes. His displays of strength, including a great final rampage, add some much-needed action to the plot, too. Instead of entrapment within the (former) illusion of Sea World tranquility of "Revenge of the Creature," he's essentially put in a concentration camp this time. The result is a more sympathetic creature, which along with the unsympathetic men, makes "The Creature Walks Among Us" more similar in some ways to "The Shape of Water" (2017) than to the first two creature features.

I remember seeing `The Creature Walks Among Us' on TV as a kid. The local syndicated TV channel had worked out a deal with Burger King where you would buy one of their Happy Meal rip-offs (whatever they were called then) and get a pair of 3D glasses, so you could watch the movie with its `full effect.' Brilliant. I don't recall that the 3D worked very well (it rarely does on a TV screen), but I do remember how excited I was to stay up late and see the Creature from the Black Lagoon arise again in glory.

Now this was the third film in the `Creature' trilogy, and it's clear that the budget was far smaller than on either of the previous films. I'm guessing that accounts for the recycled underwater footage (there is not one new shot of the Creature swimming – it's all from the first film) and the limited use of the original Creature suit. In all probability, the suit was showing its wear and tear, we only see it from the waist up, in darkness, except for the brief scene in which they set it on fire (!). After the Gillman is captured, they explain his modified (cheaper) makeup by explaining that he is `mutating' to adapt to air-breathing circumstances. Apparently his skin is now so `sensitive' that he is required to wear a potato sack for `protection.' This means that they only had to come up with hands and a head for the actor to wear, rather than a full-bodied suit.

Still, there is something compelling about this picture, even after 20 years of growing up. Somehow the fact that the Creature is brought into our world and made to wear clothes reminds one of the Fall of Man, and our unexpected shame at our nakedness. This Creature still longs for that innocence, for a return to his primal water environment, even though his gills are damaged and his lungs would drown if submerged. The romantic subplot parallels this theme in its reversal of the original `Creature' pattern. This time, instead of a lustful but rich scientist hitting on the Hero's girl, the girl is married to the rich but jealous scientist while our Hero reminds her what love is meant to be like. This girl is already Fallen, and she begins the movie looking like a slut, but she slowly comes around to innocence, under the charms of Rex Reason.

Jeff Morrow and Rex Reason have a fascinating chemistry, just as interesting here as in their better known picture, `This Island Earth.' In that movie, again, Morrow plays the scientist who `has it all' – unlimited funding, access to advanced alien technology, and Reason portrays the good guy who won't sell his soul to get ahead. This version of the story has Reason a bit more subdued, and Morrow a bit more paranoid/manic. Comparing the two films makes it possible to appreciate the actors' range, and makes me wish they had worked together more often.