Watch Revenge of the Creature For Free

the audience applauded

People are voting emotionally.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

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!

I am a giant Universal monster nerd (you should see my toy collection) and my favorite of the monsters has always been the Gill Man. Not necessarily my favorite of the movies, mind you, but there has always been something really special about this creature to me. Part of it is the impressive creature effects in the design of the monster. It still really holds up today, in my opinion, more so than any other Universal monster. In fact, I would argue that it still looks better than some creature designs I see in modern b-horror movies. I think the other part of the creature's appeal is his tragic nature. This is a monster that I have always felt more sympathy than fear. Let's face it, the poor thing was living content in its' own little private lagoon, when along comes some scientists to study it and try to capture it, eventually trying to kill it. Now it gets dragged away from its' home and put in a tiny little aquarium for all to see. It's no wonder the thing goes violent.As the creators have admitted to in the past, a large part of the inspiration of this series comes from KING KONG. You have the idea of an exotic monster from a foreign land falling in love with a beautiful woman that ultimately leads to its' demise. In the first movie, this idea plays out in theme. In the sequel here, we get the rest of the KING KONG plot as the monster is brought to the states to become an attraction.Sadly, this sequel is just nowhere near the quality of the original movie and mostly doesn't even make for a mediocre sequel. We begin with a repeat of things that happened in the first movie. Scientists go to the lagoon to capture the monster, only this time they are successful. We get one small "fright" scene, but there is very little tension or buildup to the moment of capture.Once brought to Ocean Harbor park, the movie drags on for a good hour. At this point, very little happens. We get a boring, clichéd 50s movie romance between our two scientists. We get the prerequisite sci-fi mumbo jumbo as our scientist perform experiments and discuss theories, part of which involves torturing our monster to get him to learn the word "stop" (a plot device that goes nowhere because the monster simply chooses to ignore anyways). The most exciting part of this segment of the movie may be the extended MarineLand commercials where we watch the park animals perform. Mercifully, the monster finally escapes which only goes further to ruining this movie. We've already seen too much of the monster, taking away some of the mystery. The creature moving on land makes it look awkward and further serves to take away any fear of the creature. Naturally, he's after the object of his affection, which leads to pretty much an exact repeat of the final moments in the original, only this time played out with police involved.I will give some credit for one moment. Two teens discover our leading lady lying onshore in need of rescue, but the monster is not far behind. He kills one of them by throwing him a good 15 feet against a tree. The body flies through the air (obviously on wires) and smashes into a tree. It's slightly laughable effects to a modern audience, but it just might be the most violent death I've seen in any Universal monster movie (and trust me, I've seen them all).There is still some fun here in the sense of a movie to be watched at Midnight on a Saturday with popcorn and beer, but the original is one of the best monster movies ever made and this sequel is just an obvious cash grab.

The deadly Gill Man returns in this sequel where a change in venue really doesn't do it any favours. It's just not quite the same without the Amazon setting; as a result, the overwhelming atmosphere and sense of mystery of the original are nowhere to be found here.That's not to say that the basic story is bad. It's a logical enough extension of the story of the original in which the Gill Man is successfully captured and brought to Florida's Ocean Harbor oceanarium. While he's on display he's subjected to various experiments (it would be pretty hard not to feel some sympathy for the poor beast) while the "beauty and the beast" theme is continued and the creature fixates on a lovely young scientist named Helen (Lori Nelson).The always likable John Agar is the lead here, and does his usual solid job. A good supporting cast includes John Bromfield as the macho Joe Hayes and Nestor Paiva, reprising his role of Lucas from the first film. Nelson is fine eye candy, even if she won't make anybody forget Julie Adams. A very young Clint Eastwood makes his first (uncredited) screen appearance as a none too bright lab assistant who misplaces a rat.The main problem with "Revenge of the Creature" is the fact that by the very nature of its tale it suffers from the Showing The Monster Too Much syndrome. Still, as mentioned, seeing what the creature is subjected to here will certainly strike a chord with the audience. You wish that humanity would have just left him the hell alone.The underwater photography is still wonderful, and there are some very effective moments, such as Agar and Nelson having a carefree swim not knowing just how close the creature is. Director Jack Arnold, also returning from "Creature from the Black Lagoon", does his usual capable job.While not in the same league as its predecessor, this is still watchable enough, if slow and talky at times. No matter what, it's always fun to see the Gill Man do his thing, so fans of the Universal-International product of the 1950s should be adequately entertained.Seven out of 10.

. . . from my granny's original review of a CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, which appeared in the Spinal Column in the 1950s, and which I tweaked and reposted here yesterday, after viewing CFBL for the first time and finding that I agreed with her about the potential wasting of a prime tourist attraction on the part of the expedition team of the original Gill Man flick. In this first sequel, Gill Man soon is captured and turned into another roadside attraction. If I have a bone to pick with the sequel, it has to do with Florida's geography vis a vis the plot of this movie. Toward the end, when the as yet UNNAMED Gill Man (which is strange in itself, since the first things zoos do when they get a new animal is to give it a name; granny told me Gill Man looks like a Dobie Gillis-type) escapes his chains at the "oceanarium," he swims for a few minutes trailing Helen on day five of his freedom. By dark they're in Jacksonville, FL, hundreds of miles from the implied site of the oceanarium. How is it that Gill Man is so much faster than Michael Phelps? Is he on steroids or something? Plus, did the Devonian Period really just end 250,000 years ago, as one of the scientists here says early on? Obviously, if this movie were released today, the Creationists would be picketing in the street. But anytime they put my hometown on the big screen, I'm rating the flick as at least a "7," even if it is something like PIRANHA GIRLS GONE WILD 3DD.