Revenge of the Creature (1955) User Reviews (99)

The Gill Man Has Esaped!

[sol1218 · 7/10 · 7 February 2006]

**SPOILERS** Fairly good sequel of "Creature From the Black Lagoon" has the Rita II traveling back to the Amazon Basin to capture the Gill Man who survived in the earlier film from his would-be-captors or executioners.

Getting the Gill Man trapped in the Black Lagoon the boat's crew headed by aquatic scientist Joe Hayes, John Bromfield, blast the Gill Man out of the water with high explosives.

Knocked out and helpless the Gill man is shipped back to the USA to Ocean Harbor Aquarium in Silver Springs Florida to be exhibited to the eager and curious public and examined by scores of scientists and ichthyologists. To see just what he's all about and if he's the missing link between man, before he evolved into a primate, and fish.

Put in this huge water tank and held down by a steel chain tied to his leg the Gill Man is a major curiosity piece for the thousands of tourists who visit the aquarium.

Much like in the first Gill Man film the underwater photography is breathtaking with the Gill Man trapped, swimming around in circles, and having nowhere to go. As well as when he's free in the open ocean and in the Amazon River swimming and diving like he were an Olympic Gold Medal winner.

Examined by Prof. Clete Ferguson, John Agar, and ichthyologist Helen Dobson, Lori Nelson,the Gill Man develops a crush on Helen and that drives him almost bonkers as he's just out of reach of grabbing Helen when she and Clete are studying him underwater. It doesn't take long for the Gill Man to break his chain and escape from the tank. After tearing up the aquarium, and killing a couple of people, he jumps into the Atlantic Ocean and swims away.

The Gill Man for some reason doesn't travel south to the Amazon River where he comes from but north to the St. Augustine/Jacksonville area in Florida to follow Helen who's there with Prof. Ferguson and her dog Chris.

Obviously madly in love with Helen but too shy to ask her out on a date the Gill Man spends the last half of the movie stalking her all the way up Florida's Atlantic Coast. He finally gets enough nerve to approach Helen and burst into the local Lobster House, during a Saturday night bandstand party, knocking the place, with it's tables chairs and people, over and putting a couple of drunk party goers into the hospital. Grabbing a terrified Helen the Gill Man disappeared with her into he night.

The ending was what you would have expected with the Gill Man stymied in his attempt to swim back home, to the Black Lagoon, with Helen and shot up by Prof. Furguson and an army of police and local townspeople but still making a successful getaway.

Even though the villain in the movie the Gill Man evoked far more sympathy in "The Revenge of the Creature" then he did in "the Creature from the Black Lagoon". Since he had more screen time and showed genuine sensitivity and feeling for Helen. He was also minding his own business in the safety of the Black Lagoon, when he was kid or creature-napped by a bunch of strangers, the crew of the Rita II. Who's only reasons for doing it was to glorify and enrich themselves at his, the Gill Mans, expense and freedom.

I Actually Liked This Better Than The First

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 11 August 2011]

The Creature from the Black Lagoon is back! This time he's captured by scientists and transported to an aquarium in south Florida...

Jack Arnold returns as director, and he has brought Ricou Browning back as the creature. 1950s science fiction lead John Agar is also here, making this a pretty solid sequel. (And who can be opposed to a film with Clint Eastwood in it?)

I guess a lot of people harp on this film. Mike Mayo calls it "insipid" and "a joke." Howard Maxford calls it "run-down". Well, I like it better than the original. I really, truly do. I feel more happens and the plot is more developed. I would have to watch both again to make a definitive statement, but I watched them both back to back and was bored by the first compared to the second.

Underpowered sequel has a few good moments

[lemon_magic · 5/10 · 19 November 2009]

Well, I've seen worse, lots worse. In its favor, the movie still features one of the coolest (and best implemented) monster designs ever to emerge from the old B&W films of that era, and the underwater photography is still quite arresting - apparently the actor in the creature costume was capable of holding his breath underwater for incredible amounts of time, and so the creature looks entirely at home and natural in the water.

Against it? A weak screen play where nothing interesting happens for almost 30 minutes in two different parts of the movie. Some of the worst movie dialog actors have ever been forced to utter (I can just imagine how John "I worked with John Wayne once" Agar must have died inside while trying to deliver some of his bon-mots.) A distinct lack of chemistry between Agar and Lori Nelson and a screen play that does nothing to give them anything to draw them together (except for the old "you are so "the only person around" problem).

Worse, the creature himself seems over-exposed here. Since the movie yanks him out of his creepy, isolated, backwater lagoon in the first 15 minutes, he loses the mystery and most of his menace from his original surroundings once he is moved to his bright, shiny Sea World. After that, he's just a good costume and a set of talons.

The guy who wrote "Keep Watching The Skies" remarked about "Revenge Of the Creature" that the only good things about this sequel are the elements they kept from the first one. I'd have to agree that this is about right - everything the film makers tried to add and expand on in the sequel just didn't really click.

Still, as a little kid, this would have been great fun.

This B Monster Film is well worth watching!

[wgie · 16 May 2004]

In all fairness this movie should be judged for what it is .... a 1950's B Monster movie flick. I give it high marks in this area. It may not have the shock and scare value as it predecessor "The Creature of the Black Lagoon" but I find it to be a good representative of it's genre. A lot of this film was shot at Marineland in Florida at a time before there ever was a Sea World. As a kid I was amazed at some of the scenes in the film such as "The Creature" over turning a car as he was escaping the Aqua Park, and jumping out of a huge aquatic tank to attack the audience. Recently I talked with Ricou Browning (who played "The Creature") and determined that Universal Studios used wires to turn over the car that was supposedly thrown by the Creature. Wires were once again used to pull the Creature out of the large tank at Marineland as the Creature attacked actor, John Bromfeld. Seconds later he was attacking the Marineland crowd. As a young theater goer I found this fascinating. This film has been taking a lot of heat from some of your web site critics. I think it is well worth watching to see how the old Hollywood crowd use to scare us at the Drive-In. If nothing else it serves as a pleasant stroll down "memory lane".

Jack Arnold, what did I ever do to you?

[InzyWimzy · 4/10 · 10 May 2011]

More like revenge of the director.

Maybe it's the smug aura of John 'what is it I don't know' Agar, but this one seemed less like a horror flick and more like an inaugural presentation for Sea World. Wouldn't that have been a a great match up: Gill Man vs Shamu! This orca ain't no alligator you can snap in half.

Helen Dobson is a nice distraction from the relenting slow pace quite apparent in the film. Her expertise in ichthyology is most impressive especially in that white swimwear. Can you really blame the Gill Man for trying? Give this movie credit for the creature's special effects. Keeping in mind this was made in 1955, the articulate detail for Gilly adds this other worldy effect and it's so bizarre seeing any scene where his gills flap in and out.

Poor GM, he was just misunderstood. How would you react to repeated cattle prodding?

Creature Two of Three!

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 9 December 2006]

Director Jack Arnold and company took great care in this one to make the 3-D effects look more natural. While there are no chairs or spears thrown at the camera, there are still plenty of thrilling moments when the creature advances into view and even a couple of false frights, as when a threatening shadow turns out to be no more dangerous than Lori Nelson's hand.

Admittedly the screenplay has its weak links. Depending largely on unlikely co-incidences, the storyline pays scant regard to consistency or logic, while the dialogue is not only trite and banal but seems to go out of its way to provide a persistent assault on the viewer's intelligence by explaining what we can actually see for ourselves. No-one can walk to the bathroom in this film without someone providing a running commentary. Worse, the characters prove little more than pasteboard figures which indifferent actors like Agar and Nelson struggle to bring to life. Miss Nelson is further handicapped by the large amount of make-up she was forced to wear for the 3-D cameras. True, the effect seemed not only attractive but perfectly natural when the original film was projected through a 3-D filter and then viewed through polaroid glasses. She still looks great when framed through a Marineland window, but in bright sunlight the effect now looks ridiculous.

Of course, the Creature himself seems far less menacing (and far more obviously a stuntman in an ill-fitting rubber suit) when exposed to the glare of flat, over-bright 2-D scrutiny.

Nonetheless, the skill of Jack Arnold's direction, particularly in his efforts to disguise obvious 3-D tricks and use depth to produce shock in a seemingly more realistic way, gives the movie sufficient interest and vigor to overcome all script and histrionic short-comings.

Production values benefit from location filming and it's good to see Scotty Welbourne handling all the photographic chores on this one, both underwater and main unit. Of course, in 2-D the picture looks over-lit as it was lensed with 3-D's 20% light reduction firmly in mind.

Not Up To The Standard Of The Original

[sddavis63 · 5/10 · 25 September 2008]

"Revenge Of The Creature" is at best a sequel that pales in comparison to the original, and pretty well done, "Creature From The Black Lagoon." A lot of what made the original movie work is missing here. The performances aren't as good, Lori Nelson (while attractive) isn't as head turning beautiful as Julie Adams was in the original, and, being set mostly (except for the first few minutes) in Florida rather than the Amazon, the sequel lacks some of the mystery of the original.

In "Revenge," the gill-man is captured by scientists and brought to some sort of public aquarium to be studied and to serve as a big attraction for the tourists. Admittedly, one thing this movie had that I didn't find in the original was a bit of sympathy for the creature. You can't help but feel a bit sorry for him chained in the tank and jolted with cattle prods on a regular basis as the tourists gawk at him. The creature is much more the focus of this movie, and the violence he commits is shown much more graphically (although all within the acceptable tastes of 1955, of course.) Where the creature isn't the focus, the movie weakens dramatically. The romance between Clete and Helen was a sort of "ho-hum, who really cares" experience, and why in the world we needed to be introduced to so many cutesy animals doing tricks (the porpoise, the chimpanzee) was beyond me. One thing I couldn't figure out was - even given his obsession with her - how the creature kept managing to find Helen in a variety of places.

Admittedly, the creature is a fun monster to watch; the movie unfortunately is less so. 5/10

For some reason I just saw this.

[DeepFriedJello · 6/10 · 13 February 2022]

A group of idiots put an endangered species in a coma using dynamite, and transport it in the hold of a broken down boat from The Amazon to Florida, and then put it in a tank with sea water rather than its native freshwater, and then torture it with an electric shock when it tries to feed. The poor creature just wants freedom and a girlfriend. Will he get his revenge?

Where there are Gill Men, there must be Gill Women

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 13 May 2012]

I don't know what revenge the Gill Man was taking in Revenge Of The Creature, but I do know that he was a Gill Man with some definite needs. There are no women of his species around to fulfill his needs so he's settling for the next best thing.

After Creature From The Black Lagoon was found in the Everglades and came to a sad end, another expedition finds a Gill Man in the Amazon head water country. This of course is a scientific expedition, but they have expenses and someone gets the bright idea that an exhibit at an aquarium will make the creature pay for itself.

Carl Denham when he was exhibiting King Kong had the same idea and we know how that turned out. A lot of the plot elements of King Kong are present in Revenge Of The Creature. The Gill Man fixes on scientist Lori Nelson to the distress of both John Agar and John Bromfield. I guess there are no blonds in the Everglades or the Amazon.

Look quickly and don't blink and you'll spot Clint Eastwood in a small role. The whole film is on the silly side, but definitely a lot of fun.

Are you feelin' lucky, creature?

[lee_eisenberg · 6/10 · 2 March 2012]

Yep, the gill-man from "Creature from the Black Lagoon" is back! This time, they capture him and put him in a Florida aquarium. But sure enough, the poor sucker has the hots for a beautiful young woman.

"Revenge of the Creature" is simply a fun movie to watch. Admittedly, a lot of it is VERY dated, but we can understand that. To be certain, a specific shot of Lori Nelson must have given millions of boys their first carnal experience. Of course, one of the most significant things about this movie is the appearance of Clint Eastwood in his debut: he plays the lab technician who can't find his mouse. Dirty Harry isn't feeling so lucky in that scene after all! Anyway, it's the sort of movie that you just watch to enjoy. They must have had fun making it. Also starring John Agar (Shirley Temple's first husband).

Like I said: millions of boys must have LOVED that one shot of Lori Nelson!

"The beast exists because it is stronger than this thing you call evolution."

[classicsoncall · 5/10 · 3 December 2004]

Back in the Upper Amazon River Valley, an expedition headed by Professor Clete Ferguson (John Agar) attempts to locate the missing link first introduced in the previous year's "Creature From the Black Lagoon". With only Nestor Paiva as Captain Lucas on hand from the original cast, the beast is quickly located and subdued via a series of explosive charges set about his watery domain. Upon arrival at his new home in Marineland Park, the Creature is shackled in a holding tank where scientists can study his behavior and determine that he "just misses being human".

Lori Nelson portrays college student and budding scientist Helen Dobson, object of the affections of both Professor Ferguson and the Creature. Throughout the film, no matter where Helen and the professor happen to be, the Gill-Man without the help of mapquest, is able to pinpoint their exact location - it's uncanny. And that's saying something, as sightings of the escaped monster were reported in the film as far ranging as Norfolk, Virginia to Panama - this guy did get around!

The strength of the Creature is established in the film, where viewers could only guess at before. On his escape into the ocean from the Marineland tank, he easily overturns a car that stands in his path. Later on he throws a hapless victim halfway across the beach into some palm trees with ease. Contrast this effort with the underwater grappling scenes with the scientists in this and the prior film, where the opponents managed to get away relatively unharmed. It all suggests that the Creature's abilities were manufactured on the fly without much thought given to it's potential or limitations.

For all of the film's inconsistencies though, it's still campy fun and as enjoyable as any of the schlock follow ups to the more serious Universal originals, such as the Mummy sequels. And lest I forget, probably the best unexpected treat of the movie - Clint Eastwood in his screen debut for just a brief moment, trying to figure out what happened to a missing lab mouse!

Amusement Park Filled to the Gills...with Gills

[twanurit · 10/10 · 25 August 2000]

There are many moments to savor in this exciting, intriguing follow-up to "Creature From the Black Lagoon." The lovely heroine (Lori Nelson) stares at the captured creature (In Marineland of Florida, at the time only 17 years in existence, and called Marine Studios), through the glass of the aquarium, two strangers in a man's world. She talks about her career while her peers have already married and had children while also feeling sorry for the creature, a lonely alien in civilization. Later, she takes a shower in a motel, with the escaped creature outside, in a chilling pre-"Psycho" sequence. Taking a swim in the Florida Everglades, (echoing the famed Julie Adams-Creature pas de deux in the original), the "gill-man" watches from below, but she is joined by her boyfriend (John Agar), who kisses her mid-scene. Since this occurs in the last act, and the "Gill-Man" has already had his eye on Ms. Nelson, and even grabbed her, it makes no sense to be shyly staring again. The creature costume is changed this time - apparently goggles were inserted into the mask to make it easier for Rico Browning's underwater swimming, as well as for Tom Hennesy, the 6'5" top side Creature actor. It also gives him eyes underwater, hollow in the first film. For those theorizing how this species can survive in both freshwater and saltwater, the Creature is a Euryhaline fish, able to adapt to both environments. Great, eerie night-time photography at the end and thrilling scenes make this a winning sequel.

That slimy gill man is back!

[Nightman85 · 6/10 · 16 January 2006]

Scientests capture the gill man and bring him to Florida as a tourist attraction, but unfortunately the creature won't be held for long...

Sequel to the 1954 horror classic The Creature from the Black Lagoon is admittedly a come-down from the original, but manages to be a fairly entertaining follow up. The biggest flaw with this film is the fact that the title monster loses some of the mystery that made it so frighteningly good in the first film, as our monster is literally placed for all to see. Still, director Jack Arnold's return proves to be helpful. The monster is still an impressive sight.

B movie hero John Agar heads a pretty decent cast with Lori Nelson as a likable female in distress. Look for a young Clint Eastwood as a lab assistant.

** 1/2 out of ****

OK sequel has the Gill-man in a fatal attraction with shapely Lori Nelson!

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 14 September 2016]

The first sequel to 1954's low-budget hit "Creature From the Black Lagoon" looks even more cut-rate than its predecessor, despite that film's financial success. An exploration team in the Upper Amazon manages to capture the Creature quite easily (by setting off explosives in the lagoon which render the Gill-man incapacitated). A scientist hears the news and puts himself in charge once the Gill-man is shipped to an aquatic park in Florida, where he performs tests on the Creature with the hope (one presumes) he can be taught to obey tasks like a trained porpoise. Naturally, the Gill-man doesn't like being prodded with an electric pole or swiping at a ball on a chain--however, a pretty blonde science student has caught his eye (when a local newscaster tries inducing public panic after the Gill-man escapes, we know that all he really wants is the woman). While the first Creature feature wasn't exactly clever or witty, it had terrific 'jungle' ambiance and shimmering black-and-white photography. With the exception of a swimming duet between John Agar and Lori Nelson, the underwater visuals here are muddy or fuzzy (mainly due to overtures to the 3-D process). Nelson has her pick between strapping explorer John Bromfield (who could be Richard Egan's twin brother) and lab professor John Agar (who looks so out-of-shape, his clothes hang off him). Most viewers will end up rooting for the Gill-man who, in one instance, protects his lady-love by flinging a college student against a tree (a special effects scene I thought was well-done, but one many fans feel belies the film's low-end production cost). Clint Eastwood makes his debut as a lab tech (you hear his unmistakable voice before you see his face), and there are some good location scenes shot at Marineland, but the script fails to come up with one good idea after the Creature escapes. Followed in 1956 by the final chapter, "The Creature Walks Among Us". ** from ****

Monsters and Women

[robotman-1 · 7 July 2001]

No doubt designed to make a fast buck in the 50s, you still get the Gill Man, one of the coolest of all monster designs ever, and a woman to throw cars for and swim thousands of miles for in beautiful Lori Nelson.

Even in a production without much life, the Gill Man still seems

powerful and mysterious, and his biological drive to mate with Ms. Nelson is interesting considering the long lineage of sympathetic monsters in love with knock-out blondes and brunettes. Sadly, the idea of the monster, the tragic beast longing for what is impossible to him (Wolf Man, King Kong, the Mummy) is a distant memory in filmdom. There was the recent DARK MAN, and Nicholson's WOLF, but these are obvious throw-backs to a time when monsters were more than scurrying guerrillas attacking from the shadows or machine-like mass murderers who cannot be killed. I won't count fluffy-haired vampires, whose allure as suave parasites is not "monstrous". A monster, in classic terms, in love with a beautiful woman, is denied her by the facts of their existence. Either because of grotesqueness or species-differences,

the monster endures pain, capture, and often death in his attempt to carry a Lori Nelson in his arms through a moonlit swamp.

In REVENGE the Gill Man is probed, prodded, and stared at by tourists, definitely the worst fate, though this allows the Creature to establish a magnetic attraction to Lori Nelson. You get a great escape, more Lori Nelson in bathing suits, a big bohunk who has an unhealthy fetish with wrestling the Gill Man hand-to-hand, and lots more Lori Nelson in a bathing suit. What you don't do is watch this movie for any reason but to see the Gill Man thrash in the water and smack

bohunks...and if you're a fan of the Creature and classic monsters, you'll understand the tragic consequences when you're a walking fish-man who's half-man enough to love a human woman, and whose tears probably would never show, in the depths of the deepest lagoons.

Doesn't Hold Water

[mrnews97 · 2/10 · 4 February 2024]

It's a shame this unpleasant sequel wasn't spear-gunned by the MST3K crew, it's so full of eye-rolling badness. The production values are okay, but pretty much everything else is cringe-worthy. I get it: they went with a King Kong type story, where the Creature is imprisoned, put on display, and fixates on a beautiful blonde "scientist" (student, actually). But what are they actually doing to it with electric cattleprods?! (Underwater, too, where everything nearby in the pool would be shocked!) This is conditioning by punishment, and you wonder if Stanley Milgram was part of the research team. And did they have to play the three-note scare sting EVERY SINGLE TIME the Creature appears. By the 37th time, it's completely worn out. Mrs News and I were still bursting into that sting the next day, every single time we opened the refrigerator. And the Creature's restraining chain, like Kong's, was apparently made by the Acme Inferior Chain Company. Then there's the idiocy of moving a fresh-water-living thing to salt water. The idea that the Creature peruses the entire Eastern Seaboard, and tracks the babe to one specific nightclub in Jacksonville. And the abrupt ending, like the budget ran out that day, so they just needed to call a wrap.

The only thing saving this sequel from being a One Star Bomb is the great Creature costume, and the two guys who bring it to life. Otherwise, this movie should only be used as a drinking game: do a shot EVERY SINGLE TIME they play the scary theme, and 30 minutes in, frankly, you won't give a damn...

Brisk and efficient sequel

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 21 September 2019]

REVENGE OF THE CREATURE is the follow-up to THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, one of the most iconic Universal horrors of all time. This one's a far lesser film, suffering from weak scripting which feels like the whole story is merely a lower-budgeted riff on KING KONG. Our favourite Gill Man is minding his own business in his lagoon when a bunch of scientists kidnap him and take him back to America. There he's probed and experimented upon until he finally busts loose and goes on a mini rampage. I found the Creature himself a sympathetic creation this time around, and his romance with the statuesque Lori Nelson good fun. The human characters are pretty bland, although it's fun to see Clint Eastwood in his film debut and the staging's slick and to the point.

STOP!!!

[Aaron1375 · 3/10 · 5 March 2003]

This movie is a sequel to Creature from the Black Lagoon. The creature basically gets captured and taken to Florida and stuck in an aquarium. Scientist study, him and then he gets loose. That is basically all there is to it. John Agar is the scientist and he is as wooden as ever. The gal in this one is pretty cute though and the monster looks all right especially considering it is the 50's. The monster doesn't look to threatening in a pool though so the fact it is in an aquarium really takes away from the movie. At the end the monster kidnaps the girl and Agar has to find her. I still don't think though that you can use a shocking pole underwater without getting electrocuted yourself and I don't think that some creature is going to care about a globe on a stick. And why bring a creature into basically a marine land type setting where if it escapes it can do the most damage. And where did these guys buy the chain to hold the creature cause it doesn't hold up well. On the plus side you get to see Clint Eastwood make a brief appearance.

Revenge Of The Creature (1955) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 8 July 2005]

The Creature was the last of the classic Universal monsters I got into, which only happened in 2001 via the original DVD release of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954). I loved the film immediately, however, and was very much interested in watching its two sequels - REVENGE OF THE CREATURE and THE CREATURE WALKS AMONG US (1956).

Now that I've caught up with both of them, I'd say that Universal did well enough by this particular monster, and that having arrived so long after the Studio's other notables (Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Invisible Man and The Wolf Man) proved fortuitous, because The Creature wasn't allowed to become redundant in his own 'starring vehicles' as was the case certainly - and sadly - with both The Frankenstein Monster and The Mummy.

As for the film itself, it isn't up to the original (with which I should be re-acquainting myself over the week-end) - despite having the same director. The change in setting is interesting, and it works most of the time; the main problem, I guess, lies with The Creature's alarmingly limited characteristics: it can only either swim (in the water) or go on a rampage (on land) - although, to be fair, The Mummy is perhaps even duller! Still, the film offers reasonable entertainment and the leads are O.K. if, again, failing to match those of the original.

Hardly a patch on the original.

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 10 May 2007]

If you've seen the original, this one is a little tough to sit through. The acting is up to its abyssal par and Lori Nelson is attractive but the thing takes place in Marineland, Florida. Far from being exotic, as "The Creature From the Black Lagoon" was, we have a tourist trap within a state that is itself one big tourist trap. The harmless dialog sometimes sound aimed at a demographic exemplified more by the Gill Man than by his human captors. Reporter to Lori Nelson: "Can you tell us why you're here?" Nelson: "I'm an ichthyologist." Reporter: "An ichthyologist! Wow! That's a ten-dollar word. Can you tell us what it means?" Nelson: "I study fish." There's little mystery to it. It opens with the same boat and the same skipper taking a trip up the same "tributary of the Amazon River" but that sequence is over with in a jiffy when the gill man is comatized by some dynamite and transported forthwith to his tank in the states. This is rather like the second half of "King Kong". The creature gets loose, offs a few people, and returns to the sea, only to be drawn back to land by his fascination with Lori Nelson. Well, we can't blame the creature. I saw this as a kid and was astonished when Lori Nelson dropped her bathrobe and slithered around in her skivvies preparatory to taking a shower. It didn't matter than her underwear looked like G.I. issue.

This is some Gill Man, by the way. He's escaped and is now in the ocean, right? But he swims up the St. Johns River and knows that Lori Nelson has gotten on a boat with John Agar. As the boat travels upriver, the Gill Man follows it. When Agar and Nelson stop at a motel, the Gill Man even knows which room to go to. And later, he even knows that Nelson is DANCING with Agar at a nightclub called The Lobster Pot, from which he kidnaps her. You ought to see the atmosphere people at that Lobster Pot dance. They were locals, hired from an establishment next to the restaurant, and not one of them is smiling or having a good time, just stiffly shuffling about to Henry Mancini's music. I did a far better job as an extra, dancing at an embassy party in "Windmills of the Gods," a cheap miniseries that puts this so-called "feature film" to shame. "Windmills of the Gods" is a splendid example of what a film SHOULD look like. The acting of the extras, in particular, is eyeball-coagulatingly good. And if you want to see truly exuberant dancing extras, watch my bro and his wife on the dance floor in "Timepiece."

I got lost for a moment. Where was I? Did I get through Lori Nelson's skivvies? Yes, I see I did. Okay -- I also wanted to mention that the scenes of the creature being subject to Pavolovian conditioning underwater is impossible. Electricity is nothing more than a bunch of loose electrons jumping from atom to atom and they're especially attracted to water, so you can not shock a monster under water.

I should mention the film's good points too, I suppose, in pursuit of a balanced assessment so the reader can make an independent judgment. Let's see. I pointed out Lori Nelson's undies, didn't I. Well then there is the scene of two teen-aged boys driving in a convertible and arguing about whether college is worth the effort or not. The driver argues that high school is good enough for him. The other points out that nowadays a college education is getting to be what a high school education used to be. He may think he's being wise but I happen to have more degrees than a thermometer and I'm sorry I didn't quit high school and go into the cement business. I'd be living like a Pasha today instead of in this hovel.

In sum: Not really a bad movie, and entertaining in its own unchallenging way. It also includes a few shots of Lori Nelson in her underwear. I may have pointed that out elsewhere. What it lacks, it lacks mostly in comparison to its predecessor which was a neatly tied-up story suggestive of the bizarre as well as the exotic.

Not a bad sequel, in fact quite entertaining, but very flawed and misses the mark

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 23 July 2013]

Creature from the Black Lagoon isn't a perfect film but it is a lot of fun and one of the better monster movies of the 50s. Revenge of the Creature misses the mark in comparison, but there are definitely worse sequels out there, it is better than its reputation and while The Creature Walks Among Us(the other sequel) needs to be re-watched I do remember Revenge being better than that. The story is not as good or as suspenseful this time round, it takes too long to set up, while the romance is very half-baked and the monster is used a little too much which dissipates the impact. The dialogue wasn't a strong point in the original, but it still wasn't anyway near as corny and awkward as the dialogue here. John Ager also gives a very wooden lead performance. It is however well photographed- as with the original the underwater sequences do look wonderful- and solidly directed with extravagant locations, and the monster still looks good(one of the better man-in-a-monster-suit monsters of any 50s monster movie) and manages to be menacing and sympathetic even in surroundings that are not quite as effective this time around. The score succeeds in exuding haunting atmosphere and jaunty energy, and there are some good set pieces with the monster, especially with the overturned car and aquarium. Also the shower motel sequence with it watching, not quite as scary as it lurking beneath the sea watching Julie Adams swimming on her own in the original, but it's the closest it gets to anything as effective as that. Like Creature from the Black Lagoon the characters are not particularly well-developed, the leads in fact are very underdeveloped, but they don't annoy either. Lori Nelson does acquit herself quite well, filling in big shoes and doing so quite admirably, while Clint Eastwood in his first screen role makes a brief but interesting appearance. Overall, has a lot wrong with it but not a bad sequel. 5.5/10 Bethany Cox

The Monster Machine makes Content

[davidmvining · 4/10 · 11 November 2022]

The first Creature from the Black Lagoon was something of a hodgepodge of quality with a central monster that seemed accidentally sympathetic. I wasn't expecting that kind of happy accident in the sequel. What I got was a more standard monster movie with more boring characters, more implausible coincidences, and a title that doesn't really match the story. I mean, it's somewhat competent at what it does, but what it does just isn't that interesting.

We get what amounts to a prologue involving characters that largely disappear from the film where Lucas (Nestor Paiva) leads two scientists back to the Black Lagoon to capture the Gill Man (Tom Hennessey on land and Ricou Browning underwater). They ignite some dynamite on the surface, knock him into a coma, and bring him back. There, the main scientist that is concerned with determining a way to communicate with the Gill Man is Professor Clete Furguson (John Agar) (oh my gosh! Is that Clint Eastwood as his assistant! OMG! OMG! Oh, he's gone now from the movie forever...probably for the best).

After some physical therapy that brings the Gill Man back to consciousness, he's placed in an aquarium tank, and...the movie just starts dragging. The monster being locked in one place is just not that interesting, and instead of monster action we get Clete starting a little romance with an ichthyology student, Helen (Lori Nelson). She's there to study the Gill Man, and they do some meaningless experiments to try to figure out stuff about the Gill Man. It's uninteresting and takes a solid half hour as the two humans have a safe little romance without any conflict or tension.

Eventually, the Gill Man escapes and walks his way to the water, complete with crowds running away in fear, and everyone loses track of him. So, where does he go? Does he try to find a similar, remote place for him to live? Does he try to find his way back home to the Amazon? No, he immediately tracks down Helen and Clete, killing Helen's dog at their hotel before tracking them down again to a crowded restaurant in Jacksonville, Florida and kidnapping Helen. I get it. The Gill Man likes blondes, but does he like them so much that he's got geolocator abilities on this one?

There's a search up and down the coast that implausibly gets resolved with David right there because of course, and we get our abrupt ending as has been the norm of this entire franchise.

Alright, I've been pretty dismissive of this, but is it really that bad? Well, it's certainly not good. I did have some mild good times with it, though. The monster suit is still good with those moving gills in certain out of water shots. The underwater action is clearly filmed and well done. The acting is fine. It's biggest problems are twofold. The first is the long slog of dull character stuff that dominates the first half. The second is the implausibility of the action in the second half combined with the monster's opaque motivations.

The film is called Revenge of the Creature, but at no point do I get any sense that it's revenging anything in particular. This raises the question of what the monster is and what it wants. I think part of the overall appeal of the Universal Monster universe was that the monsters were more than just killing machines let loose upon hapless victims. Frankenstein's monster was thematically weighty. Dracula was stylish as he killed. The Invisible Man was insane. The Wolf Man was at war with himself. But the Gill Man? In the first film, he was an innocent invaded and protecting himself (sort of) like King Kong. Here? He's essentially just a monster. That there's no effort to give the Gill Man personality here tells me that Jack Arnold, the director of both films, had literally no idea he was making the Gill Man sympathetic in the first film. He gets captured, escapes, and then just rampages. Why does he focus on Helen? No idea. Because we don't know why he would focus on Helen, the logical leaps of him trying to track her down become silly and obvious instead of something we may wave away in a lesser but still worthwhile monster mash.

Still, it was neat seeing Clint Eastwood in his first role, having completely forgotten that he was in it when I turned it on.

What's with the incredibly low score?! This is a wonderful film.

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 22 September 2009]

For the life of me, I can't understand why this film has a rating of only 4.8 currently on IMDb. It's a very competent remake of an exceptional 1950s monster film, THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON--and there isn't much to complain about in this outing. So why the low score?! Perhaps it's because some people think the idea of a sea monster-type creature is pretty silly. Well, many other sea monster films were made in the 50s and 60s--and all but the Creature films had lousy costumes, lousy acting and were made on shoestring budgets (such as THE HORROR OF PARTY BEACH). But this Universal outing has nice location shooting and nothing but good production values.

The film begins back in the same lagoon where the creature was left at the end of the last film. The same local captain has agreed to take some idiots from America to capture the creature. Now considering how scared this captain was and how he lost several crew members in the last film, it's amazing that he'd once again take such a risk--especially since all he does is complain about this! Quite surprisingly, the monster is actually captured relatively quickly and most of the film actually takes place in and around Marineland in Florida (near St. Augustine). Seeing this "thing" in a giant aquarium as gawking stand about is a bit surreal, but once he escapes (a must for the film), things heat up considerably.

Along for the ride are a behavioral scientist (John Agar) and the requisite "babe", the hot grad student and ichthyologist played by Lori Nelson. Both of them work with the creature trying to determine its intelligence and trainability--though the methods did seem a bit cruel. So, when the Creature breaks free, I found myself rooting for it--a real plus in a monster film when you have sympathy for the object of so much terror.

As for Agar, he has a terrible reputation as an actor, but he was quite competent here. I think Agar's reputation is caused by two reasons. First, being Shirley Temple's ex-husband, a lot of folks tended to denigrate his acting. Second, and this is Agar's doing, he seemed willing to act in ANY film provided the check cleared! For every exceptional film like this one or FORT APACHE or SANDS OF IWO JIMA, he starred in dogs like ZONTAR THING FROM VENUS or WOMEN OF THE PREHISTORIC PLANET. Oh, well,...I guess a guy's gotta eat!

There are a few things viewers might want to look out for. First, it's pretty obvious that there are two different people playing the Creature if you try to spot the differences. In the underwater scenes, the guy inside this complex suit is skinnier and on land he's chunkier--perhaps so he can carry about the "screaming hot babe" required by such films. Second, it's also pretty obvious that this was originally a 3-D film---as the monster and arms and all kinds of stuff come hurtling at the camera. While it isn't hokey, it is noticeable. Third, if you've ever been to this part of the country (I have several times), it's neat seeing some familiar locales--St. Augustine and nearby towns (like Jacksonville) made for some very nice location shoots.

Overall, a nice higher budget horror film that excels in practically every way. The only negatives are that it's a sequel (in other words, it loses a point for originality) and occasionally the characters do act a bit dumb--but this can be forgiven since it's still a vastly superior film to the sort of schlock horror that was so common in the 50s.

Not as bad as most say

[bensonmum2 · 7/10 · 19 April 2005]

• A group of scientist go back to the Black Lagoon to capture the Creature. From there he is taken to an aquarium in Florida for research. The Creature develops a sort of "crush" on one of the female scientists, escapes, and kidnaps her. Can the Creature be stopped?

• While it's the weakest of the series, I probably rate Revenge of the Creature higher than most other people who claim to be fans. It definitely didn't deserve the MST3K treatment. The love story and escape work for me. I especially enjoy the scenes of the Creature terrorizing the guests and workers at the aquarium. Good stuff.

• One of the problems I have with the movie is understanding the actions of the so-called scientists. First, they head of to the Black Lagoon and proceed to dynamite the place to capture the Creature. They actually seem willing to kill every other living animal to get the Creature. Is that the way real scientists operate? And while I understand the point of the experiments they perform on the Creature once in Florida, the scientists seem a little too anxious to administer the shock treatment to the Creature. It's just not very realistic, even by 1950s horror/sci-fi movie standards.

• If you've never seen Revenge of the Creature, be on the look-out for an uncredited and VERY young Clint Eastwood in his first movie role.

Here at the Joseph Mengela Institute of Aquatic Studies...

[Oosterhartbabe · 2/10 · 31 January 2005]

Another lackluster serving of John Agar. Worse than usual, in fact, because we get to see Agar clad in nothing but skin tight speedos. AGGHHH! MY EYES! Anyhoo, this sequel to Creature From the Black Lagoon is a boring waste of time with bad acting and drab action sequences thrown in for good measure. And I spent the whole time hoping the creature would off Agar and Lori Nelson both, because their scientist characters had spent half of the movie torturing the poor thing with an electric cattle prod for no good reason that I could see. That was most of the film-Agar and Nelson gleefully shocking the creature as it tries to eat in peace, play a game of catch, et. cetera. And its 'revenge' was the most pitiful thing I've ever seen, as the body count was maybe four people after it escaped from the Sea Park where they'd chained it on display for the public to gawk at. A creature so supposedly ferocious, and they put it in a whole park FULL of potential victims? Good one. But then, it never kills any of the tourists as it is rampaging around, anyway. And I have a question-after it escapes, it swims out into the salt water ocean. But isn't it a fresh water creature? Was it a salt water lagoon in the middle of the Amazon? if not, shouldn't it have shriveled up like a raisin in the salt water? Just wondering. I'd much rather have watched the creature go on a killing spree than to have to watch the tepid, wooden romance between Agar and Nelson. Of course, I would much rather have watched bread mold forming, as well. In the end, the creature gets offed by some sheriff's deputies after it tries to make off with Lori Nelson, which is a puzzler since I saw no external genitalia on the thing. It's a fish creature, right? Did it think it would fertilize the eggs she laid by passing over them, like a salmon does? I don't really see how there could be a third movie, since the creature was floating face down like a dead gold fish, but whatever. I guess they felt they had to milk the thing for all it was worth. And as long as the third movie didn't contain the stunningly annoying and horrible John Agar, it would automatically be better than Revenge of the Creature.