Night of the Comet (1984)

{This review is significantly longer than I intended and contains spoilers. I was initially going to write a two page review of Night of the Comet but found such a task nearly impossible. There is so much to talk about in this movie and this review only scratches the surface. Most of the behind the scenes info comes from Shout Factory’s Collector’s Edition blu ray. It you are a fan of Night of the Comet, or this type of movie in generally, I highly suggest you pick up the Collector’s Edition. It’s well worth your money.}

I have known about Night of the Comet for sometime but it wasn’t until recently that I saw the movie in its entirety.  It was a prominent fixture on the local television station, but I only would catch chunks of it.  This is kind of surprising because, if you have read this blog before, you know it’s the kind of movie that is right up my alley. 

 In Night of the Comet, most of the world’s population has been wiped out (literally turned to dust) after the Earth has past through the tail of a comet. The post apocalyptic sub-genre of science fiction was extremely popular in the 1980s, but it really took off in the 1950s after the release of two novels: John Wydham's 1951 novel The Day of the Triffids and Richard Matheson's 1954 novel I am Legend. These two works of fiction really set the tone for many science fiction and horror movies that followed them.  In The Day of the Triffids, most of the world's population is blinded by a meteor shower which allows for genetically engineered plant life, the Triffids, to become the dominant species on the planet. In I am Legend, a pandemic has transformed the Earth's human population into vampires. The last remaining human spends his days hunting down these creatures and his nights boarded up his house while the vampires attempt to break in. Both of these novels were adapted multiple times, and rather unsatisfactorily.  

In 1955, producer/director Roger Corman got into the act and made The Day the World Ended.  In the movie, a nuclear war has wiped out most of the world's population and a handful of survivors meet up at a remote cabin. When they are not arguing with each other, they are having to fend off a silly looking monster.  Most post apocalyptic movies follow this formula, but what sets Night of the Comet apart from the rest of these films is that the plot is driven by two teenage sisters, Regina and Samantha. It also helps that both characters are likable and played with great aplomb by two vivacious actresses, Catherine Mary Stewart and Kelly Maroney. These are characters that you actually want to spend time with (especially when compared to dour and depressing male leads in previous post apocalyptic movies).  Even though  Regina and Samantha are mere teenagers, they are no pushovers.  Their father was a military man and taught them self dense strategies, and proper firearm handling. It would be extremely foolish for anyone to underestimate these two girls.

In his insightful commentary, Thom Eberhardt mentions that Night of the Comet was not initially conceived as a zombie movie, they were an afterthought when Eberhardt realized he needed something to menace the girls. This might explain why the zombies don’t behave in typical zombie-like fashion; they are fairly articulate and often wield weapons as opposed to lumbering stiffs that dominate the George Romero films.  The zombies feel rather arbitrary to the story; they could have easily been written as random lunatics on the street and the movie would essentially have been the same. The stock boys that terrorize Regina and Samantha at the mall are scary because they are complete psychopaths, who just happen to be zombies.  If Eberhardt had intended on making it a straight zombie movie, it probably would have significantly gorier and had less characterization.  The zombies are only temporary threat; it is revealed that they will eventually turn to dust like the rest humanity. If the girls can bide their time they will be home free. The REAL obstacle that stands in their way is a group of scientists pent up in an underground instillation. What are their motivations?  Do they want to help the girls? Or, is there a more sinister motive at play? The choice is a fairly obvious one, but it doesn't make the movie any less entertaining.

The best thing about Night of the Comet is that Regina and Samantha behave like actual teenage siblings, even though they look nothing alike.  They often get on each other’s nerves; they fight over boys; and bond over the silliest things (like shopping).   In the beginning of the movie, despite living in the same house, they inhabit two very separate worlds; Regina is working a midnight showing at the local theatre, while Samantha is stuck at a lame Comet party being hosted by their bitchy stepmom, Doris.  In a fairly clever touch, the first time the two sisters exchange any dialogue is over the telephone.  She doesn’t call out of courtesy but rather she wants Samantha to lie for her. She wants Samantha to tell their bitchy stepmom that she will be at the observatory watching the comet, when in reality she is shacking up with her co-worker, Larry.  This completely backfires and it’s Samantha who receives the full brunt of Doris’ wrath.  They’re not only in a different place physically, but mentally as well.  Regina is eighteen years old, and like all teenagers her age, she is ready to move on with her life. Samantha is sixteen years old and is still very much into the high school routine.  Like most teenagers, she lives for the weekend. In terms of a love life, Regina is having a sexual fling with a co-worker, while Samantha is still hoping that her high school crush will ask her out.  However, rather than lump them together, I think both characters are deserving of their analysis.

When we first meet Regina, she is living a rather carefree existence.  She is more focused on playing an arcade game, Tempest, than doing her job as movie theatre usher.  Her manager wants her to walk the house, much to her annoyance.  {Personal note: Having worked at movie theatre I can relate to this sentiment.  Whenever I did a walk through, I could often sense the glares of the moviegoers.  “Stop interrupting our movie.”}  It’s only after the game has ended that Regina reluctantly obliges her aggrieved manager.  However, before she can do that she must enter her initials in the top ten scores. While typing them in, she is annoyed to find someone else’s (“DMK”) initials are in sixth place. This irritates her so much that she spends the next morning knocking her unknown adversary out of the top ten.  It’s a nice way of establishing Regina’s competitive nature and her willingness to step up to any challenge (even a trivial one like an arcade game).  When she puts her mind to it, she can accomplish anything. { I know this a total coincidence, but it’s amusing that the other movie Catherine Mary Stewart starred in that year, The Last Starfigher, centers around an arcade game. It’s too bad Regina didn’t play that game because she certainly would have been more adept at fighting aliens in outer space than Alex Rogan.}  

Of course, Regina is completely thrown for a loop when she discovers that not only streets are empty (strewn with empty clothes covered in dust) but there’s a blood thirsty zombie in the alley way.  Regina nicely asks the zombie to back off, but when that doesn’t work she incapacitates him with self defense moves her dad taught her.  There’s also a nice detail in this scene that demonstrates Regina’s intelligence; when the zombie approaches her, she is clutching the keys to Larry’s motorcycle in her hand, and when she realizes that there will be fighting involved, she tosses the keys near the motorcycle rather than risk losing them in the skirmish.  This scene also demonstrates Regina’s confidence; she doesn’t for one second doubt her ability to take down this monster. He picked the wrong girl to mess with. Regina isn't without her flaws. In fact, she makes a near fatal mistake midway through the movie: in attempt to cheer up her little sister, she takes Samantha "shopping." The two of them are enjoying themselves so much that they let their guard down and allow themselves to fall in the stock boys trap.  They are saved in the nick of time by a group of scientists searching the city for survivors. What seems like the girl's salvation ends up turning into an even bigger nightmare. However, if there is one thing Regina proves throughout the movie it is never to underestimate her. She maybe down, but she is definitely not out.  

Regina finds herself in a position that she so desperately wanted to avoid: Becoming an adult.  Her first instinct, after having taken out the zombie, is to find out whether Samantha is alive or not.  After being reunited with her sister, she then takes upon herself to be Samantha’s guardian.  As the movie progresses, she becomes increasingly more and more like a mother figure to her younger sister.  Therefore, it’s not surprising that by the movie’s end Hector and she, along with two surviving children they have picked up, have formed their own nuclear family.  She essentially becomes the very thing she dreaded at the beginning - the overprotective mother.  At the beginning, she resents Doris for imposing a curfew on her; in the last scene, she imposes a curfew on Samantha.  Granted, Regina is a much more sympathetic and benevolent person than Doris.  She also emphasizes the importance of following the rules of the road to her surrogate children: Don’t cross against the traffic. Wait for the walk sign.  She becomes the ultimate mom. 

There  are nice subtle hints sprinkled throughout regarding Regina’s growing maturity and maternal nature; when Samantha yells at, and shoves, her for stealing the “last man on earth,” rather than yell and shove back, Regina thinks about it for a second and begins to laugh at the absurdity of the situation. What else can she do? In normal circumstances, neither of them would probably have noticed Hector. He’s not a bad looking guy, but he’s also not exactly the type of man that would grace the cover of a teeny bopper magazine. But now, through extraordinary circumstances, he is now the object of affection for both Regina and Samantha.

Samantha, in my humble opinion, is one of the best characters in 1980s cinema. This may seem hyperbolic, but Kelli Maroney gives such an energetic (and enduring) performance that it’s almost impossible not to love this character.  The nice thing about Maroney’s performance is that she actually behaves like an actual teenager. She has bad posture, bad habits (she spends most of the first act chewing on the same piece of gum), she is fairly rude, and extremely impatient.  There are many teenage dramas where the (twenty something) actors do not talk and act like teenagers (Riverdale is a prime offender).  They maybe sixteen in the script, but their body language and overall behavior suggests otherwise.  When we first meet Samantha she is slumped on the couch, munching on potato chips, and watching the television to drown out all the lameness around her.  She is the only teenager at her stepmother’s party and, even though she is sixteen, everyone regards her as a kid (one of the party goers pats her on the head).   Quite possibly the worst nightmare of any teenager is to be stuck at home on a Friday night and having to hang out with their parents. {This would have been especially true in the 1980s, when most middle class households had only one television set. Now a days, (boy do I sound old) you can watch movies and TV shows on your telephone.}  In Samantha’s mind, things can’t possibly get any worse than this.  

At first, Samantha seems to regard the whole “end of humanity” as an exciting adventure. It allows for her to get out of the house and explore the city; something Doris would have never allowed.  She can make a few jokes here and there, because the grim reality hasn’t yet set in and when it finally does, it hits her like a brick. In my favorite scene of the entire movie, Samantha tells Regina about how she heard, through her best friend, that her high school crush was about to ask her out. It’s then she realizes the harsh reality of her situation; her best friend and her potential boyfriend are dead, gone forever.  Overnight, her entire existence has been thrown into upheaval.  It was only yesterday that she was on her way to cheer leading practice and now everything is gone forever (not to mention there are blood thirsty zombies on the loose).  Incredibly, this key moment nearly didn’t make it into the movie; I’m sure the producers were concerned that it would slow up the pace. Thankfully, common sense prevailed because this scene is THE HEART OF THE ENTIRE MOVIE.  Samantha’s speech about loss is something anyone can relate to; especially those that have lost a loved one.  What makes it even worse for Samantha is the uncertainty that lies ahead. Where does she go from here?  Regina is ready to take the next step, but Samantha is a sophomore in high school and has had a fairly set schedule (school – cheer leading practice – friends – sleep), so it’s not surprising she would be in state of denial.  Next to death, the most frightening thing for humans has to be starting over and building a new life.  It’s really a burden that shouldn’t befall a sixteen year-old girl and yet that’s where Samantha finds herself. The problem I have with many horror movies is how they trivialize death. As the bodies pile up, our “heroes” don’t even bat an eye; they just go on with their business.  This is, by no means, limited to modern day horror movies because this type of attitude was fairly typical of the 1980s slasher movie.  Therefore, it’s refreshing to see a movie, in 1984, that gives the heroine a moment to mourn the loss of her loved ones.  

Surprisingly this wasn’t the only controversial decision regarding Samantha’s character. In Eberhardt’s original script, Samantha was killed off.  Again, common sense won the day and the character was allowed to survive the movie.  Perhaps, if Night of the Comet was more a straight forward horror, or if Kelli Maroney was a terrible actress, then killing Samantha off might have been an effective plot point.  But it is complete out of place in this movie. Despite its grim subject matter, Night of the Comet is fairly upbeat and optimistic movie. If Samantha gets killed off, it gives the movie a bitter aftertaste that would be impossible to rinse out, no matter how appetizing the finale is.
 

If Night of the Comet merely had two strong leads that would already be an accomplishment, but the fact that it has three is pretty damn incredible. I’m, of course, referring to Robert Beltran as Hector Gomez.  It would been rather easy to write Hector as a gun toting badass who gleefully mows down endless zombies, or as a lone scientist hoping to find a cure that will reverse the zombie process (ala The Omega Man), but in a smart move he is just an ordinary guy; prior to the whole "end of the world" he worked as a truck driver.  Hector is a fairly interesting character in his own right.  When we first meet him at the radio station, he is hiding in the shadows, clutching a gun, while watching Regina and Samantha from a distance.  He is stationed in the foreground of the frame and is presented in a fairly menacing light.  We don’t know if he is friend or foe.  When he reveals himself to the girls, he holds them at gun point and demands they show him their eyes; to make sure there are “still human.”  Yet, even after he has introduced himself, Regina still doesn’t trust him (she grabs a microphone and hides it behind her back, just in case he should try something funny).  However, Regina (and the audience) soon realizes that Hector is a first rate guy.  Robert Beltran is especially good in this role. He plays it completely straight (without a hint of irony) and has genuine warmth about him.   

Hector may come off as a tough guy but he is a softy at heart.  There is also a nice scene that illustrates to this point:  Hector knows that his family is probably dead, but he still drives down to his home just to make sure. If there is even a sliver of a chance they have survived, Hector is going to take that risk.  He arrives at the house and finds that it is deserted, but starts gathering photos and other tokens to remember his family by.  Then he hears a knock on the door and finds a zombie kid waiting on the other side.  If Night of the Comet were your average zombie movie  Hector, would, without any hesitation, blow the kid’s brains out and it would be shown in a loving, gory close up. Thankfully, Night of the Comet is not your average zombie movie and to Hector the thought of blowing out a kid’s brains, even if he is a zombie, is extremely nauseating. Hector decides to make a retreat.  He knocks over furniture to create distance between him and the boy, and successfully flees the house.  This scene gives us a nice insight into Hector’s character – he has a moral code.  He will only resort to violence if absolutely necessary. 

It is hard to pigeon hole Night of the Comet into a certain genre; it’s often labeled as a horror – comedy, but that is only slightly correct. It has a few horror tropes scattered throughout (like the nightmare within a nightmare scene) but most of its scare moments occur in the first half of the movie.  Tonally, it has more in common with Joe Dante’s Gremlins than it does with any of the zombie movies of the period. The best way to describe it is as cross pollination of different genres. It is a romantic comedy; a horror movie; a science fiction film; a teen comedy; and an action movie rolled into one.  The third act often plays like a low budget James Bond movie (with Dr. Carter in the role of a low rent Ernst Blofeld). Regina has been taken an underground instillation and, once she has learned the scientists’ true plans, is determined to escape – oblivious to the fact that Hector and Samantha are mounting their own rescue mission. It also avoids the cliché’ that was fairly prevalent in horror movies at the time – the cheesy jump scare to end the movie. In most horror movies , the villain makes one more lung at the heroine and it is either revealed to be a dream (Carrie, Dressed to Kill, Friday the 13^th), or it is left ambiguous to set up a sequel (The Evil Dead, Nightmare on Elm Street, Phantasm).  The ending of Night of the Comet is straight out of a romantic comedy (complete with a sappy love over the end credits).   In his commentary, Thom Eberhardt said that he was influenced by the movie Valley Girl, and even pays direct homage to that film(the Valley Girl movie poster and soundtrack make cameo appearances in the movie). It often feels like Regina and Samantha wandered off the set of that movie and accidentally stumbled upon the filming of Night of the Comet. Though, given that both movies were produced by the same company, Atlantic Releasing Corporation, that isn't too surprising. Hell, both movies feature Michael Bowen in a supporting role. If Night of the Comet and Valley Girl were made today, they would, no doubt, take place in the same cinematic universe. 
{While I was in the middle of writing this review, it was announce that, the recently relaunched, Orion Pictures is producing a remake of Night of the Comet. The irony being that in 1984 Orion was one of the studios that passed on the original. A Night of the Comet extended universe might come true after all. Be very afraid!} 

Night of the Comet was made on an extremely low budget, which means that it was made on a tight, fast paced schedule and there was very little room for retakes.  However, it did allow room for some improvisation and clever film making. In one memorable scene Samantha fires at a car with a MAC 10 for target practice, but the damn gun keeps jamming. This happens multiple times and she finally throws her hands up in frustration and says to Regina, in a matter of fact manner, “See, that’s the problem with these things. Dad would have gotten us Uzis.” Regina then replies, “The car didn’t know the difference.”  This a fun little moment for the characters and was made up on the spot, because the MAC 10 did, indeed, keep jamming on Kelli Maroney.  However, Thom Eberhardt, rather than shoot multiple takes, opted to work this on set problem into the script and the result is history.  A modern filmmaker would approach this scene completely different and digitally add in the gunshots.  He would walk over to the actress and in a calm voice say, “Don’t worry about it. We’ll fix in post production.”

{Personal note: When I was in my early twenties, I allowed myself to be hoodwinked into helping a friend make a low budget vampire movie (it was a blatant rip off of “Blade”).  My friend was so enamored by the filmmaking process (and the many attractive women he had talked into appearing in his movie) that he didn’t pay much attention to the continuity. Whenever someone would point out the blatant continuity errors he would always respond with “Don’t worry! I’ll fix it in post.”  He never finished the movie, but he did make a trailer for it. Thank you! Now back to review.}

Night of the Comet is a good looking movie. It baffles the mind that such a movie could have been made for such a small budget. Thom Eberhardt uses all sorts of cinematic trickery to make the movie bigger than it actually is; everything from matte paintings to forced perspective. In one scene, he had to rely heavily on close ups to hide the fact that the crew was tearing the set down while filming. You would think that such an imaginative director would go on to bigger and better things, but, sadly, the rest of his filmography is pretty forgettable. Though, he is credited as directing an episode of Parker Lewis Can't Lose; that alone makes it all worthwhile. 

It is often said that “timing is everything” and this most certainly was the case for Night of the Comet. The movie was released in November of 1984 and proved to be a minor hit (it grossed 14 millions dollars against a 700,000 budget.  It came out a few months after the PG-13 rating had been instated (making it one of the earliest PG-13 movies). Yet, I have to wonder what fate might have befallen it had it been released before the creation of the PG-13 rating. Would it have been slapped with an R rating due to “horror movie” stigma attacked to it? How would that have effect its release?  Night of the Comet was also released in an era when a low budget movie (without major studio influence) could be given a wide theatrical release. If Night of the Comet would have been made just a few years later, it probably would have been released directly to video - the ultimate form of cinematic purgatory. Thankfully, Night of the Comet avoided this dire fate and has maintained its status as a cult classic.

Credits

Cast: Catherine Mary Stewart (Regina Belmont), Kelli Maroney (Samantha Belmont), Robert Beltran (Hector), Mary Woronov (Audrey White), Geoffrey Lewis (Dr. Carter), Sharon Farrell (Doris Belmont),Peter Fox (Dr. Wilson), Michael Bowen (Larry), John Achorn (Oscar), Devon Ericson (Minder), Lissa Layng (Davenport), Ivan E. Roth (Willy), Janice Kawaye (Sarah), Chance Boyer (Brian), Stanley Brock (Mel), Marc Poppel (Danny Mason Keener/ DMK), Alex Brown (Monster in Alley), Andrew Boyer (Rogers), Dick Rude (Stock Boy), Chris Pedersen (Stock Boy).

Director: Thom Eberhardt
Writer: Thom Eberhardt
Running Time: 95 min.

Snowbeast (1977)

The true sign of a landmark movie is not its success at the box office, but rather the many bad imitations it spawns.  Immediately after the success of Jaws (1975) a whole slate of imitations were rushed into productions by rival studios (and low budget merchants).  In the span of five years, we were given such forgettable fare like: Orca, Grizzly, Barracuda, The Last Shark, Tentacles, and the subject of this review, Snowbeast.

While watching Snowbeast, I devised a theory about the movie’s origin: the director, Herb Wallerstein, desperately wanted an all expense paid vacation to the slopes of Colorado, so he Xeroxed the script to Jaws, showed it to the NBC studio heads, and was granted his vacation under the ruse that he was making a movie. When he wasn’t hitting the slopes, or yakking it up with the locals, he would spend a few hours directing the movie.  This would explain why the movie is so directionless;  Snowbeast is 86 minutes long, but a good percentage of its running  time is devoted to scenes of people skiing or riding on snowmobiles (shot by the second unit). 

Some exciting Snowbeast action!!!

Wallerstein’s direction is completely flat – the scenes are usually acted out in a master shot and it will cut to a close up to emphasize a point. It is something straight out of a television sitcom from that era.  It also doesn’t help that Snowbeast is extremely drab looking movie; its muted colors prove to be an eye sore.  It’s the equivalent to being boxed inside on a dreary winter day – the sky has a permanent grey overcast, the roads are slippery, and you just want to nod off.  

 Snowbeast shamelessly rips off Jaws in an almost beat for beat fashion; instead of a small island community being terrorized by a Great White Shark, it is a ski resort that is laid siege to by a Bigfoot.  Just like in Jaws, the authorities ignore the problem and carry on with the festivities that have planned (the 4^th of July in Jaws, a winter carnival in Snowbeast). In the third act, our protagonists venture out into the wilderness, in a camper, to kill the monster.  The Bigfoot destroys the camper and, without their guns, must resort to desperate measure to kill the creature.  I was half expecting one of the characters to capture a glimpse of the Bigfoot and quip, “We’re going to need a bigger camper.” Sadly, this didn’t’ happen. 

In Jaws, there is a scene where a group of fishermen capture a tiger shark and the mayor prematurely declares that the beaches are safe again. Of course, this backfires when the real shark rears its ugly head on the 4^th of July and eats a man. There is a similar moment like this in Snowbeast; the sheriff kills a Grizzly bear and public declares the danger is over.  However, the placing of this scene is incredibly awkward, because it comes AFTER the Snowbeast has laid siege to the Ice Queen ceremony at the Town Hall; meaning that the Bigfoot has been seen by multiple witnesses, all of whom could attest that what they saw was no Bear.  It also serves no narrative purpose, because minutes after the sheriff has killed the Bear, he agrees to help our heroes kill the blood thirsty Bigfoot.  The scene, essentially, plays out like this:

Sheriff: I caught the Bear. Our troubles are over.
Gar (our hero):  It wasn’t a Bear and you know it. It was Bigfoot. We need to kill it.
Sheriff: Okay. Let’s go! 

In one of the main deviations from Jaws, the character of Chief Brody is divided up into three roles: Gar Seberg, Tony Rill, and Sheriff Paraday.  The first time (and probably only time) one watches Snowbeast you mistakenly believe that Tony Rill is the main character - he dominates the first half of the movie. It is Tony that first acknowledges the existence of the Bigfoot and whose warnings are promptly ignored by the authorities (the Sheriff and his grandmother, who owns the ski resort). Grandma Rill is dismissive of Tony's Bigfoot theory; she blames the disappearance of a female skier on an avalanche. Tony will have none of that, however, and is determined to kill the beastie.

It also feels like the writer is setting it up so that Tony and Ellen (Gar’s long suffering wife and TV journalist) are going to rekindle their romance, while Gar will end up a victim of the Snowbeast.  I initially thought that Gar would attempt to murder Tony for “cutting in on his action” and would fall prey to the Snowbeast before he could go through with his plan, but that would be too interesting plot for this movie.  Instead, the movie shifts focus from Tony to Gar in the second act, while Ellen is essentially relegated to background noise.  

The love triangle that never was.

 I will give the movie this: at least it attempts to give Gar a character arc and Bo Svenson, bless his soul, does his best with the material that he is given.  In 1968, Gar won the skiing gold medal in the Winter Olympics but his star quickly faded after that defining event.  This is largely due to self doubt and complacency on Gar’s part; after winning the gold medal, he was certain that he could never top this achievement, so he gave up competing. His complacency drives a wedge in his marriage to Ellen.  Gar comes to Tony's ski resort hoping he can get a job; skiing is the only thing he knows, so naturally a ski resort would be a perfect fit for him. 

However, instead of entertaining the tourists with his celebrity, Gar is given the assignment of killing the Snowbeast.  Apparently, he is an expert shot. Gar initially refuses as he views it as cold blooded murder, but when he witnesses the carnage first hand he has a change of heart.  He also gets his swagger back; when Ellen goes missing, he dons the skis and searches for her. They are reunited and their marriage is saved. YAY!!!! 

I find the character of Ellen to be perplexing. This is not Yvette Mimieux’s fault. Her character isn’t given much to do.  It is established that she is a TV journalist, but in no way does that factor into the plot. You would think that Ellen would realize that Bigfoot on the loose makes for a great story and would promptly contact her station. If she captures a Bigfoot live on camera, it would boost her career; make her a national celebrity. It would also give her character some depth; she is simultaneously repulsed by the killings and yet excited by what it means for her career. Instead, she is just happy being Gar’s wife. Her character arc is essentially she goes from being Gar’s long suffering wife to Gar’s supportive wife. It is a really odd decision by screenwriter, Joseph Stefano.  

Left - Long suffering wife mode. Right - Supportive wife mode.

 The movie apes Jaws by keeping the Bigfoot off screen for most of the movie; the filmmakers use point of view shots and off screen roars to suggest its presence. Normally, I wouldn’t have a problem with this gimmick, but the point of view shots expose two huge problems with this premise.

1.       The cameraman often struggles to find his footing in the snow covered landscape and makes a lot of noise while doing so. It is hard to believe that none of the victims would be alerted to his presence much earlier.  The first death is extremely laughable; a female skier just idly stands there while the camera slowly descends upon her.  If she would only stop screaming she would have ample time to get away on her skis. 

2.      The landscape is completely barren and really doesn't offer the Snowbeast much in terms of cover. In the climax, when the heroes are talking outside of the camper, they should be able to see the creature looking down upon them.  He is probably less than twenty feet away and hiding behind a tree that is devoid of any foliage. Yet, because the script demands that creature destroy their camper in stealthy attack, they remain oblivious. It is a laughable attempt at building suspense.

It should be noted that the movie’s credit writer was Joseph Stefano, who his most famous for writing the screenplay to Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. He went from writing one of the most influential movies of all times to ripping off one the most influential movies of all time. How the mighty have fallen.  Though, in his defense, he was working with one of the great cinematic masters on Psycho, while on the Snowbeast he was stuck with an insipid director for hire.  

The two scariest moments in Snowbeast.

Credits
Cast: Bo Svenson (Gar Seberg), Yvette Mimieux (Ellen Seberg), Robert Logan (Tony Rill), Clint Walker (Sheriff Paraday), Sylvia Sidney (Carrie Rill), Thomas Bobson (Buster), Annie McEnroe (Heidi)

Director: Herb Wallerstein
Writer:  Joseph Stefano
Running Time: 86 min

Revenge of the Creature (1955)

The Creature From the Black Lagoon was such a smash hit that it was inevitable that the studio was going to produce a sequel; this is Universal Studios, after all, who were the king of the Monster movies.  Interestingly, Revenge of the Creature was a rarity (for the time) in that it went into production before the first movie was released.  This is common practice now a days (where studios often have their movies planned out years in advance) but pretty much unheard of in the 1950s.

Revenge of the Creature maybe the most contrived and awkwardly scripted out of all the Universal Monster movies (which is saying quite a lot). For instance, it’s about the twenty minute mark where the heroine, Helen Dobson (Lori Nelson), makes her first appearance and her first lines are awkwardly scripted exposition about the Gill Man (she is being interviewed by a reporter).  Our (sort of) main character, Professor Clete Ferguson (John Agar), doesn’t first appear until about the fifteen minutes in, has a few lines of a dialogue (he learns the Gill Man has been capture and taken to Marine Land) and then doesn’t reappear until about the half hour mark. That’s a considerable chunk of screen time that is devoted to supporting characters. Indeed, a first time viewer might assume that Joe Hayes (John Bromfield) is the main character because not only does he capture the Gill Man, but also awakens the creature from its coma.  Not to mention, he is romantic linked to Helen Dobson; he waves at her while he’s trying to revive the Gill Man in a water tank.  Then Professor Ferguson enters the picture and Joe Hayes is relegated as a romantic rival to Ferguson before being killed off by the Gill Man.  I can only imagine what John Bromfield’s reaction to the script must have been, “Alright I’m the lead character.  I capture the Gill Man.  I get the girl…..wait, who the hell is Professor Ferguson. Where is my character? He just got KILLED! WHAT?!”

 

Maybe Jack Arnold and company were trying to subvert audiences’ expectations by making them believe Joe Hayes was the main character only for Professor Ferguson to take his place.  I don’t know. It’s an odd decision. It also odd how the movie  abandons  the love triangle that it sets up; Professor Ferguson, after having asked Helen out on a date,  is annoyed that Hayes is trying to cut in on his action, but other than this brief scene the two men enjoy a fairly cordial relationship.

The main problem I have with this substitution of leads is that John Bromfield has much stronger screen presence than John Agar and is far more interesting to watch. His Joe Hayes’ is a fairly arrogant character but also exhibits true bravery and compassion; this is best represented in the scene where he revives the comatose Gill Man. The Gill Man could awaken at any moment and possibly kill him, but he carries on with his job.  In the commentary for Revenge of the Creature, Lori Nelson states that she had a huge crush on John Bromfield, which might explain why there is zero chemistry between John Agar and her.  

The best word to describe John Agar is affable; he comes across as being a man who would be more comfortable running a grocery store than being a movie star. He exudes friendliness (his co-stars have nothing but good things to say about him), but is an extremely rigid leading man.  Though, in fairness to John Agar, the script really doesn’t give him much to do.  While he is kind of stiff, at least Agar is putting forth an actual effort.  If you want to see a truly dreary leading man, check out Hugh Marlowe in Earth vs. the Flying Saucers.  After watching that movie, you will appreciate Agar’s jovial performance. The most surprising aspect of Revenge of the Creature is there is no clash of ideology between Ferguson and Hayes. They are essentially the same: both of them put their moves on Helen moments after meeting her; both of them are extremely opportunistic, and neither of them seems to have any qualms about keeping the Gill Man in captivity.  Joe Hayes is, essentially, the human villain of the piece, but Ferguson doesn’t once object to his method. In fact, Ferguson inflicts far more pain on the Gill Man than Hayes ever does; Ferguson shocks the Gill Man with a cattle prod, with Helen’s assistance, in attempt at conditioning the creature to obey verbal commands.  Ferguson expresses regret at having to use the cattle prod, but he continues with the experiment any ways. 

In The Creature From the Black Lagoon, David and Mark were on opposite ends of ideological spectrum and had distinct ideas about the Gill Man. David genuinely wanted to study the Gill Man and its environment, while Mark  only wanted to exploit the creature for financial gain. There is genuine tension between the two characters and it culminates in a fist fight. When Mark shoots a spear gun in David’s direction, we initially believe his trying to kill David, but it turns out that he fired the shot to scare off the Gill Man. I also find it odd that Hayes is killed off so early; the Gill Mans offs him at the end of the second act. Normally, the human villain would get his just comeuppance in the final reel, but nope, Joe Hayes bites it in a fairly anti-climatic manner. 

The only thing that really distinguishes Ferguson from Hayes (other than physical appears) is that Hayes is much more active character. Ferguson and Helen are extremely passive characters. After the Gill Man has killed Joe Hayes and escaped from Marine Land, what do our heroes do? Do they organize a search party for the Gill Man? Do they mourn the loss of a colleague? NOPE!!!! They go on a romantic getaway.   They go for a carefree swim and then, later that night, out dancing! Have they forgotten the Gill Man is still on the loose? This leads to an extremely contrived third act where the Gill Man is magically able to find Helen.  He just happens to emerge right outside the very motel she is staying at. How? Are they telepathically linked? The movie doesn’t indicate so. Later, he breaks into a night club and abducts Helen, while everyone runs out of frame. How was he able to find her? It’s a good thing, for the Gill Man, that they didn’t stray too far from the ocean while going on their romantic getaway.  These are quite possibly the laziest protagonists in 1950s sci-fi.   It’s only after Helen has been abducted by the Gill Man that Ferguson joins in on a search party. 

This scene occurs AFTER the Gill Man has escaped and Joe Hayes has been killed!
OUR PROTAGONISTS, ladies and gentlemen!!!! 

It’s really hard to evaluate Lori Nelson’s acting, because Helen Dobson is purely an eye candy role.  She looks great in bathing suit!!! The only conflict, and characterization, given to her is whether she should continue being an ichthyologist, or if she should get married and have children. I’m sure most modern viewers will cringe at this scene.  It also doesn’t help that Ferguson seems to chide her for wanting a career.  Normally, I wouldn’t fault a movie for delving into a character development, but these characters are simply not that interesting.  In fact, it genuinely surprised me how much screen time is devoted to the Ferguson/Helen romance when the movie’s main selling point is the Gill Man. The movie really drags in the second act and really doesn’t pick up until Helen has been taken by the Gill Man. 

The Gill Man is, by far, the most interesting character in the entire movie, because it is, essentially, the protagonist of the entire series.  In the first movie, it only kills because its territory has been intruded upon by outsiders.  In the second movie, the Gill Man is taken from his naturally habitat and held in captivity (while tourists gawk at it from an observation window).  The Gill Man doesn’t have a moral compass, so it naturally lashes out at those who have wronged him (or get in his way).  Our human protagonists don’t seem to have any qualms about putting the Gill Man on exhibition, and only really view the creature as a test subject.  If Revenge of the Creature were made now a days there would undoubtedly be a subplot about cloning the Gill Man and using it for military purposes.  There would be some military hotshot barking orders at our scientist heroes, while they would insist upon more time (e.g. Jurassic World).  Thankfully, Revenge of the Creature was made in a simpler time (and on a fairly small budget) hence this potential subplot never sees the light of day.

It is interesting how Revenge of the Creature seems to anticipate the Slasher movies of the 1980s.  It maybe an early example of a movie mixing sex and horror; in one scene the Gill Man stalks Helen outside her motel room and stares  at her while she disrobes to take a shower. This is fairly tame by modern standards but was fairly steamy for the time (Lori Nelson plays most of the scene in her undies).  Revenge of the Creature may also be the first “dead teenager” movie; the Gill Man brutally murders two college frat boys that run to the aid of the unconscious Helen. One of them is thrown against a tree – predating Jason Voorhees smashing a female camper against a tree in Friday the 13^th, Part VII: The New Blood. It’s a fairly violent murder scene for 1955. Though, it is awkwardly stage (you can see the wire pulling the stuntman towards the tree).  Why do I watch these movies?  If you ever feel the urge to watch Revenge of the Creature, here is my advice: Watch the first fifteen minutes and then fast forward through all the dull scenes with Professor Ferguson and Helen – it will make for a more fun and interesting movie. 

My rating (just for this review) ** ½  (out of ****)

Credits
Cast:  John Agar (Professor Clete Ferguson), Lori Nelson (Helen Dobson), John Bromfield (Joe Hayes), Nestor Paiva (Lucas), Grandon Rhodes (Jackson Foster), Dave Willock (Lou Gibson), Robert B. Williams (George Johnson), Charles Cane (Captain of Police ), Ricou Browning (The Gill Man – In Water/Lab Technician), Tom Hennesy (The Gill Man – On Land/ Marine Land Diver), Clint Eastwood (Jennings), Brett Halsey (Pete).
Director: Jack Arnold
Screenplay: Martin Berkeley, William Alland (story).
Running Time: 82 min.