Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

JohnHowardReid Although the writing credits are totally dissimilar, this movie is an unashamed re-make of The Sea Creature (1956). Although the names of all the characters have been changed, they – as well as the plot and most of the dialogue – are identical. But what is not identical are the fine performances in the original movie. Les Tremayne makes a game stab at the role of the hypnotist but comes nowhere near the power and panache of the Chester Morris portrayal. The rest of the cast – with but one exception – come nowhere near matching the original players. The one exception is Pat Delany. She is not only the equal of Marla English in looks, but is actually superior in acting ability. However, so far as the screenplay is concerned, all that Tony Huston (posing as Enrique Touceda) has done is to change the effectiveness of the original climax and to add a couple of rock numbers for Scotty McKay. As for the "creature" herself, she is largely and laughably inept, both in make-up and acting ability. Also of little appeal is Larry Buchanan's wearisomely, TV oriented direction with its plethora of isolated and arbitrarily inserted close-ups. Admittedly, a few of the scenes (e.g. the teaser Prologue) are inventively handled. Some of the photography is also imaginative (e.g. the silhouette of the black-caped, top-hated hypnotist on the cliff top). Production values are also not too bad, considering the film was obviously produced on a very, very tight budget.

Rainey Dawn What a terrible made for TV remake film - but loads of fun. This film is the definition of cheesy z-movies. It's a remake of The She-Creature (1956) which is a pretty good B-film and this film is the groovy 1967 Z-film remade for television.The creature costume in this one is hysterically funny but part of what makes this film fun. The other fun part is the out of sight band that is there for the entertainment of the guest singing there groovy great Batman song! --- A shameless plug for the Batman TV Series (1966–1968) I am guessing.Okay this is a horrible film but in a way more fun to watch than the original because this one is laughable whereas the original is just a pretty good film.3/10

gavin6942 A hypnotist and his assistant come to town, presenting an act -- real or contrived -- that features the assistant traveling back in her mind to past lives and revealing details of them to the audience. At the same time, a prehistoric monster is ravaging the community, killing beach bums right and left.Many have written this film off as worthless and a poor remake. I can't comment on the remake aspect, because I didn't see the original. I would hardly call the film worthless, though. I found it to be highly entertaining and a very captivating story in its own right.Yes, the film quality is poor, and if you remove the scenes of the beach parties the film doesn't even last a complete hour. But the actors are quite good, especially the man who plays the hypnotist -- giving Montag the Magnificent (from Lewis' "Wizard of Gore") a run for his money. Ultimately, of course, Montag is the better character, but only marginally.I am still not entirely clear on the connection between the hypnotist and the sea monster (a man in a diving suit and cheesy mask). The link is explained at the end of the film, but doesn't seem to make rational sense. I'd explain that more, but I don't want to give away any twists. I would just like to say if you don't mind low quality 1960s films, this one is worth a viewing.

MartinHafer Considering that this film was made by Larry Buchanan, you can't help but assume it will be a horrible film. After all, Buchanan made a ton of low-budget AND terrible films in his illustrious career. For most, this might be a bad thing, but fans of bad films (like myself) actually seek out his films because they are usually laughably bad.At first, I was concerned however, as the film didn't seem all that bad. Sure, the monster was recycled from several previous cheesy films, but the plot involving the evil hypnotist seemed interesting. However, considering that the film never really connected this mind control with the appearance of the murderous creature, the film sure was confusing...and dopey.Les Tremayne plays the hypnotist/mentalist and he actually seemed like a pretty good actor--but he was unfortunately stuck in a bad film. He had an assistant--a pretty lady who was under his total power. She would travel back in town a describe previous lives she'd lived to amazed audiences of rubes. Later, a doubtful psychic investigator (an air force captain whose hair was too long to be a real military man) tries to break Tremayne's hold on the lady. At the same time, there are a series of silly murders on the nearby beach--though as I said before, there really is no explanation of how the evil Tremayne and the somnabalistic lady are involved.In many ways, the film is like THE HORROR OF PARTY BEACH (a truly dreadful film) and the classic silent, THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI. The evil mentalist and his patsy are there--as is the dumb bug-eyed monster (a guy in a diving suit, rubber gloves and a silly mask).What's to like? Well, other than Tremayne and a mildly interesting mentalist concept, nothing. The film is poorly directed and written and just screams "cheese" from start to finish. Only for the lovers of bad cinema.