The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues (1955)

Very well executed

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

There's obviously no point in claiming that this is anything like a good story. And yet... There is a strange emptiness that hovers over this film. Consider the opening shot of of a desolate boat in the middle of nowhere and the sound of bells tolling. Or when the body is found on the beach the odd poses of the people investigating the scene. 'Investigating' is not the right word. They stand like figures in a De Chirico painting. And then there is a sense that everyone is under observation. People watching each other. Then silent moments of anguish fill in the blanks. Milner holds reaction shots curiously long. Uncomfortably long. And it's fascinating. Were this film in a European language it might be seen as an existential statement.

I watched this mainly because Cathy Downs was in it. I'd always thought she was quietly sexy in "My Darling Clementine" and that Victor Mature was a fool. Besides, she was a trained nurse. Nurses can make a good living and she could have supported me, I mean Victor Mature, while he lay around getting drunk and gambling. She couldn't act but she had a mellow and very feminine voice.Here she is, still an attractive woman, but older and stuck in the role of "the scientist's daughter," which all science fiction movies seem to have. (Sometimes they're "the scientist's assistant.") The very nervous scientist here is Michael Whalen, who's doing some suspicious stuff to the sea water somewhere around Laguna Beach. Kent Taylor is a familiar face, and is the visiting oceanographer who comes poking around, his face a handsome mask of make up.It's putting it mildly to say that none of the roles scintillate because, in fact, nothing in the movie is worth paying any attention to. It's all so crudely done that a viewer is forced to ask who the intended audience was. Certainly nobody over eight years old. Maybe some tribe in the New Guinea highlands who had never seen a film before.Of course there are budget constraints to be taken into account, but a talented director can work around these weaknesses with a decent story. I'm not thinking of Val Lewton at RKO because he had the advantage of being able to use standing sets and, unquestionably, a better budget. This production couldn't afford any extras, and only one bit part -- a single officer from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office. But take a look at something as cheaply made as "The Little Fugitive" to see how an engaging minor film can be made for practically nothing.Dan Milner, the director, commits the first botch even before the credits roll. We see a man in a rowboat. (We'll see that rowboat again.) A man-sized monster -- meaning a man in a ridiculous monster suit -- rises up from the depths, overturns the dinghy, and attacks the occupant, who washes up on the beach later with radiation burns. The monster can hardly move under the water, what with the actor encased in all that flabby rubber. Val Lewton was too tasteful to show a shabby monster openly. And how can any director allow Kent Taylor to emerge from the ocean with his hair gelled and perfectly combed? It doesn't call for genius.I don't think the plot deserves any scrutiny. I don't think the movie deserves much further comment. It isn't bad enough to be funny. It's just plain bad.

This DVD release, laughingly from Front Row Entertainment was typical D movie status from the Drive-In movie days of the 50's. Starring many unrecognizable actors with some notable exceptions that went on to do many hours of 60's TV shows. This film was shot on location at Malibu's "Paradise Cove" and on sound stage sets. The Cove was the TV home of Jim Garner's detective "Jim Rockford". Unfortunately this schlock film has none of that charm or suspense. The movie was produced and directed by the Milner brothers and they broke the cardinal first and most important law of low-budget monster movies, "Never show the film's monster to the audience until the very end of the picture!" The film's underwater dwelling half-lion & half-sea serpent is shown in all it's cheapness in the first 1 minute of this film, leaving the audience's interest to drain out of this film like a deflating party balloon. This 'formula' film has a mad small-town scientist, his attractive unmarried daughter, a visiting scientist stranger, many evil henchmen working for the mad scientist, a female international spy and a government police officer. The only plot element that wasn't the usual expected schlock was that this radioactive ocean 'ray' was going to be sold to an evil foreign government by a henchman for money, but that was foiled by the mad scientist, himself due to his guilty conscience. Some not expected hilarious moments were enjoyed by this reviewer when I inspected the film's mad scientist lab/set. Even though the scientist was supposedly working with highly radioactive materials, the scientist's protective suit was really only a fireman's cloth asbestos flame suit. Not much protection there! And also it was funny to see the radioactive experiment area was shielded behind a silly draw-string fabric curtain that was hiding a simple fish-tank. This fish-tank experiment container was made to look very ominous by the phony use of bright lights with an accompanied 'ray' sound effect. This set was ludicrous and looked very cheaply built. It was obviously on little budget. This film was not enjoyable in a bad/odd D movie way, just plain bad. The film went on too long and could have had many endings that were more entertaining than this very predictable one. This is waste of your time to view. Other sea monster D films like "Monster from Piedras Blancas" are better and more enjoyable. See the others.

The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues, huh? It's more like The Phantom from 10 Feet. The "Phantom" is as lame a creature as I've seen recently in a 50s sci-fi/horror movie. No movement to speak of, ridiculous looking, and only threatening if you get within 3 feet – we're not talking The Creature from the Black Lagoon here. And The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues commits one of the most unforgivable sins a bad sci-fi/horror movie can – it eliminates all tension and mystery by showing us a good, clear shot of the monster within the first 15 seconds of the movie. What a huge mistake! And when your monster is this bad, you really need to keep it under-wraps as long as you can. This is "Bad Movie Making 101" type stuff.I'm a fan of 50s sci-fi/horror – even the bad ones. But when I run across one this dull, I've got to be honest and give it the rating it deserves. Actually, "dull" hardly seems strong enough. The paper thin plot is as dull as dishwater. We're promised death rays, but none are forthcoming. We're told of radiation burns, but the bodies are all conveniently face-down. And we're lead to believe that there's a large Oceanography Institute nearby, but all we see is a small office and an even smaller lab. What plot the movie does have takes a backseat to incessant conversations between characters I couldn't have cared less about. Can a movie be completely filled with padding in the form of pointless dialogue? The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues comes close. And what a group of characters! Again, about as dull as you'll run across – a misguided but dull scientist, his clueless and dull daughter, a good but dull scientist/hero, a nosey but dull secretary, a gruff and dull investigator, and an idiotic, homicidal, but ultimately dull lab assistant. I think I'm being generous with my 3/10.Before I end this, there are a few things in The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues that I feel I must comment on:1. The young hero/scientist comes walking out of the ocean and just happens to trip over the only person within sight – the film's female lead. What are the chances of that happening?2. Are we really supposed to believe that the local fishermen, scientists, sightseers, the Oceanography Institute, and everyone else really share the same row boat? Were we not supposed to notice the same boat going out to sea over and over? That little boat sure gets some mileage.3. How convenient is it that all the dead bodies and the aforementioned row boat always seems to wash up on the same spot of beach? Just a lucky coincidence I guess.4. Did anyone else find it odd that the movie's young female lead dresses in the living room? For that matter, did anyone find it odd that the bathroom/shower was that close to the front door? And what about that scene where the hero helps the young heroine with her zipper? Can you say cliché?5. Why the need for a subplot involving foreign spies? Granted, Helene Stanton is about the best thing The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues has going for it, but really, why is she here?