Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Robert J. Maxwell 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.

kai ringler I really enjoyed this movie, you have a pretty decent plot where a scientist has created some kind of death ray at the bottom of the ocean, to help the military in someway, but instead it backfires on him as his assistant is trying to sell his secrets to some unknown foreign country, also complicating the matter is some kind of giant mutated lizard or reptile guarding the uranium death ray,, two government agents are sent in to figure out what is going on , with so many people being burnt to a crisp along the beach, our main character has to decide what is best for himself and mankind as he struggles to reach a decision once people start dropping dead left and right. all together I found this movie to be very enjoyable.

hung_fao_tweeze Is it just me or is there something grating with a movie that has a title that has nothing to do with the movie?? There is no phantom. It's a creature that sits just offshore at the bottom of the ocean protecting a glowing radioactive substance for some reason. And the creature is not from 10,000 leagues. People are able to dive down to the creature without being crushed by the water pressure, after all. Taking this into account and the length of time to get from the creature back into that leaking generic rowboat that absolutely everybody is using, I would place the creature at about 30-40 feet. Of course, the movie would have probably not fanned interest with a title like 'The Thing From 5 or 6 Fathoms'. Oh, well. Yes, it's a low budget capsule of a movie - not particularly well-acted and motivations are not consistent. For example, knowing that a creature you created is killing people in a body of water your lovely daughter may decide to swim in doesn't motivate you to want to eliminate the creature, I don't know what will? But when confronted with these facts, the 'scientist' is unable to decide. Yes, let's let the creature live so it can kill even more people. Good idea! And then there is this 'secret agent' woman that has somehow convinced this young hot-head that he must break into the scientist's lab to discover the secret that is being worked on because there is a lot of money involved. One assumes that the hot-head's life is in peril and yet he cannot figure out a way to break down a single wooden door (despite the locks) to get at the secret. This was before 'big-brother, folks. Wait until after-hours and ax that baby down. Even the so-called fisherman casting his net at the beginning of the movie obviously doesn't have a clue how to actually cast a net properly. Somehow, nearly all of the men in this flick have nothing else to wear on the beach except dress shoes, suits and ties. Formal business attire on a beach is somehow disturbing. Keep an eye out for the '3 Stooges-like' stunt where hot-head gets a fist in the face from behind the beach umbrella he expects to find the lovely 'secret agent'. Okay, okay. It is a low budget release with almost 4 sets, 1 boat, a creature that sincerely tries to be threatening. Oh, yes, and there is radiation involved - so that should be a cause of some trepidation for the 1950s crowd living in the dread fear of the time. And the script was based on a story someone had actually written!!But I like bad movies. This one isn't entirely terrible and does have some entertainment value despite the gaps in logic and credibility. Good for a rainy day, young kids who aren't dismissive of movies without color and special effects, and popcorn.

bensonmum2 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?