Humanoids from the Deep (1980)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

As Good As It Gets

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Humanoids from the Deep: Directed by Barbara Peeters and written by Frank Arnold, Martin B Cohen and William MartinI had read about this early 80s movie many times in high school. There was an encyclopedia entirely about horror movies and I read and reread that a hundred million times. This movie came up a few times. I finally gave it a chance. Was it good? Not really in the traditional sense. It has the plot of Jaws without the hunting bits at the end. It seems more like Piranha. I wouldn't be surprised if Roger Corman reused script from that movie to make this. The title card for this read Monster(Humanoids from the Deep) in super tiny print. I think they might have been embarassed by that title. They shouldn't be. Embrace the schlock you are. You are a silly mutant fish man movie where the monsters take the women for their own procreating purposes and viciously murder the men in the process. The costumes are cumbersome and you can tell they are very cheap. They look like lumbering giant catfish people with stilt arms like early Freddy Krueger. They are not terrifying. The music says they are suppose to be but I'm not sure. This movie had some sleazy elements thrown for good effect. It was plainly obvious from watching it that this stuff was added after the fact to make the movie compete in the sleaze ball o rama that was horror in the early 80s. The practical gore effects were terrific though. Outside of those suits, the rest fit in well with the atmosphere of this movie. It is a very short film and it runs in guns blazing but still tries to maintain an air of mystery as to what might be happening. It works okay. This movie is a flash in the pan type of movie. It's not god awful. It happens in a flash and you forget about most of the movie except that it's about raping fish monsters. I give this movie a C.

They were killing dogs in this movie, and tore out their internal organs, there are no animal abuse disclaimers in the credits.--How in the Hell could these actors agree to be in this movie, some people just don't care about what happens as long as they are making a buck. I guess i'm the only one who ever saw this who cared enough to bring attention to it.--Lets get this rating down on the movie folks,

Please, don't get me wrong. I knew when I watched a film made in 1980 called 'Humanoids From the Deep' that I wasn't expecting a major work of art with dynamic character arcs, unique plot points or even reasonable special effects. I was simply hoping for a 'so-bad-it's-good' film. I got half of what I was looking for. It is bad. It's just not that good.I know it's a 'cult classic' therefore there are a lot of people out there who have found it both good and bad in equal doses, but I just wasn't one of them. When asked to sum up the plot, I simply say: refer to the title. It basically tells you everything you need to know. Monsters from underwater kill people. Oh, maybe I should say that they mainly kill MEN. Women, who seem to spend much of their time running around in bikinis, get other treatment – treatment that makes death look dignified in comparison.I've seen many cheap horror films, all of which used their lack of budget as a bonus. A horror film doesn't have to be expensive to be scary/good. This one didn't have much money for the monsters. And it showed. They're not really in it for much of the first half and, when they do turn up, they're not really worth the wait.The acting, despite having cult actor Doug McClure hamming it up, still isn't memorable enough to be that interesting. It was just all an exercise in tragic mediocrity. There are a thousand better monster films out there – a thousand that have better special effects, a thousand that have better acting and a thousand that are scarier. And, all of these are still cheesy so-bad-they're-good B-movies. It's not even worth comparing the likes of Humanoids From the Deep to Hollywood's 'big budget' horror films that are actually designed to be good, rather than bad-good.If you really like cheesy eighties monster movies then you might like this. I normally do, I just couldn't get my mind to sink low enough on this occasion to appreciate it. However, I am still tempted to watch the nineties remake! I guess I get what I deserve!

Scientific experiments backfire and produce horrific mutations: half-man, half-fish which terrorize a small fishing village by killing the men and raping the women.Apparently this film was offered to Joe Dante, who turned it down, and this opened the door for Barbara Peeters. I would rather it had been done by Dante, of course, but Peeters was a Corman veteran (making such films as "Eat My Dust!" with Ron Howard). This was to be her last feature film, and she subsequently worked in television and did commercials. Allegedly, when Peeters turned in her film, Corman (the producer) did not find it exploitative enough and asked Oscar-nominated director Jimmy T. Murakami (who was working with Corman on "Battle Beyond the Stars" at the time) to shoot some additional footage of the humanoids attacking random (naked) women. The additional scenes are mixed in decently enough (you cannot tell they were not original unless you are looking for them), but add nothing of substance to the film. If the nudity helped sell the film, then it was another Corman brilliant move. But did it?And it actually changes the subplot to some degree -- rather than just humanoids attacking a small fishing village in Washington, we now have them trying to breed with human women. This is more or less glossed over in the film as shot by Peeters.Some questions are raised about the scientific realism of the picture. One might be surprised to learn that a marine scientist does not know how to pronounce "coelacanth". And there is the fundamental flaw that they presume evolution pushes species towards a more human state. That is certainly not true. We could also wonder why all the humanoids are apparently male, or why they would be attracted to humans, or how such a union could produce offspring... but at this point we should just stop thinking and realize the writers obviously did not care about basing the story in any kind of fact (and that is okay). Where the film deserves credit is in its gamble to show the humanoids in full view and often. Generally, the rule is to reveal the creature only at the last moment, because the audience might laugh if they see the zippers. Or you can go the other way -- like "Octaman" -- and just expose the creature as soon as possible and just keep showing it. Here there is a bit of a compromise, though leaning in the "Octaman" direction. Luckily, these are some darn fine costumes and make for a good creature feature. Lastly, the film has taken on a new life of its own not for what it is but for who was involved. This is far from Corman's best work (it is hard to top the days of Vincent Price and the Poe Films). But we now have the benefit of hindsight to see that the no-names on this film went on to be hugely successful, far overshadowing both Peeters and Corman. Composer James Horner ("Titanic") did the score, makeup artist Rob Bottin ("The Thing") made the suits, Mark Goldblatt ("Terminator") was an editor, and Gale Anne Hurd (also "Terminator") worked as a Production Assistant. It is no coincidence that James Cameron ("Terminator", "Titanic") was also a Corman vet. These connections alone make the film of great historical value, even if we can quibble on its critical merit.But really, it is just a whole lot of mindless fun with blood, guts, and a one-man Indian tribe.