Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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.

daikaiju1954 More like The Phamtom from 15-20 Fathoms. The creature only shows up for about 5-8 minutes combined throughout the entire film. We never even see it go on land or even hear it roar. The rest of the film is a boring mystery-murder story. A few parallels to Godzilla stand out. One, the creature is reptilian, like Godzilla (though man sized). Two, spawned/awakened by radiation. Three, the deadly atomic beam which sinks the ship. Fourth, the genius scientist gives up his life to stop the monster.Fun fact: The Phantom From 10,000 Leagues ended up as the bottom half of a double- bill, below Roger Corman's first science fiction film as director, The Day The World Ended.

Spikeopath The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues is directed by Dan Milner and written by Dorys Lukather and Lou Rusoff. It stars Kent Taylor, Cathy Downs and Michael Whalen. Music is by Ronald Stein and photography by Brydon Baker.Plot, for what it's worth, sees an amphibian like creature suddenly start killing any unfortunate human being that strays near its lair. And just what is that glowing thing down there? An absolute hack job attempting to cash in on the success of far better films of its ilk that were all the rage in the 1950s. It's the sort of Z grade film that gives the fans of creaky creature features and sci-fi schlockers a bad name. Right off the bat the makers commit a big error by introducing us to the man in the rubber suit straight away, a hopeless creation that's about as scary as the insipid dialogue that litters the production. Dialogue that's delivered by a cast of wooden actors who bring laughs on account of the fact they seem to be taking their roles seriously!Milner's direction accounts to being a number of similar scenes strung together at different intervals, with the creature's appearances being as rare as any suspense is. While the 10,000 Leagues aspect is rendered a big joke since the creature is in water that's only about 5 fathoms deep! I wonder if the makers realised that just one league is 3 nautical miles?!Is it in the "so bad it's good" category? Absolutely not! There's a modicum of science interest involving genetic tests and atomic energy dabblings, but this is lost amongst the laborious pacing as the characters do incredibly dumb things. While somewhat surprisingly Ronald Stein's foreboding music is decent and deserves a better movie. It also has a great title, with awesome poster art to match, but all told it's a major "league" clunker and only makes one cherish even more the likes of Creature from the Black Lagoon and The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. 2/10

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?