Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Leofwine_draca Wow! Every once in a while a B-movie comes along which makes you sit up in your seat and take note, and this cheesy, low-budget monster movie is such a film. From the production company of legendary exploitation king Roger Corman, this is an exciting, sometimes funny monster rampage romp with plenty of gratuitous violence and nudity to keep things moving swiftly along. What more can you ask for? We'll, there's plenty more. For a start, the cast is populated by B-movie stalwarts, including wooden hero Doug McClure. This was sadly McClure's last venture into the creature features (after he'd spent years in Britain fighting papier-mache creations in the likes of THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT), but he goes out with a bang, shooting up and fighting loads of the abominable fish-men. He's supported by plenty of actresses who find themselves in peril, including a surprisingly resourceful Ann Turkel and Cindy Weintraub. Vic Morrow also hams it up as an unbelievably stupid cannery employee.The template of this film is typical of any monster movie; first off, we have isolated sporadic attacks, then an investigation, and finally an all out rampage with hundreds of people running and screaming from the beasts until they're finally defeated. This makes the film feel like an updated CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, and indeed it is: without the gore and nudity, this would fit in happily with the other monster larks of the 1950s. The first two thirds of the film show us these isolated attacks with glee. Almost every attack has a half-naked woman running away from these monsters, it's surprising how these women are so unlucky in getting their clothes ripped off! Corman cleverly decided to keep his monsters under wraps until the final third, but they don't disappoint when we finally do see them...in fact, they're excellent! This doesn't come as much of a surprise actually when you consider that Rob Bottin, who also created THE THING, was responsible for them. The seaweed-covered, slimy-looking monsters are absolutely excellent, and it's great how there's loads of them instead of the usual one or two.Obviously the best parts of the movie are the bits where the monsters are attacking people. The best scene for me is where they burst up from underneath a pier. They also get to die messily, with blood squirting everywhere. As this was a year after ALIEN, no film would be complete without a monster bursting from a woman's chest, and this is no exception! Thankfully the rape scenes are only shown briefly. This film doesn't skimp on the violence, either, and there's plenty of gooey gore flying about. The monsters bleed red blood for a change, and frequently get the opportunity to do so! People have half their faces ripped off, are crushed, snapped, have their chests torn open, blood splashing everywhere. The fun spirit of this film shines through at all times, making it a classic example of a monster movie which seems strangely old-fashioned despite all of the extremes. Definitely worth tracking down, as this is quite difficult to find these days.

bowmanblue 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!

tristanbear12 Honestly this is nothing more than mutant sea monster raping women and killing people. The story is pretty much non-existent and the acting is also pretty bad. The characters have no real purpose, and a horrible cliché. I mean what the hell is with the puppet guy and how did he seduce the chic into having sex with him? I guess I could make a summary of what the characters are fighting for though, hmm....Let's see. Well I guess it's based around this small fishing village, where salmon is their main recourse and profit. There are two "main" groups of fisherman. One of which wants to experiment to make bigger salmon and the other group who is against the idea. There really is no clear "good guy" in the movie though. In conclusion, The film can bring a few good laughs on just how bad it is if you don't really think about and watch with some friends while having a few good beers.The verdict? A guilty pleasure, so bad it's entertaining and a bit silly. 4/10

gavin6942 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.