Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

JohnHowardReid Although the writing credits are totally dissimilar, this movie is an unashamed re-make of The Sea Creature (1956). Although the names of all the characters have been changed, they – as well as the plot and most of the dialogue – are identical. But what is not identical are the fine performances in the original movie. Les Tremayne makes a game stab at the role of the hypnotist but comes nowhere near the power and panache of the Chester Morris portrayal. The rest of the cast – with but one exception – come nowhere near matching the original players. The one exception is Pat Delany. She is not only the equal of Marla English in looks, but is actually superior in acting ability. However, so far as the screenplay is concerned, all that Tony Huston (posing as Enrique Touceda) has done is to change the effectiveness of the original climax and to add a couple of rock numbers for Scotty McKay. As for the "creature" herself, she is largely and laughably inept, both in make-up and acting ability. Also of little appeal is Larry Buchanan's wearisomely, TV oriented direction with its plethora of isolated and arbitrarily inserted close-ups. Admittedly, a few of the scenes (e.g. the teaser Prologue) are inventively handled. Some of the photography is also imaginative (e.g. the silhouette of the black-caped, top-hated hypnotist on the cliff top). Production values are also not too bad, considering the film was obviously produced on a very, very tight budget.

Rainey Dawn What a terrible made for TV remake film - but loads of fun. This film is the definition of cheesy z-movies. It's a remake of The She-Creature (1956) which is a pretty good B-film and this film is the groovy 1967 Z-film remade for television.The creature costume in this one is hysterically funny but part of what makes this film fun. The other fun part is the out of sight band that is there for the entertainment of the guest singing there groovy great Batman song! --- A shameless plug for the Batman TV Series (1966–1968) I am guessing.Okay this is a horrible film but in a way more fun to watch than the original because this one is laughable whereas the original is just a pretty good film.3/10

Woodyanders Chasrismatic, but deranged hypnotist Dr. John Basso (a smooth portrayal by Les Tremayne, who's a lot better than this dreck deserves) uses his powers to put his beautiful assistant Doreena (the insanely lovely Pat Delaney) under his wicked spell and resurrect an ancient lethal prehistoric monster (Bryon Lord in a hilariously hokey and unconvincing rubber suit) that goes on the expected killing spree. Man, does this baby possess all the right wrong stuff to qualify as a real four star stinkeroonie: hopelessly all-thumbs (non)direction by legendary schlockmeister Larry Buchanan, a plodding pace, infrequent and poorly staged monster attack scenes, crude, grainy cinematography by Robert C. Jessup (the occasional fades-outs are especially primitive), a meandering and uneventful narrative, a drab, talky script by Tony Huston, mostly insipid acting from a bland cast (Aron Kincaid in particular is an absolute stiff as drippy psychic expert Captain Theodore Dell), a pervasive lethargy that completely destroys all the tension and momentum, and a thoroughly botched limp and unexciting conclusion. Singer Scotty McKay briefly pops up to belt out a couple of swinging surf-rock songs with a groovy band while a bunch of teens energetically dance the frug. Sure, this film is a turkey, but it has a certain singularly inept and inert charm to it which in turn makes this flick weirdly entertaining in a so-awful-it's-awesome sort of way. An absolute tacky hoot.

Cristi_Ciopron To all the Larry Buchanan fellow _completists, a salute! I think Larry Buchanan does a better job in CREATURE OF DESTRUCTION than in IN THE YEAR 2889, if these haughty terms of quality should be applied at all to his flicks. CREATURE OF DESTRUCTION proves being a supernatural thriller given as a monster flick; as your aunts probably already informed you, the monster is not scary at all—but, face it, kids, who needs some scares? In short now, CREATURE OF DESTRUCTION is about a parapsychologist who has a very interesting show, he goes on tour with a girl whom he hypnotizes and she predicts awful murders that do not delay taking place. In the end, the plot proves to be too tricky for Buchanan, who lefts unsolved the enigma. The women are moderately pretty; and, changing now the subject, if, while watching, you do not experience that feeling of falseness, of dreadful phoniness provoked by such outings, then you probably are already grievously disturbed.Are any movies worse than this? Yes, almost any soap opera I know.