Why the Poltergeist remake will beat Crimson Peak at the box office, and how Alice Robb explained it.

Last year, Alice Robb wrote about what a horror fan is on The New Republic website, and the article wasn’t flattering.  I posted a response, citing how horror fans could defuse any argument used in the article, should family members, coworkers or acquaintances ask why you are such a monster.

However, two big horror movies hitting theaters this year caused me to think about Robb's article.  First, we have the 3D remake of Poltergeist, hitting theaters on May 22.  Guillermo del Toro’s latest, Crimson Peak, opens on October 16, a more appropriate date for a true horror film. 

Yes, I'm calling this a TRUE HORROR FILM.

I hope I'm not wrong.

You can check out trailers for both films on YouTube.  However, after seeing the trailer for Poltergeist in the theater last week, I was reminded of Robb’s article and why I believe the remake will likely be the bigger box office draw of the two. 

The trailer for Poltergeist was even more sense assaulting in the theater than on a TV or computer monitor, thanks to the big screen and a Dolby Surround Sound system.  Yet, it was also a case of déjà vu for me, as I saw the original when it opened in theaters, and multiple times since then.  Sam Raimi and company could have saved some money by just digitizing the original, as the preview shows nothing fans of the Tobe Hooper/Steven Spielberg version haven’t seen.  Little blonde girl in front of a TV (now a REALLY BIG HD TV) proclaiming, “They’re heeeere,” young boy being menaced by an animated tree, pathways leading to “the other side,” a much taller home exorcist spouting Zelda Rubinstein’s lines almost verbatim, and, of course, a scary clown.

Sorry, but the other clown was scarier.  Even in the trailer.

Seriously, I think the tagline for the film should be a redo of Rubinstein’s line, “It knows what scares you,” only with the new exorcist saying, “It knows what scared audiences in the 80s.  Now it’s ready to do it again, only with CGI effects and LOUDER MUSIC STINGS!!!”

As the trailer closed with the film’s release date, I was reminded of the article on The New Republic site, and Robb’s final assumption about horror fans, that they are males (a point she made earlier in the article) interested in dates that are “distressed women.”  In short, Horror Fans are mostly guys looking for women willing to cling to them in fear.  And, as long as the guys aren’t scared, or at least not as scared as their dates, the women enjoyed the date more (according to the study cited in the article). 

Zits says it better than I could in just four panels.  

Again, I will argue that Horror Fans are not the couples that comprise the study Robb cites in her article, but they will comprise the audience that attends the opening weekend of Poltergeist.  Despite the involvement of Sam Raimi, this film is not targeted at Horror Fans, but an audience eager for cheap jump scares, loud music stings and a reason to huddle/cuddle close in the theater. 

And, I suspect, this is the reason we don’t get many strong, atmospheric and creepy horror films, ones that play on our deeper fears and emotions.  Studios are looking for big openings, horror films that will make back their budget in a couple of days, than pull in home video sales, rather than develop an audience from word of mouth. 

Horror Fans can protest on Facebook, and our blogs (I am counting myself), that horror films can be artistic and scary, but as long as Hollywood sees a bigger box office return from the same cheap, make-the-audience-jump, crap infesting theaters over the past decade, I doubt the strong critical response to films like The Babadook and It Follows will lead to any changes in the films offered up to mainstream audiences. 

Give me a creepy pop-up book and a slow burn over cheap jump scares any day.

Also working against horror films is the tentpole mentality of the major studios.  A Poltergeist sequel is set up in the film’s trailer, as the exorcist proclaims the housing complex was built on a graveyard, but something stronger is present.  Sure, it’s a variation on a line in the original, but given the current cinematic climate, I suggest a CGI tequila vomit-worm will crawl into theaters within a couple years, if the box office returns for Poltergeist are strong enough.

I don't care how good the CGI looks.  It won't match this moment.

Nothing is going to change anytime soon, unless Horror Fans are willing to take a few risks.  We need to support the quirky independent features making it into theaters.  You might like them, or not, but vote with your dollars, Horror Fans.  We need to stop thinking about trying to change the minds of the studio executives and focus on the theater owners, especially local, independent theaters.  If we make a market, such theaters will respond and start booking independently produced horror film for a limited run.  Readers of this blog know independent theaters in Portland are finding box office success with independent horror films, and if other regional independent theaters are successful booking such films, the major studios might start paying attention. 

It’s a long shot, but better than a future of reboots, prequels and classic monsters in a shared, superhero-style universe films coming to a theater near you.

 Now, THAT"S SCARY!

Post Script: I know I've fallen into the trap of judging the Poltergeist remake based on the trailer, but the previews in theaters are suppose to draw us into the film, not repulse us.  Still, I offer my readers this promise.  Barring unforeseen circumstances, I will watch the Poltergeist remake during its opening week and offer an honest review.  As I suspect I will be buying my own ticket (what studio will offer me a preview pass after this article!), but I will likely avoid opening weekend, as I don't want to support what I suspect is a cheap ripoff.  But I will post my honest opinion and really hope I'm wrong concerning my fears about the trailer.  Stay tuned!

Why I’m dreading a Creature from the Black Lagoon remake, whether Scarlett Johansson is involved or not.

Word dropped on the Internet Thursday that Scarlett Johansson is being approached to star in the upcoming Universal remake of Creature from the Black Lagoon (click the link for the meager details). It took a bit of time for me, a devoted fan of the original film and the sequels, to formulate an opinion about this news.  But I'm okay with it, though I'll likely skip the film.  Like death, remakes of classic horror films are inevitable and as Universal Studio is looking to create a shared universe for their Classic Monsters, I knew the Gillman would end up in the mix at some point.  

And the casting of Johansson isn’t a problem either.  If the rumor is true, and, as we all know, everything on the Internet is true (please insert sarcastic tone when you reread that statement), I think it shows Universal plans to deviate from the original in a big way and that wouldn’t be bad.

But let’s get this out of the way.  Johansson would be a bit of stunt casting.  I’m not saying anything about her acting skills.  But one has to wonder if Universal isn’t looking to entice male moviegoers to the film with the promise of the underwater ballet between the female lead and the Gillman.  I doubt the studio will cast Johansson and not have her swimming in a bikini during the scene, rather than a one-piece swimsuit or a wet suit, which would be more practical for a scientist exploring the depths of the Amazon.  Nope, it will be a two-piece suit and it will look fabulous.

Yeah, this has NOTHING to do with the studio's casting decision.

Also, I think Johansson’s possible involvement spells a different direction for the remake.  If Universal is attempting to bring a star like Johansson into their Classic Monster Universe, the studio will have to rewrite the female lead.  As much as I love Julia Adams in the role of Kay, her character is a product of the 50s and will have to be rewritten to work in a remake.  And I’m sure Johansson won’t be interested in a script that reduces her character to a damsel in distress waiting to rescued (and upstaged) by a male lead during most of the movie.

A revamping of the female lead is NOT a bad thing in a remake.  Kay was a competent woman in the original, at least until the second act, when she turns into the hapless victim of a romantic pyramid between Mark, David and the Gillman.  For a modern remake, Kay’s character needs to be rebuilt, allowing her to be strong against the Gillman, even if she has a human romantic interest in the new film.  And such a character change can work, as proven by the remake of The Blob, where Shawnee Smith proves to be just as capable at battling the monster as Kevin Dillon.  I just hope the script doesn’t follow Peter Jackson’s King Kong remake, where the script tries to rationalize Ann’s affection for the creature over her attraction to her human suitor, Jack.  

Yeah, she's screaming at the start of the film, but Shawnee turns into Rambo by the end.

Regardless of how Johansson character comes across onscreen (I suspect the character would be named Kay as an homage the original film, but will be nothing like Adams’ version), my problem with the remake stems from Universal’s previous announcement, and the release of Dracula Untold, indicating a shift to more of a superhero style film.  And that is the problem.  The remake will not be helmed filmmakers wanting to bring a respectful re-imaging of the original, but a group of people interested on creating a franchise.  Say what you will about Jackson’s Kong, one can see the love and respect he had for the original.  And the remakes of The Blob, The Thing and The Fly prove that filmmakers can make solid remakes while still paying tribute to the originals.

But turning the Gillman into a pawn in a universal struggle of good and evil monsters destroys the heart of the character.  With few exceptions from the Classic Universal Monster film catalog, the monsters work best contained to their own stories, rather than a titanic struggle of good verses evil.  The Marvel Cinematic Universe works because the comics laid out the foundation, pitting hero against hero until they united as a team to overcome an overwhelming threat.  The Universal Classic Monsters work best with their own stories, depicting their struggles to exist in a world that despises them, not as pawns in an epic battle against each other.

Whether the Gillman is on the side of good or evil is irrelevant.  The fact is, the Gillman works best as a prehistoric creature looking for a mate and not well versed in modern courting techniques.  Laugh all you want at that last sentence, but it’s true.  The original Gillman was too primitive in his courting techniques, even for the 50s.  And while David embodies the perfect man for the time, Mark is the creepy in-between for Kay’s affection, a predatory suitor hidden under the veneer of civilization.

And that’s what the remake should focus on.  Sure, Johansson’s character should be more suited for current times, and the remake NEEDS the underwater ballet moment.  It’s an iconic scene and must be included, regardless of the swimwear worn by the actor.  But I worry that, in order to make the film part of a franchise, the Gillman will end up tamed by Johansson and she will use her power over him to fight on the side of “good” in the inevitable final conflict film.  You don’t sign Scarlett Johansson to a single picture in a franchise, and I can’t think of any other way the series could write her into future films.

Yeah, just ask Lori Nelson how well taming the Gillman worked for her.

And yes, I ignored the CGI verse practical effects debate, as we all know the outcome.   I suspect most of the underwater sequences will be CGI “enhanced” as well, which makes glad to have the original trilogy on DVD. 

Hell, even Zaat might look better that a CGI Gillman.

It would be easier to cheer for practical monster effects if I wasn't being groped by one.

The upcoming Living Dead Horror Convention website and Facebook page are live! And guests are being announced for CthulhuCon PDX!

The Living Dead Horror Convention website and Facebook page are now up and running.  The sites don't have much information on guests yet, but offer a few tantalizing hints as to who might be showing up.

The convention opens on Friday, November 13, at the Oregon Convention Center in Portland.  Keep checking back at the links above for more information.

CthulhuCon PDX, coming to the Crowne Plaza in Portland, OR, on April 25 and 26, has announced that S.T. Joshi, Leeman Kessler (Ask Lovecraft), Wilum Pugmire, Adam Scott Glancy, Leslie S. Klinger, Kenneth Hite, Keith Baker, William Farmer, David Barker, Liv Rainey-Smith and Alan M. Clark will be in attendance.  More guest announcements to follow, so check out the con's Facebook Page for up to date information and advance ticket sales.

Or, just keep reading The Shadow Over Portland!  I'll be sure to post updates for both events as I receive them!!

How to refute the claims about horror fans made by Alice Robb at The New Republic

We knew you were like this, and now we have proof!

Um, NO, YOU DON'T!! 

We all know it will happen.  You’ll be at a family gathering, with co-workers in the lunchroom, or hanging out with friends at a bar.  And someone who knows you like horror films will bring up this online story from The New Republicand wonder how you could be such a monster. 

You can say the author had preconceived notions of horror fans (which she obviously does, but I’ll get to that).  However, I’m sure the person bringing up the article will mention all the studies cited in the story, so what Alice Robb wrote about horror fans must be true.

Well, here at The Shadow Over Portland, we share your concerns.  And while I can offer numerous personal rebuttals, I’m sure anyone mentioning this article will not be swayed by such antidotal insights.  So I’ve taken upon myself to offer some rebuttals to the article and the studies involved.  

Now, I only read the abstracts from the links provided by the article.  But these summations, along with the tone of the article and how the author twists the studies to support her conclusion, is enough to deflate her argument.  So, here’s five simple ways to show Robb got horror fans wrong.

Admit Robb was right on one minor point.  

To be fair, admit that Robb did get one thing right.  Horror films do invoke the sympathetic nervous system, resulting in an increased heart rate and the release of stress hormones into one’s circulatory system.   The problem is, she follows with the statement, “For some, horror movies can even be fatal.”

It's just like a cardio workout....

with POPCORN!

It’s a bold assertion, one she is unable to justify.  Her first example of a death by fright involves a woman dying of a heart attack at a screening of The Passion of the Christ.  Sure, the film utilizes makeup effects similar to a horror film, but it’s wrong to imply the death in a religious film, no matter how gory or horrific, in any way backs up her statement.

The next example is a man with high blood pressure dying during a screening of Avatar.  Again, this is not a horror film.  And, though I make no claim to being able to provide the math to prove it, I think the statistical probability of someone dying during the run of the top grossing movie of all time is pretty high, based only on the number of people in the world who saw it in the theaters. 

And neither movie is directly linked to any deaths.  The first example is based on a CNN article, with no details about the woman’s medical history.  The movie could have triggered the event, or maybe it was just bad timing for her to be in the theater.

As for the latter example, the man had high blood pressure, and (according to the link provided in the article) the attending doctor speculated that the stroke was “likely” caused by “over-excitement from watching the movie.”  Such a statement is in no way conclusive evidence supporting Robb’s statement that, “Avatar was the last straw.”

But this isn’t the first time the author makes a leap of logic that rivals Evil Knievel’s jump over the Snake River Canyon.  Following is my rebuttal to each subheading in Robb’s article.

Liking horror films does not imply a lack of empathy

Of course, this is an unrealistic portrait of a horror fan.

Most of us wish we were this good looking!

Robb’s next claim is that horror fans lack empathy.  Again, I only read the abstract to this paper, but her assertion isn’t supported by the study. 

She writes, “Students who scored higher on measures of empathy- agreeing more strongly with statements like, ‘I am often touched by things I see happen’ and ‘I really get involved with the feelings of a character in a novel’- were more likely (emphasis added) to report negative responses like sleep disturbances and feelings of distress.” 

This does not imply that horror fans lack empathy, only that viewers who score higher on a psychological test tend to have negative reactions.  And, as far as the abstract goes, the study doesn’t suggest the possibility that these people might have similar reactions to dramas with bad endings, or classic tragedies. 

Instead, one could suggest that people who score higher on the test administered by the researchers might have a difficult time showing a disconnection between real tragedies and fictional portrayals in the media.  Perhaps horror fans have a better grasp of the difference between fictional horrors and those in real life, but neither the abstract, nor Robb, suggest that possibility.

Liking horror films does not imply aggression or thrill seeking behavior.

Robb cites a 1998 study of eighth-grade children exposed to cartoon clips, than were asked whether they found the scene funny, thrilling or violent.  The researchers asked the children’s teachers to evaluate the student’s personality traits and discovered the children who thought the “…violent scenes were thrilling or funny were likely to be perceived as more aggressive and excitable by their teachers.”

The abstract of this study raises several problems.  As I did not read the study, I do not know if the clips were from classic Looney Tunes shorts or 80s toy commercial like G. I. Joe or Transformers..  Also, the researchers asked the children if they thought the clips were “funny, thrilling or violent,” yet Robb assures readers twice in the article the clips were violent. 

But violence does not mean the clips had anything to do with horror.  As I mentioned earlier, the clips could have come from The Transformers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.  And, had the clips came from a Road Runner cartoon, most people would have laughed when the coyote fell off a cliff. 

Yeah, doesn't matter if you're in the eighth grade or an adult.  

If you like The Three Stooges, you're snickering right now.

And proclaiming the children who found the “violent scenes” thrilling or funny were considered unruly by their teachers is rather subjective assessment to say the least.  

And be sure to mention eighth graders are not adults. 

Next, Robb mentions a 1985 study of “over 300 undergraduates” showed that students who sought out horror films were “…more likely than others to say they would like to watch an autopsy being performed, would attend gladiator fights if they could travel back in time, and would slow down to watch a car accident.”

I can’t dispute her statement about the autopsy or gladiator fights, but the abstract to this study is quite reveling.   According to the link Robb provided:

“The study was designed to examine the relationships of sensation seeking, extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism with an interest in the presentation of violent or morbid and sexual events in the media and in live sports.  Scales of curiosity about morbid and sexual events and self-ratings of attendance of horror and X-rated erotic movies were developed and given to 89 male and 213 female undergraduates, along with the personality scale.”

In the article, Robb fails to mention the researchers also included pornographic material in their questions.  And, as this was an autobiographical survey, it opens up the possibility of the subjects (male or female) sculpting their responses to fit societal gender expectations.  And the researchers might have stacked the deck, as most of the 300 students in the study were female. 

Horror fans do not have to be male

We're girls, and we don't like horror.

RIGHT...

Robb states (thanks to a 15 year old study by Harris and Hoekstra, with no link provided) that men are more tolerant of horror films than women.  Yet she denounces her statement a few lines later, admitting that women “…may be catching up to men in horror film attendance.” 

Perhaps Robb is unwilling to admit that women are as interested in horror films as men, but might not have revelled it to researchers back in the 80s, for fear of being judged.   

Horror fans are not men looking for distressed women

Yes, it's funny,  But it's a stereotype and

not reflective of horror fans!

Oh, this one is annoying.  Robb’s final declaration shows that she is just not willing to let go of her stereotypical view of horror fans as men, only this time she ups the ante by claiming they want to be “…accompanied by a frightened woman.”

Yes, she went there, citing a 80s study by Zillmann et al.  Again, I did not read the study, but the language of the abstract speaks volumes:

“Exposed 36 male and 36 female undergraduates to a horror movie in the presence of a same age, opposite-gender companion of low or high initial appeal who expressed mastery, affective indifference, or distress. 

“We found the men enjoyed the movie most in the company of a distressed woman and least in the company of a mastering woman.  Women, in contrast, enjoyed the movie most in the company of a mastering man and least in the company of a distressed man.  Mastery did not enhance the female companions’ physical appeal.  However, it significantly enhanced that of the low-appeal male companion.”

Okay, aside from the appalling sexism in the abstract’s language, nothing suggests that male horror fans want to spend their time with a “distressed” woman.  The important thing to mention is the subjects were college students, not horror fans.  No mention is made that either party involved in the experiment wanted to see a horror film, or how such a desire might affect the outcome of the study. 

Instead, the study suggests that undergraduates of both genders, when picked up off the street, will fall into stereotypical gender roles during a horror film (and 36 couples is a very small sample when compared to the general population).  And such men liked the attention given to them by a scared (distressed) woman, while the women wanted the man to not be as scared as they were during the film. 

Robb plays off a stereotypical view of horror movie fans being male, attending such movies with the intention of driving their “distressed” dates into a state that encouraged close physical contact, and perhaps more.  This might be true of young men in general (perhaps explaining the large draw of horror movies during opening weekend that are roundly criticized by horror fans and experience a significant drop the following week), but is not a portrait of a horror fan.

Seriously, did anyone at The New Republic even see The Babadook before writing the headline for Robb's article?

Robb’s biggest crime, however, is the headline linking this article to The Babadook, one of the most critically acclaimed horror film in recent years.  Had Robb spent a little time on Goggle, she might have discovered her article is out of date and sexist.  Women not only like horror films, as she grudgingly admits, they are making them.  

Be sure to mention to your distressed friends/family members that The Babadook was written and directed by Jennifer Kent, than mention other women in horror like The Soska Twins, Lori Bowen and Jovanka Vuckovic, to name just a few. 

And don’t forget to point out the studies cited in the article used children and undergraduates as their subjects.  Nothing in any of the studies she mentions implies that horror fans fall into Robb’s opinion of them, no matter how she tries to weave her misguided assertions. 

Robb might not like horror films, which is fine.  To each their own.  But she has no business telling people what she thinks horror fans are like, as it’s obvious she has no clue.

iZombie looks nothing like the comic and that's a shame.

Okay, the first trailer for the CW show, iZombie, has dropped and I can't say I won't watch it for a while.  But it looks nothing like the comic and that's a damn shame.  The trailer is below:

Okay, aside from changing the setting from Eugene to Seattle, or that her name is now Liv, the series keeps the basic premise.  Liv must eat brains and, in doing so, gains the memories of the people whose cranium she's digging into.  That bit is from the comic, but my problem is the trailer suggests that little else has made it into the series.

Yes, Gwen/Liv is gorgeous in the comic, when you don't see her zombie side

In the short lived Vertigo comic, Gwen is a grave digger in an "organic" cemetery (no formaldehyde), which allows her access to the monthly dose of brains she needs to keep from going "full Romero."  She gains the memories of those whose brains she consumes, but the comic is less a police procedural and more an entry into cosmic horror, as Gwen discovers her role in defeating "Xitaiu, a soul-devouring monster from beyond space and time."

She's aided by her friends, Ellie, a ghost who died in the 60s and is stuck haunting only the places she'd seen when alive, and Scott, a were-terrier (no, that is not a misspelling).  She also meets vampires, mad scientists, a holy order hell bend on killing the creatures of the night, and the Dead Presidents, a government sanctioned group of monsters fighting to stop the apocalypse.

Come on, a ghost, vampires, demon hunters and a were-terrier in a TV show would be a rating hit

That's a very brief summery of a complex story, full of under and over souls, a talking chimp and some really wacky stuff.  Probably not the storyline that makes for a good TV show, especially as the series ended after 28 issues.  But it's more interesting than a standard police procedural.

And I think a decent writing team could have crafted something better than what the trailer hints at.  Instead, it's as if the CW mashed together their other two DC comic shows and forced iZombie to fit the mold.  We have the hero, the coworker who knows her secret (Arrow), the clueless cop who will figure it out eventually (The Flash) and, just for some romance, a hot zombie dude.

Okay, that last one was a WHAT THE HELL moment for me, as the comic's other zombies are the basic walking dead we all know.  So this idea was obviously forced into the story to generate, I don't know, a Vampire Dairy vibe, I guess.

Yeah, because TV executives need to let you know even a zombie girl is hot by setting her up in a living/undead love triangle.  God, I really hope that doesn't happen.

As I said, I'll give it a shot.  Hey, it may surprise me, but I suspect I'll give up after a few episodes.  Which, as I mentioned in the headline, is a shame, as the comic is exceptional.  Writer Chris Roberson and artist Michael Allred crafted one hell of a tale, and If you haven't read it, I suggest you do before the show premieres in March.  I suspect iZombie might not do a lot to interest in one of the more interesting, and unusual, zombie comics published.

Ruthless Pictures beats Universal to the punch with Frankenstein vs. The Mummy

Yeah, I thought The Asylum would be the studio involved with the first of the Universal Monster Universe mashups.  But it appears the first is coming soon from Ruthless Pictures.  The studio responsible for Day of the Mummy, The Black Water Vampire and All Hallows' Eve is getting the jump on Universal with Frankenstein vs. The Mummy.  Check out the trailer below....

It appears a young, handsome Dr. Frankenstein is conducting his experiments at the same university where a young, pretty archeologist is studying a mummy that comes to life.  The bandaged corpse may have his eyes on the fetching scientist, while the good doctor is working to bring life to his collection of human parts.  Either way, the stage is set for an "epic" smackdown.

I'm not saying the film will be bad, though the trailer don't make me want to see the film the day it's released on home video or VOD.  But I am surprised a studio is trying to beat Universal Studios to the punch so early.  Perhaps this film was plannned before the Unified Monster Universe was announced.  But, after watching the trailer, I suspect the film was rushed into production soon after the Unified Monster Universe was announced.

And I think The Asylum is happy to let Ruthless Pictures get the first Universal Monsters mockbuster out, as I suspect they plan to release their own films closer to the Universal release dates, given the studio's past history.

Still, if this first one does well, expect Ruthless Pictures to start releasing more public domain monster smackdowns in the future.  Too bad the studio won't be able to add the Gillman into the mix, unless they get more creative with their creature designs.

The Giant Claw (1957)

If you’ve ever watched a bad movie and wondered how talented actors could wind up in an awful flick, The Giant Claw is a cautionary tale of good intentions gone bad.  This film contains effects so horrid that star Jeff Morrow walked out of the screening, in his hometown, midway through the movie.  Then, depending on the story you want to believe, he either went home or found a bar to drown his sorrow concerning the audience’s laughter at the sight of the titular monster.

And you can’t blame the audience, as the monster looks like this….

I'm SCARY!  FEAR ME!!!

Wait, why is everyone laughing?

Which, for some reason, reminds me of this….

"I'm bringing home a baby bumblebee...."

It didn't help the movie that Beaky Buzzard was introduced over a decade earlier, and the audience for The Giant Claw probably remembered the goofy bird from their youth.  And, as the promotional artwork hides the titular critter, one has to expect the studio heads knew the bird would lay an egg.  But it’s a shame, as this was a decent B-movie in the making. 

Morrow plays Mitch MacAlee, a pilot and electronic whiz, is testing some science thing for the Air Force.  He happens to see an Unidentified Flying Object, as big as a battleship, but radar searches and a bunch of scrambled jets find no trace of the object.  Mitch is ridiculed, for a bit, but a series of attacks on aircrafts convinces the government that he might be telling the truth. 

The threat is a giant bird from space, deciding to make Earth its nesting ground. Now Mitch and his assistant Sally Caldwell (Mara Corday) must find a way to get around the bird’s anti matter shield so the US military can blast it.

Which should give the movie ample opportunity to wow you

with effects like this!

Okay, the science is wonky, as it searches for a way to make the creature near invulnerable.  It’s a common troupe in the giant monster movies of the 50s.  The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms had radioactive blood, It Came From Beneath The Sea was only vulnerable with an short range targeting system and as for Them!,well, it’s a big colony, and flying queen ants and, whatever.  The idea is that most of the giant monsters of the era had abilities to protect them from the normal weapons of humanity, making the film more suspenseful than if we could just wipe them out with a single cannon blast.

I shouldn’t need to mention the plot is pretty stereotypical.  Mitch and Sally bicker, the Armed Forces don’t believe Mitch’s UFO report until several other disasters occur, and Mitch learns to calm his anger with a few healthy swigs of Canadian apple cider.

Yeah, it was the 50s and the solution to most of life’s problems was a stiff drink away.

The downfall to this movie isn’t the script or the acting.  The cast is quite good, delivering wacky lines about anti-matter and UFOs with convincing dedication.  And it might surprise modern audiences that Sally is a pretty good 50s heroine.  Despite falling for stereotypically loutish Mitch, she displays scientific knowledge that sets her above the typical damsel in distress common to movies of the time.  And she's a damn good shot with a rifle, an equal to Mitch.

No, the film fails with the first clear glimpse of the extraterrestrial bird.  Ray Harryhausen was slated to do the effects, but declined (for budgetary reasons).  So producer Sam Katzman went with a low-budget special effects crew to create the titular monster, and the rest is bad movie history.  Morrow has gone on record that none of the actors knew about the creature's appearance until the film hit theaters.  One can only imagine the shame they felt being involved in a project that promised top notch effects and delivered a monster that might have you singing, "I'm bringing home a baby bumblebee."  Yep, that will sink your film right away.

Come on, quit laughing.  I'm scary, SCARY...

I’m not suggesting a puppet wouldn't be effective in a giant creature flick.  Hell, I love movies like The Giant Shrews or The Green Slime, so you know my standards are rather low when it comes to the presentation of the monster.  But the design, not the execution, of the monster in The Giant Claw is so bad, so goofy, that it’s hard not to laugh, even as the beast gobbles up helpless parachutist. 

Hey, movie audience.  I’m being eaten alive!!  Why are you all laughing?

There is a big difference between a goofy looking monster (like those in The Green Slime) and a creature that is just goofy.  Sure, the audience can chuckle at it's first appearance, but if they continue to laugh as the monster tries to bring humanity to it's knees, it's time to pull a Morrow and walk out of the theater to the nearest drinking hole.  

And yes, I saw several shots lifted from other films.  But that was a common practice, along with recycling music cues, and even that doesn’t sink the film.  The Giant Claw is a rare low budget horror feature, derailed not by the acting or screenplay, but the effects alone.  Had the monster looked better, this film might have become a beloved B-Movie classic.  Instead, it’s a stark example of how the best intentions of a cast and crew can be derailed by the choices made by a producer in the creation of the titular monster.