"CREATURE" (1998, Gillard) is a good film/mini series despite its cack handed similarities to "JAWS" (1975, Spielberg) and occasional plot nonsense.
This is a spirited effort to do something different with an ageing plot and for that it deserves some lauding. Stan Winston's effects are just amazing and I don't think the titular creature is at all stupid. On the contrary, before it has become a walking shark and after it is incredibly well done and present enough for the film to watched for it if nothing else.
Pros: 1. The score is something special.
2. The acting is good, especially Giancarlo Esposito as werewolf.
3. The creature is fantastic.
4. It is made in a similar style as "THE BEAST" (1996, Bleckner), another Benchley adaptation that features wonderful beast effects, good acting and great score that harkens back to Benchley's benchmark "JAWS".
Cons: 1. If you have read the book this isn't worth watching as an adaptation, rather a complete reworking. The only things it shares are the inexplicable time gap between when the monster was created and when it actually begins to kill (to be honest, in the novel it is more ridiculous of a gap as the nazis created it in WW2, whereas as in the film the US Navy creates it during the Vietnam war) and, of course, a walking shark man. In the novel, however, the shark man is a man who has been extensively operated on (making the time gap of events even more inexplicable) and in this film it starts out life as a beefy shark thing.
2. Certain plot elements are so old that they are no longer tried and true but are just trying. Here we have a hero who is hated and blamed for things that aren't his fault, his only backup being one local who sacrificed his reputation with his neighbours by standing up for the hero, and of course his estranged wife and son. Then there's the red herring shark corpse, presented by one of the villains, a good looking angry young gym goer who trap fishes and abuses mentally challenged werewolf whenever he can etc.
3. You will probably have heard most of the script before.
I prefer "CREATURE" to Benchley's "WHITE SHARK" by a long way. I listed the adaptation aspect under cons but that's only because, as an adaptation, it is nothing like the source material. In truth the novel, from what I remember, veers into silly James Bond-esque territory with the chain smoking old Jew who has to breathe and smoke via a device in his neck (or possibly chest) and a stupid monster that's more interesting to think about than read about. But it's well written.
I read a review on here that attempts to make the case that "CREATURE" is a rip off of "CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON" (1954, Arnold) because both feature a walking fish creature. CFBL was by no means the originator of the Gill man and "CREATURE" bears more resemblance to "STREET SHARKS" than CFBL.
I recommend this film.
This is a spirited effort to do something different with an ageing plot and for that it deserves some lauding. Stan Winston's effects are just amazing and I don't think the titular creature is at all stupid. On the contrary, before it has become a walking shark and after it is incredibly well done and present enough for the film to watched for it if nothing else.
Pros: 1. The score is something special.
2. The acting is good, especially Giancarlo Esposito as werewolf.
3. The creature is fantastic.
4. It is made in a similar style as "THE BEAST" (1996, Bleckner), another Benchley adaptation that features wonderful beast effects, good acting and great score that harkens back to Benchley's benchmark "JAWS".
Cons: 1. If you have read the book this isn't worth watching as an adaptation, rather a complete reworking. The only things it shares are the inexplicable time gap between when the monster was created and when it actually begins to kill (to be honest, in the novel it is more ridiculous of a gap as the nazis created it in WW2, whereas as in the film the US Navy creates it during the Vietnam war) and, of course, a walking shark man. In the novel, however, the shark man is a man who has been extensively operated on (making the time gap of events even more inexplicable) and in this film it starts out life as a beefy shark thing.
2. Certain plot elements are so old that they are no longer tried and true but are just trying. Here we have a hero who is hated and blamed for things that aren't his fault, his only backup being one local who sacrificed his reputation with his neighbours by standing up for the hero, and of course his estranged wife and son. Then there's the red herring shark corpse, presented by one of the villains, a good looking angry young gym goer who trap fishes and abuses mentally challenged werewolf whenever he can etc.
3. You will probably have heard most of the script before.
I prefer "CREATURE" to Benchley's "WHITE SHARK" by a long way. I listed the adaptation aspect under cons but that's only because, as an adaptation, it is nothing like the source material. In truth the novel, from what I remember, veers into silly James Bond-esque territory with the chain smoking old Jew who has to breathe and smoke via a device in his neck (or possibly chest) and a stupid monster that's more interesting to think about than read about. But it's well written.
I read a review on here that attempts to make the case that "CREATURE" is a rip off of "CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON" (1954, Arnold) because both feature a walking fish creature. CFBL was by no means the originator of the Gill man and "CREATURE" bears more resemblance to "STREET SHARKS" than CFBL.
I recommend this film.