IMDb > Monster on the Campus (1958) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Monster on the Campus
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Monster on the Campus More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 38 reviews in total 

23 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Classic 50's low budget Sci-Fi with strong performances.

Author: (dsturgil@sccoast.net) from Longs, South Carolina
14 January 2004

Ah yes! The good old days when Sci-Fi was simple. All you needed was a little radiation and most anything was possible. This movie was one of the last 50's Sci-Fi movies from Universal coming out in 1959-same year I did. Audiences then were not as sophisticated as they are now and quicker to give a movie the benefit of the doubt. This was the day of the Drive-In movie. Anyone my age or older should enjoy the simplicity of this film and the nostalgic quality of it. Good solid performances by Arthur Franz and especially Joanna Moore (whom would later become notable as one of Andy Taylor's girlfriends on TV). Plenty of the good old character actors from Universal's other Sci-Fi films give it a familiar feel. This movie doesn't ask you to think too much; when I was a kid watching Shock Theatre on a Saturday afternoon I didn't want to. Sure, the make-up could have been much better but from a distance the monster is quite scary.You don't have to look close to find a few blunders: lace-up shoe or loafer? You'll hear music from practically all of Universal's Sci-Fi and horrors movies: Tarantula, Frankenstein, the Mummy movies.This movie is probably not very entertaining to the younger generations of viewers other than finding it quite campy. How far we've come as an audience. But this movie tries hard and with its budget I've got to give it credit. It holds a warm spot in my heart and a solid place in my video library.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Fun 50's Sci-Fi!

7/10
Author: rosscinema (rosscinema@comcast.net) from Oceanside, Ca.
28 November 2002

I've always enjoyed this film that turned out to be Jack Arnolds last horror film and I really do not understand why some people think this is awful. There are some flicks that you don't have to take seriously and all you have to do is sit back and have fun watching. Sure, its silly but most 50's sci-fi is. Why is this worse than others? The music that is used is from other Arnold films most notably "Tarantula" and I'm sure Universal used the same score for countless other movies. A lot of Arnold regulars pop up like Whit Bissell, Phil Harvey, Ross Elliott, Richard Cutting and of course Mr. Ziffel, Hank Patterson! Eddie Parker plays the monster here in make-up, not Arthur Franz and Parker was also in "Tarantula" in two roles. Both as lab assistance who die of that deforming disease. Troy Donahue in one of his early roles is Jimmy and he's especially wooden. But Arnold knows exactly how to tell a story no matter how silly and the scene with the giant dragonfly is fun, so is the whole movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Great, rare movie

10/10
Author: jonm11100
23 June 2006

If you're a 50's "B" movie fan like I am, this is a gem. I saw this film back when i was a kid, something like 1962 or so, and it hasn't been on T.V. in years. I have a VHS copy of it but would love to find it on DVD sometime in the future. When a caveman throws a hatchet and it hits a cop square in the face, it leaves an impression on you when you're 10 years old. Of course, by today's standards, it looks kinda hokey, but you have to keep in mind that movies like this one "pioneered" this type of movie. I wouldn't trade a 50's "B" flick for all the new garbage in the world. Like, what could measure up to movies such as the transparency of "The Amazing Colossal Man" and "War Of The Colossal Beast?" Ah yes, those were the days. Back when sci-fi movies didn't have to be VULGAR to be entertaining. The special effects didn't even have to be good - we STILL loved it! I sure wish the Time Tunnel was a reality - I'd go back there in a new york second!

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Jack Arnold's last monster movie

Author: Chris Gaskin from Derby, England
16 October 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was Jack Arnold's last monster movie and I rather enjoyed it. It is a typical 50's monster movie.

Blood from a dead Coelacanth turns Arthur Franz (Invaders From Mars) into a murderous prehistoric ape man. It also turns a dragon fly into a giant and a friendly German Shepard dog into a savage sabre tooth wolf. This happens each time something or someone comes into contact with the fish's blood. Franz is killed by police at the end in the ape man suit. He finished up killing 3 people.

As well as Arthur Franz, this movie stars another 50's sci fi regular Whit Bissell (The Lost Continent, I was A Teenage Frankenstein) and Troy Donahue. All play good parts.

As a college student myself, I have not yet seen this sort of thing happen at my college! This movie is a must for 50's sci fi fans. Great stuff.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Fun B Horror, but not Arnold's best

6/10
Author: funkyfry from Oakland CA
10 November 2002

Jack Arnold's last sci-fi horror for Universal isn't as good or as much fun as most of his previous efforts (including the oft-overlooked "Tarantula") but it has its own virtues to recommend it. The story is a clone of "I Was a Teenage Werewolf" -- except that in this case, we have a college professor who keeps accidentally coming into contact with chemical agents which transform him into an aboriginal "throwback."

Not much killing, or action at all for that matter, and in retrospect the film's manner in general is too straight and serious for its flimsy materials. Not much sympathy or interest is generated before the film runs its course, but an audience may get a few laughs from some of the stilted dialogue and from the oversized "throwback" creatures that appear from time to time to terrorize unsuspecting coeds and jocks.

The female lead was written to have a very unappealing personality -- for one thing, when the scientist she supposedly loves is getting really interested in his work, she goes over his head to his boss (who "happens" to be her father) to have him investigated for insanity! Maybe he just wasn't paying enough attention to her.... anyway, I don't think many in the audience would have minded if she HAD gotten hers from the monster in the end....

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Just plain bad science. Otherwise a fun film.

Author: Randy Scholl from Minnesota
5 March 2007

A previous commentator writes that: "The story is totally ludicrous and a feeble, shameless attempt to promote evolution. Only a leftist loony would believe this stuff."

Just to set the record straight, the concept of "evolution" promoted by the film is a gross distortion of actual evolutionary theory, suggesting as it does that evolution involves some sort of mystical forces and that certain so-called "living fossils" contain some sort of substance which somehow counteracts these forces. None of this actually makes in any sense, however, in terms of the actual science.

To sum up, evolutionary theory is perfectly valid science, and there's nothing particularly shameful about promoting it as science, contrary to what the above poster might think. OTOH, the movie's conception of what evolution actually means is just plain silly.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Good Film

Author: Michael_Elliott from Louisville, KY
29 February 2008

Monster on the Campus (1958)

*** (out of 4)

Entertaining Universal Sci-Fi about a college scientist who turns into a monster after his blood is mixed with that of a prehistoric fish. I've been wanting to see this for quite some time but never got around to buying the VHS since it was released just as I was jumping on the DVD format. The wait was certainly worth it even though the film isn't really anything other than your typical Jekyll and Hyde story. The film goes by at a very quick pace and the monster looks great, although it's a shame we only get to see him twice. I was somewhat shocked at the rather violent third death scene. The film also contains one of the dumbest girlfriends in sci-fi history.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Fascinating Fright Flick

9/10
Author: twanurit from United States
13 October 2006

Blood of an ancient fish transforms those infected with it into a vicious dog, giant dragonfly or monstrous Neanderthal entity. Arthur Franz is convincing as an archaeological college professor, teaching Troy Donahue and Nancy Walters, while romancing the lovely Joanna Moore. Jack Arnold ably directed this somewhat maligned film; it's actually creepy and well-shot, succeeding in delivering the shocks, especially in the last act, where we finally see the title creation and it's a startling effect. Helen Westcott is memorable in only two scenes, as the school nurse, conveying some romantic attraction to Franz, all with a dose of humor. It was recently released to DVD as part of the "Classic Sci-Fi Ultimate Collection", which includes "Tarantula" (1955), "The Mole People" (1956), "The Monothith Monsters" (1957), and "The Incredible Shrinking Man" (1957), all on par: great title sequence, fine musical score (some patchwork), beautiful monochrome photography, well-scripted, capably acted, always intriguing, with "Man" the jewel of the crown.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Well worth watching if you like scary fun

Author: pmsusana from New Orleans, Louisiana
28 January 2001

Although this film reportedly wasn't one of director Jack Arnold's favorites, I personally have enjoyed it very much through many viewings. The story is a Jekyll-Hyde variation, but it offers real suspense and some genuine scares from a director that knows how. The only (minor) disappointment is the creature's makeup (not seen 'til near the end), which unfortunately is revealed to us in a brightly-lit room; makeups like this are more effective when glimpsed fleetingly in the dark. That small quibble aside, this film offers lots of scary fun for those in the mood. (The same can be said of Arnold's earlier films for the same studio, "It Came From Outer Space" (1953) and "Tarantula" (1955).

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Laughable In Spots; A Typical Hokey '50s Sci-Fi Film

6/10
Author: ccthemovieman-1 from United States
11 October 2006

Here is another movie offered in the recently-released Sci-Fi Ultimate Collection that, like the others, offers a good DVD transfer. This story isn't quite up to a few of the others, but it's still interesting which is the main thing. A boring sci-fi film would be inexcusable.

This one is almost laughable in spots because it does have a Grade-B feel to it. The main actor, Arthur Franz, sounds like a wooden in spots and is a bit too serious. The rest of the cast, except for wooden-voiced pretty boy Troy Donahue, is fine.

The story is totally ludicrous and a feeble, shameless attempt to promote evolution. Only a leftist loony would believe this stuff. It's presented so

I wish they had at least put in more tension in the earlier "monster" scenes. What the monster looked like was totally left up the viewer's imagination, until the final dramatic scene when he was "exposed." That was cool; a kind of wolf-man look. Earlier, the super-sized dragonfly was so poorly done it was funny.

It's decent, nothing notable but a okay part of the five-movie Sci-Fi Ultimate Collection DVD that was released in the fall of 2006. I've seen three of these so far and have been impressed with the transfer on these discs.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history