MisterWhiplash You know your movie is in trouble when even the creature-on-girl stuff is sloppy.Roger Corman always prided himself (at least up until a certain point in his career, and this is still his New World Pictures era when there was.... well, it was before Carnosaur and Sharktopus, let's put it that way) on having cheesy B-movie fun with things but also having some level of quality or interest in *something* else that could be there for the audience. That isn't there in Humanoids from the Deep.This is where he tries, whether this was his call or incidental from the writers I don't know, to put in some liberal-type element into the story with the Native American Indian who's land is being screwed with and... who cares? A lot of this movie feels like wasted potential in that it has a who-gives-a-s*** plot, but then the creature effects (or, I should say, the three creature suits, one of them only being completed by Rob Bottin) are pretty good and when the climax happens there's some creative editing to make it seem like there are more when, of course, there aren't, with some decent gore (although it's almost ruined by the repeated 5-second loop of screaming sound effects which I wouldn't notice except it's repeated 100 times in ten minutes). Also, James Horner's score is fine and does its job as a serious thriller score.But there's a reason this feels lazy on multiple fronts; the movie is a Frankenstein monster of editing, where, as Corman admits without compunction on the Shout Factory DVD interview, that he and the editors took the movie away from Barbara Peters because, as Corman put it, there wasn't enough rape that she shot (the kinder version is that she didn't shoot enough sex and violence, which also had a different title, whether she knew this would be changed from "Beneath the Darkness" to this one who knows). So on the one hand there's a passable-to-just-okay-and... no, there's not much logic to it on one hand (plus the performances are by actors who are barely B level, more like C), and on the other a sleazy bag of exploitation movie tricks that Corman and his assistant directors and editors pull to make it more tantalizing. Not to mention, of course, the fact that these mutated salmon-mansters do in fact inseminate the women which has, naturally, a payoff at the very, very end which, surprisingly, feels tacked on when all is said and done.I could go into why a lot of the human story stuff doesn't work or lacks logic - chiefly why, after that opening where several people DIE IN A FIRE on a boat and no one investigates this (or the multiple dead dogs, which gets a shrug from the would-be excuses for Stephen King characters, as in they'd be in King stories if he lacked talent) - but I don't see the point. You may take to this schlock, but I didn't find enough to keep me really engaged past a certain point, despite the last twenty minutes trying to throw as much as it can at you. It certainly does try as far as lots of blood and gore and breasts (and some of those breasts, I'll readily admit, look splendid). But even at 79 minutes this is pushing it.

Predrag First of all, this is a "Roger Corman Classic" , so you should have some idea what you're getting into right off the bat. If you can accept that and are game to continue watching, you're in for a pretty great low budget monster movie. Yes, it is a corny 1980 horror movie with large sea creatures running around killing people and a little gratuitous nudity, but that is what makes it great. To me it is similar to the original "Jaws" movie as far as entertainment. This movie is about a small town on the water that gets attacked by a school of fish-men who have to impregnate human women to survive. A few people (and dogs) get killed and the obligatory teenage couples get killed (boys) or worse (girls) before the inevetable massed attack on the town fair. The difference with this movie is that after the initial shock and a few deaths/rapes the locals realize that the fish men may have the arms of orangutans and the teeth of sharks, they also had the agility of wombats. Crowds of locals armed with rifles and bits of wood make short work of the bipedal sushi.The low budget makes the goings-on more ghastly than you might otherwise find in more mainstream films. (After all, this was a Roger Corman-produced flick.) This forced the filmmakers to be creative to achieve their vision and, IMHO, the resulting F/X stuff is generally pretty decent. I'm a big Doug McClure fan also, so his inclusion is a bonus. Film is played straight and despite the absurd plot, it comes across fairly honest and believable (on its own terms). Be aware that the ending is a one of modern horror's truly legendary gross-out, showstopping shockers... so don't say you weren't warned!Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

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.

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