It is clear from the other reviews on this site that Attack of the Crab Monsters has a good reputation amongst 'B' movie fans. I can see why.
Like other Corman quickies, it has more good ideas in it than any three other movies of its type. Probably, it has too many: giant mutated crabs with a mysterious molecular structure; group minds; quasi-telepathy and a slowly disappearing island is a lot of material to cram into 70 minutes. Nonetheless, this makes for a lively roller coaster ride that belies the movie's tiny budget. Actually, it is better produced than other Corman movies of the era. The full-scale crab prop has its flaws (the legs have no independent motion - and those eyes!) but it is surprisingly effective when shown in five second bursts. It also means that the picture actually delivers what the title promises. This, in itself, puts it above many other Fifties' creature features.
I could expand on this movie's merits, but I would only be repeating what other people have already said. More to the point, it would also mean that I was falsifying my own reaction when I recently saw it again for the first time in many years.
Rather than being delighted that it was unexpectedly good, I was disappointed that it was unexpectedly bad.
The movie has no rhythm. The story jerks along in fits and starts. Information is given in the wrong place and sometimes has to be repeated. It has a weak dramatic structure. There is no steady unveiling of a mystery and no build up of tension. Many of the scenes seem to have been jammed together almost at random.
Much of the staging is poor and shots often fail to give the information they are intended to give. For example, when one of the characters enters a room that has been trashed by a crab monster, it is only evident this has happened at the very end of the scene, when the camera pulls back to reveal that the outside wall has been demolished.
These faults are nothing to do with the tiny budget. They are all due to the lack of care taken in the drafting, shooting and editing of the movie.
Roger Corman was not the typical deluded wannabee or cynical huckster that usually lurks behind these 'Z' grade movies. He was an intelligent, talented man who surrounded himself with other intelligent, talented people. He had a lot going for him. But he also had a flaw in his make-up that is too often overlooked: no matter how little money or time he was given to make one of these movies, it was always a matter of pride with him to bring the picture in under budget and ahead of schedule. Give him a meagre five days to shoot and he would do it in four. Give him a paltry $70,000 and he would spend $60,000.
That meant he was always rushing through preproduction and shooting at breakneck speed. This way of working was obviously exhilarating for him and his colleagues, but it was always at the expense of quality. Inevitably, it compromised the real virtues that most of his pictures had.
Attack of the Crab Monsters could have been 25% better, at virtually no additional cost, if Corman had actually reviewed the screenplay before shooting; had allowed himself the luxury of a few additional reaction shots and (God forbid) the occasional retake; and if the picture had spent a few more days in the editing room. But with Corman it was always a matter of 'get it in the can and get it into theatres'.
Praising this movie for being better than others of its type misses the point. It doesn't fall into the category of 'so bad that it is good'. Rather, it is in its own category of 'good enough that it should have been better'.
The true benchmark for Crab Monsters is not garbage like Voodoo Woman, Fire Maidens or Robot Monster. It is Carnival of Souls, Night of the Living Dead and Blair Witch Project: accomplished pictures made on 'home movie' budgets. This is what Corman was well capable of doing in the Fifties, as he later proved with his Edgar Alan Poe movies.
He could have been one of the best of the micro-budget movie-makers, but he just wanted to be the quickest.
Attack of the Crab Monsters illustrates both the best and the worst of Roger Corman.
Like other Corman quickies, it has more good ideas in it than any three other movies of its type. Probably, it has too many: giant mutated crabs with a mysterious molecular structure; group minds; quasi-telepathy and a slowly disappearing island is a lot of material to cram into 70 minutes. Nonetheless, this makes for a lively roller coaster ride that belies the movie's tiny budget. Actually, it is better produced than other Corman movies of the era. The full-scale crab prop has its flaws (the legs have no independent motion - and those eyes!) but it is surprisingly effective when shown in five second bursts. It also means that the picture actually delivers what the title promises. This, in itself, puts it above many other Fifties' creature features.
I could expand on this movie's merits, but I would only be repeating what other people have already said. More to the point, it would also mean that I was falsifying my own reaction when I recently saw it again for the first time in many years.
Rather than being delighted that it was unexpectedly good, I was disappointed that it was unexpectedly bad.
The movie has no rhythm. The story jerks along in fits and starts. Information is given in the wrong place and sometimes has to be repeated. It has a weak dramatic structure. There is no steady unveiling of a mystery and no build up of tension. Many of the scenes seem to have been jammed together almost at random.
Much of the staging is poor and shots often fail to give the information they are intended to give. For example, when one of the characters enters a room that has been trashed by a crab monster, it is only evident this has happened at the very end of the scene, when the camera pulls back to reveal that the outside wall has been demolished.
These faults are nothing to do with the tiny budget. They are all due to the lack of care taken in the drafting, shooting and editing of the movie.
Roger Corman was not the typical deluded wannabee or cynical huckster that usually lurks behind these 'Z' grade movies. He was an intelligent, talented man who surrounded himself with other intelligent, talented people. He had a lot going for him. But he also had a flaw in his make-up that is too often overlooked: no matter how little money or time he was given to make one of these movies, it was always a matter of pride with him to bring the picture in under budget and ahead of schedule. Give him a meagre five days to shoot and he would do it in four. Give him a paltry $70,000 and he would spend $60,000.
That meant he was always rushing through preproduction and shooting at breakneck speed. This way of working was obviously exhilarating for him and his colleagues, but it was always at the expense of quality. Inevitably, it compromised the real virtues that most of his pictures had.
Attack of the Crab Monsters could have been 25% better, at virtually no additional cost, if Corman had actually reviewed the screenplay before shooting; had allowed himself the luxury of a few additional reaction shots and (God forbid) the occasional retake; and if the picture had spent a few more days in the editing room. But with Corman it was always a matter of 'get it in the can and get it into theatres'.
Praising this movie for being better than others of its type misses the point. It doesn't fall into the category of 'so bad that it is good'. Rather, it is in its own category of 'good enough that it should have been better'.
The true benchmark for Crab Monsters is not garbage like Voodoo Woman, Fire Maidens or Robot Monster. It is Carnival of Souls, Night of the Living Dead and Blair Witch Project: accomplished pictures made on 'home movie' budgets. This is what Corman was well capable of doing in the Fifties, as he later proved with his Edgar Alan Poe movies.
He could have been one of the best of the micro-budget movie-makers, but he just wanted to be the quickest.
Attack of the Crab Monsters illustrates both the best and the worst of Roger Corman.