Curt Siodmak seemed to have a passion for writing B movie scripts, and and it seems he believed so much in this one that he had to direct it as well.It's in the running for the worst movie I ever saw, with the standard jungle movie setup- Americans go on an expedition in the jungle and get attacked by a variety of jungle natives- including the paper mache looking title monster. They say this movie was shot on location in the Amazon jungle (I don't think the term "rain forest" existed in 1956). If so, I've got to hand it to the cast and crew for going above and beyond for this one. I wouldn't have wanted to risk coming back with malaria or jungle rot for this movie. With all that being said, if you look at all the lifeless and hollow stuff coming out of Hollywood in recent years, this one just might be good enough to be classic schlock cinema now.

John Bromfield and Beverly Garland star in Curucu Beast Of The Amazon and the best thing this film has going for it is the location photography in the Amazon jungles of Brazil. One hates to think that where this film was shot might be developed over by now. Because this film surely didn't do much for the careers of either of its stars.Bromfield is a plantation manager and Garland is a doctor and and a ridiculous looking monster is out terrorizing the natives of Bromfield's plantation. Purportedly it is Curucu a legendary monster from up the Amazon headwaters country where no white people have gone before. So Bromfield decides to play Captain Kirk and go on a mission to explore and destroy this monster that's cutting into his business.Garland being the scientist wants to get some of that head hunter concoction which she says might be valuable to medical science. Garland had one vital asset in being cast in these films, no one could scream quite like her and she gets plenty of opportunity from the natural and man made opposition they both encounter.The monster Curucu is one ridiculous and stupid looking beast which looks like a mixture various Halloween costumes. In this case though there is a reason and the mystery of Curucu is solved.A few laughs are in this one, unintentional ones if you care.

Note: *SPOILER* Back in the early seventies this film turned up on "The Late Late Show" and I set my alarm and got up to watch it. After this film was over I was almost sorry I did. The only reason I didn't totally regret getting up at 4 in the morning to watch this was that at least I could truthfully say to my fellow monster movie loving friends that I had seen it. Except for the attractive color photography and real Brazilian locations, this film is a dud in almost every way. The "monster" is silly looking, the acting never rises above adequate and most of the time its less than that, and the dialog is lame. But thats not what irked me when I was twelve, I had seen lots of cheap monster movies with silly looking monsters and I had come to expect that. What irked me was the films cheat ending. The monster is revealed to be at the end simply a man in a costume trying to scare people away. All the fantastic stuff turns out to be a hoax. When will film makers ever learn? Every now and then somebody makes this kind film where the fantastic element turns out to be a trick. Although I can't recall any recent theatrical movies that employed this lately, it still turns in made for T.V./cable/video movies now and then. I can't think of a film, with the exception of MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (1935), with this "Ha! Ha! We fooled ya!" kind of story that was any good. I never liked this kind of film and most people I know don't either, although movie makers think we do. The only kind of people who like this kind of film other than some film makers, are the kind of ignorant self important high brow types who have contempt for all forms of science fiction and horror films. Their attitude is that "there are no monsters, ghosts, aliens etc in real life" so having the fantastic elements revealed to be a trick is supposed to make the film more believable. But it doesn't. In these kind of films it stretches the viewers credibility more to accept that someone could employ successfully the kinds of tricks needed to pull off a hoax of the type shown in these films, than to accept that something supernatural or fantastic is really going on. As in many of these films, the phony fantastic goings on are almost always employed to scare people from what ever it is the hoaxers are trying to keep hidden. Of course, in real life, reports of monsters, aliens, haunted houses, etc., almost always do the opposite. A report of "big foot" or a lake with a monster usually attracts hordes of reporters, investigators, and the just plain curious. So these kinds of films are not more believable. The only thing they do is make the viewer feel cheated.

Having not seen this picture in almost twenty years, it's not on video, and rarely, if ever, re-shown on television, one can understand why. It's a wretched mess. Filmed in color on location in Brazil, Beverly Garland plays a doctor in the Amazon who learns that if the local headhunters can shrink heads that maybe the formula can be used to shrink cancer cells for the cure. Interrupting her potential medical breakthrough is a legendary monster that is killing the natives as she accompanies hunter John Bromfield in the search. Anyone expecting a real beast will be gravely disappointed. The insipid musical score detracts from the creepy goings-on; it's poorly directed with abysmal special effects. The jungle cliches are in abundance, with Bromfield making a play for the un-receptive (at first) Garland. Check out the tent scene wherein the beast creeps up on her - she screams before even getting a good look at her intruder. Some of the scenery is beautiful, but can not save this dreary disaster. Last scene is freaky.