Producer: Roger Corman.Copyright 7 September 1954 by Palo Alto Productions, inc. A Lippert Pictures release. No New York opening. U.S. release: 21 May 1954 (sic). U.K. release through Exclusive in March 1956, in a version cut to 51 minutes. Never theatrically released in Australia. 64 minutes.Alternative titles: IT STALKED THE OCEAN FLOOR; MONSTER MAKER.SYNOPSIS: A Mexican coastal village is threatened by a sea monster, but two visiting Americans (a beautiful advertising artist and a husky marine biologist) save the day. NOTES: First films for producer Roger Corman, director Wyott Ordung, and players Kimbell, Wade and Haze. Corman went on to produce over a hundred more pictures, Ordung wrote a couple of scripts, Kimbell starred in "Girls at Sea" (1958), Haze in "The Little Shop of Horrors", "Invasion of the Star Creatures", etc.VIEWER'S GUIDE: Extraordinarily, the Australian censor in the year 2000 awarded the film an "MA" certificate — Mature Adults Only, with children excluded from cinema admissions unless accompanied by a responsible parent or guardian. This, despite the fact that the British Board of Film Censors way back in 1956, awarded the much faster- paced yet uncensored version a Universal Exhibition certificate! It's good to know that — despite all appearances to the contrary — Australia's space-age, computer kids are so shy and sensitive that a couple of tawdry shots of the tamest monster ever made will scare them witless. American and British kids of yesteryear were certainly made of sterner stuff.COMMENT: Produced by Roger Corman, this is a very efficiently made, little sci-fi thriller. Script and dialogue maintain the interest, the little-known principals are attractive, and the movie seems to have been lensed wholly on location by the resourceful Floyd "High Noon" Crosby. Actually, the photographic quality tends to be a bit variable, but this and some extremely long (but well-composed) takes are the only evidences of what was undoubtedly a very short shooting schedule. (The film was reportedly shot in a week and budgeted at only $12,000). Sci-fi fans will undoubtedly be disappointed that they see so little of the long-awaited "monster", though I found the delay more suspenseful than his actual appearance. The pace could be improved still further (this is a review of the British version, not the over-talky and rather static full-length movie currently being aired on cable) by slightly trimming the scenes with the miniature sub, which out-stays its welcome. The support cast is capable, whilst production values — aside from the tame special effects — are more than fair.

Roger Corman is the most consistent person on Earth.He has consistently churned out garbage for over half a century and shows no signs of stopping anytime soon. With only 1 hour to work with,Corman still manages to kill half the time with lots of nothing.I guess that's his trademark.His use of the two person tight shot makes having a budget completely unnecessary.Why have a story or set when you can just have tight shots of nothing? So the "story" is about a woman who goes on vacation to Mexico,alone.She quickly befriends a fatherless child(not weird at all) and then meets a guy with a submarine.The submarine is human powered,very slow,can not move in a straight line and is not air tight(you need scuba gear to ride in this thing).The entire concept of the thing makes no sense yet we are treated to 15 minutes of it traveling underwater. All the Mexicans have eastern European accents while still managing to throw in 1 Spanish word per sentence.Did I mention the woman faints every 5 minutes? She's obsessed with finding this mysterious monster yet every time she goes looking she gets terrified and runs,when she doesn't faint. One time she sees an octopus and says she thought it was the monster.When we finally see the monster,IT LOOKS LIKE AN OCTOPUS! Then the Corman genius kicks in and we only see the monster out of focus while the woman moves in fast motion. Never watch this or any other Roger Corman movie.

"Monster from the Ocean Floor" is historically important as the very first film produced by a young Roger Corman, so it's a shame it's not more entertaining than it is. It does have some schlocky charm, but owing to an obviously very low budget, it gets bogged down in talk and becomes fairly dull. It's not even that much fun on the "so bad it's good" level. It's too bad, because if you're a B movie enthusiast you'd certainly *want* to like it. It does have its moments, but they're spread too far apart.There is some enjoyment to be had from watching the amateurish acting. The pretty Anne Kimbell plays Julie Blair, an American artist on vacation in Mexico. She hears stories of locals disappearing from the waters and learns that there's a legend believed by the natives. She meets a handsome marine biologist named Steve Dunning (Stuart Wade) - their initial encounter is amusing, to say the least - and while he's a practical, hard headed kind of guy, she becomes convinced some sort of mysterious beast is the culprit - and she's right, of course.It's naturally a good thing that the monster in this film - resembling an octopus with one great big red eye - is seen so little. Our anticipation is built up, and the payoff isn't bad. I can believe that people who'd seen this movie as little children would have been frightened. The problem is that for a movie running only one hour and five minutes, there's too much padding on this thing. Still, "Monster from the Ocean Floor" isn't without its assets. Corman works with ace cinematographer Floyd Crosby - who shot his colourful, widescreen Edgar Allan Poe adaptations - and Crosby creates good atmosphere. The underwater photography is likewise well done. Kimbell has one harrowing scene with a shark. And the original music by Andre Brummer is enjoyable.Cormans' stock company player Jonathan Haze (billed as Jack Hayes) makes his film debut as the character Joe, director Wyott Ordung plays the key supporting role of Pablo, and Corman himself makes an uncredited on-screen appearance as Tommy.This does have high curiosity value just to see the humble beginnings of one of the great independent filmmakers of all time.Four out of 10.

On the surface, this film appears to be just another entry into the 50's cinema monster mill. But when we dive deeper we find some subtle and entertaining differences. The heroine is remarkably modern. She is brave, independent, determined, and completely oblivious to what the rather effete male characters think of her. The film is actually developed around her persona, and her dogged determination to seek the monster lurking below. The underwater scenes are beautiful examples of early open water cinematography in the lush, cool Pacific Ocean. The submarine is great. I really wanted one when I was a kid and first saw this film. The spunky actress seems to have done her own diving too. The scene in which she tries to fend off the shark is exciting. If you forget the rather weakly done monster, its minimal time on screen, and instead, focus on the enchanting heroine and her quest, this is not a bad film at all. I certainly find it entertaining. I have it on DVD and watch if often.