a 3.2 is total bs...
this movie deserves at the least a 5 imo...it's a good movie, especially for the 50's
5.5/10
I agree. This movie is pretty decent. It shouldn't have a rating lower than a 5. I think a weighted score as high as 5.8 could be possible.
shareThe Thing That Couldn't Die wasn't bad at all, might have been well above average,--I was in a charitable mood and gave it 7 out of 10 stars--but the pace killed it. The film had no narrative drive; and the script, while it got the job done, was weak on characterization. With the same or somewhat altered script and skillful direction, better photography and editing, it might have been a pip.
Carolyn Kearney was better than I thought she'd be but it took me a while to get used to her somewhat offbeat acting style, which reminded me a little of cult actress Luana Anders, but not so extreme. I like William Reynolds but he seemed lifeless in the film. The bad guys were more fun,--Robin Hughes, especially, just his face--and James Anderson.
As the film neared its conclusion it began occurring to me that there were a lot of familiar plot elements, as, allowing for different time frames and nationalities, the story was a reworking of Dracula and The Mummy, but with more emphasis on regular people than the demonic character of the title. Surprisingly, as I saw it, the low budget, low budget production values not only didn't seem to hurt the picture, they may actually have improved it.