The Manster

1962 "Half-Man, Half-Monster!"
5.3| 1h12m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 28 March 1962 Released
Producted By: Lopert Pictures Corporation
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A reporter is sent to interview a scientist working in his mountain laboratory.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Lopert Pictures Corporation

Trailers & Images

Reviews

brando647 In the realm of science fiction drive-in fodder, THE MANSTER would fall on the more positive end of the spectrum. It's still pretty mediocre but it tries so much harder than the last movie I watched from this genre (NIGHT OF THE BLOOD BEAST). For starters, it's actually got some tension. Not much, but it's there and I actually felt engaged in the movie. Once you get past the lame title, there's a cool morality tale on the dangers of going too far in scientific experimentation. The scientist lacking any sort of ethics this time around is Dr. Robert Suzuki (Tetsu Nakamura). Dr. Suzuki's goals aren't the most clear but it seems to involve turning people into horrible murderous monsters (mansters?). Well, I suppose they aren't meant to be murderous but I'm not sure what he was expecting when he mutated people into hideous creatures. He operates out of his little mountain cottage in Japan with his beautiful assistant Tara (Terri Zimmern) and his sprawling laboratory hidden underneath. We open on one of his failed experiments getting loose and killing some locals before returning home where Dr. Suzuki shoots it and dumps the corpse in the furnace. You see, Dr. Suzuki just hasn't had much luck with these experiments. His first subject, his wife Emiko (Toyoko Takechi), is a babbling mutation locked in a pen and his latest failure bound for the furnace was his brother Genji. His prospects look hopeless until a reporter from the World Press comes knocking.Enter Larry Stanford (Peter Dyneley), the oldest-looking 35-year-old reporter you'll ever see. Larry has been sent to produce a story on Dr. Suzuki. Dr. Suzuki doesn't have much to present to Larry at the moment, but he does see some potential in the man. What potential he can possibly see from an initial glance is unclear but it doesn't stop Suzuki from drugging Larry's drink and injecting him with his experimental serum. Who needs ethics in science, right? Now Suzuki just needs to wait it out and see what happens, so he invites Larry to hang out in Japan and pal around for a while. Suzuki bribes the man with saké, bath houses, and beautiful women. Seeing as how this is the first time we're spending any real time with our hero Larry, we're not given the best impression of him. We know he's married and his wife is in New York but he's quick to get wasted and accept some "quality time" with some lovely ladies. We come to find out this is part of the serum's effects. Larry's not normally a bad guy but the serum is making him give in to his baser instincts. He ends up screwing around Japan for so long that his wife Linda (Jane Hylton) and best friend Ian (Norman Van Hawley) come halfway around the world to pay him a visit. Larry's not having any of it though and tells them to beat it, which bothers Linda but not, I suspect, Ian.I really get the vibe that part of Ian is hoping Larry's calling it quits because he seems a little too interested in comforting Linda, if you know what I'm saying. Still, he's doing his part as a good friend and even tries to put Larry in touch with a psychiatrist to help him through his apparent mental breakdown. Our man Larry isn't having any of it though. He just wants to get drunk and have his steamy fling with Suzuki's assistant Tara. The only problem is Larry's starting to experience some bizarre symptoms. Crippling arm cramps and strange hair growth indicate that there may be more to the new Larry than his new garbage personality. Things begin to get a little more interesting once Larry starts going down the path of Emiko and Genji but then, oddly, sort of stumble to a halt once his transformation is complete. There's some cool moments when Larry is mid-transformation and stumbling around with a second, monstrous head on his shoulders but the film's climax isn't all that exciting. A lot of best parts of THE MANSTER are in the first hour or so with the build-up but the ending falls flat for me. Overall I enjoyed THE MANSTER and the filmmakers did a fine job in crafting this forgettable little sci-fi/horror treasure. The plot moves along nicely and character motivations are somewhat clear. The creature effects are done well enough and the filmmakers were smart enough to hide what didn't work in shadows to keep the illusion alive. It won't change your life but THE MANSTER is a fine time-waster for fans of the genre.
Lee Eisenberg "The Manster" is the sort of movie that only Elvira, Joe Bob Briggs, or the "MST3K" crew could present. I saw the Mistress of the Dark's presentation. While watching there were some things that I noticed:*There's a white person cast as a Japanese.*The discussions between the reporter and scientist border on a bromance.*The song played on the instrument in that one scene sounds like a blues song.And then of course the eye reminded me of "Army of Darkness". As for Elvira, she learns that her green card has expired - she apparently comes from Transylvania - and she's facing deportation. But of course she never stops offering pun-filled commentary on the movie. It's the average so-bad-it's-good flick featuring dated gender relations. Always fun to watch.Elvira should sing a blues song about B movies, complete with puns.
Woodyanders Reclusive scientist Dr. Robert Suzuki (nicely played by Satoshi Nakamura) uses his experimental serum to transform arrogant American reporter Larry Stanford (a solid performance by Peter Dyneley) into a hideous and murderous two-headed monster. Director George P. Breakston, working from a tight and absorbing script by William J. Sheldon, relates the neat story at a brisk pace, maintains an appealingly earnest tone throughout, and stages the attack scenes with aplomb (the lively and exciting last third with Stanford on the run from the police smokes in no uncertain terms). Moreover, the grotesque make-up effects are creepy and effective; Suzuki's malformed wife in particular is genuinely freaky and unnerving while that infamous eyeball on Stanford's shoulder is pretty gnarly. This picture further benefits from competent acting from a capable cast, with especially praiseworthy work by Jane Hynton as Larry's caring wife Linda, Terri Zimmern as Suzuki's lovely, but chilly assistant Tara, Norman Van Hawley as Larry's concerned boss Ian Matthews, and Jerry Ito as the no-nonsense Police Supt. Aida. David Mason's stark black and white cinematography does the trick. Hirooki Ogawa's spooky and spirited score hits the shivery ooga-booga spot. An enjoyable fright feature.
gavin6942 An American reporter in Japan is sent to interview an eccentric Japanese scientist working on bizarre experiments in his mountain laboratory.I thought I had seen this film before, but after watching it tonight I know I never did. This is the kind of film you remember. Why did I not see it? I am fairly confident I own it in one of those cheap boxes of 50 horror flicks that fell into public domain. Oh, well. Better late than never.There is an alleged "Army of Darkness" connection here, with the claim that Sam Raimi had Evil Ash emerge from Ash in the same way as the Manster emerges here. I can see it, but I refuse to accept this as fact until I see the source... (of course, it would not be odd of Raimi to find influence in b-movies).We could talk about adultery in this film, the idea that the protagonist says he "has been a good boy" with regards to his wife. He soon stops being the good boy. Is this the fault of the serum or his own weak morals? One suspects the serum, but he slips pretty quickly during a time that is supposed to be still him having majority control...We could also talk about the use of science derived from evil sources. There is a moral issue there. Say that a Nazi doctor does heinous experiments and finds out something useful. Are we to use that information despite it being discovered from a diabolical method? The answer might seem obviously yes, but then it almost justifies the method. The same can be said here -- the scientist says he has left his journal for scientists to learn from. But does his gift therefore make his experiments a good thing?