The Creature Below (2016) Online

While Olive (Anna Dawson) is diving at 1500 feet a sea creature lodges an egg in her suit. She takes it home and nurtures it in a what becomes a combination of "Alien" and "Little Shop of Horrors." They attempt to invoke HP Lovecraft with a "Mishatonic" (sic) diploma, but being misspelled (It should be Miskatonic) you have to wonder how knowledgeable these guys were. There are weak connections to the ancient world and gods with a ton of plot holes like, it they can live at both 1500 feet and in surface air, why are they just returning now? The film uses CG for some sea scenes. Olive's descent into what appears to be madness and mindless ramblings was poorly done with an explanation left in pieces, something that could have made the feature better using real flashback reenactments of the past instead of something that looked like an Egyptian kid's refrigerator art.

Guide: F-word and nudity (Anna Dawson)

The marine biologist Olive Crown (Anna Dawson) applies to the research of Dr. Fletcher (Zacharee Lee) in deep waters and is hired. However Olive is attacked by a huge creature that damages her underwater equipment and she has amnesia with the trauma. Dr. Fletcher fires Olive and she finds an egg in the equipment and she brings it home. She leaves the egg in the basement of her house, and soon the egg hatches and Olive captures the offspring to study. She tries every type of fish to feed the creature but none satisfies it. Olive finds that the creature feeds only with her blood. Soon Olive kills people to feed the creature. Meanwhile her boyfriend Matthew "Matt" Gardiner (Daniel Thrace) realizes that his girlfriend is changing her behavior, but he does not suspect that she is feeding the creature with blood from her victims. When Olive's sister Ellie Crown (Michaela Longden) comes to her house to spend a couple of days, she finds that something is wrong with Olive and snoops around the basement with tragic consequences.

"The Creature Below" is a low-budget film with a story that recalls the sci-fi from the 50's and a lame production in the same quality of the SyFy channel. However if the viewer watches this B-movie with very low expectations, he or she may even like it. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

"The Creature Below" is a movie that I had not heard about prior to finding it by sheer random luck. And with the prospect of not having anything else at hand to watch in the horror genre, I gave "The Creature Below" a go, without knowing what it was about. I was lured in by the title of the movie alone.

The movie starts out quite nicely and does throw the audience straight into the storyline, and you are up to speed with the intention of director Stewart Sparke right away, which was quite nice.

Almost from the very beginning there is a Lovecraftian influence permeating "The Creature Below". However that influence is cemented as something solid when you see Olive Crown (played by Anna Dawson) put her Miskatonic University diploma on the wall, so the movie apparently take place in the world as dictated by master writer H. P. Lovecraft.

The story, briefly summarized is about a marine biologist who is fired from her job, but in her haste she decides to take away an egg of some unknown original from her workplace. As the egg hatch in her basement at home, Olive forms a symbiont bond with the creature.

The music in the movie is quite fitting the genre, as it is subtle, yet noticeable in its own way, given the uniqueness and slightly odd placement it has. At times the music actually takes on an ethereal quality, not unlike that you find on the Nox Arcana CD "Necronomicon", which really bolsters the atmosphere of the movie.

And the setting of the movie, being a very rural setting with a sort of reclusive feel to it, also emanates the alienation that H. P. Lovecraft had incorporated into his stories. So it is clear that the director or writer of this movie must have been heavily influenced by Lovecraft's work in some way.

Olive's descent down the path that leads to madness and insanity is one well-fleshed out on the screen. And for that I must applaud the director on his accomplishment.

As for the actors and actresses in the movie, then I can't claim to be familiar with their prior work, but they did quite good jobs with their given roles and characters.

As for the mysterious tentacled creature, well it was believable and had functional effects to make it look fairly realistic. However, the movie could have fared much better with a bigger budget for special effects, no doubt about it. But still, taking the budget and the aspiration of the movie makers into account, they actually did quite well.

Granted that "The Creature Below" is a low budget movie, then it is still a nice foray into the eldritch and cosmic horrors dreamed up by H. P. Lovecraft and this movie is actually sort of a hidden gem, that I fear many people will never even give a chance. Which is a shame, because it is entertaining. And if you enjoy the writing of H. P. Lovecraft, then you should definitely check out "The Creature Below".

The movie is entertaining, but it just lacked that spice to make it remarkably unique and outstanding. But all in all a good movie. The ending of the movie, however, well I wasn't a fan of that particular way to round up the movie...

leaving all the scientific biological flaws aside, this little underground flick was surprisingly pleasant to watch.

the plot start off pretty fast, no extended foreplay, like most movies that manage to catch the spirit of HPL. it also lacks unnerving soundtracks and insane screaming like, for example, the well-known 'Possession' delivers. without ever breaking the bonds of tolerability, it still provides a good amount of blood. although the characters and their relations could've used a little more development, the acting is solid.

from the first few minutes on, the atmosphere is dense and calm at the same time. not many dialogues, not much sound at all - just that subtle, uncanny music and the sounds of the creature. lighting and camera sometimes are a bit rigid and once in a while one wishes to see more of what's happening and of the creature itself. then, on the other hand, a loyal Lovecraft adaptation doesn't live off the things the viewer actually can see.

the ending really got me and earned my rating another star. just when one would think all is over, not satisfying, but understandable, the horror, seemingly defeated, rises again and reveals itself to the sole survivor after her escape from the asylum. the brood mother emerges from the sea and shows itself just long enough to release those typical HPL shivers going down the spine before the credits begin.

I saw this film at Fright Fest 2016 and thought I would share my thoughts.

From the opening deep sea dive sequence it is clear that this film has ambition. While other low budget horror films will be set in the woods and have very little in the way of a story, this film takes on some big set pieces that are delivered well. It would be easy to point out the low fi CGI effects but if you over look this then you are in for a ride.

The film takes us on a journey into madness and beyond as Anna Dawson's Olive finds a mysterious egg that hatches into The Creature Below and warps her mind.

There are some disturbing scenes and the practical effects in the film punch well above the low budget of the film.

If you are a fan of creature horror and HP Lovecraft then this film will be for you. I tried to buy it on Amazon but it is not available yet. I will keep my eyes peeled.

I read the reviews before watching this and was excited to watch it after reading them,only to be sadly disappointed. The 'creature' reminded me of those creatures you see in a 70's Doctor Who episode,cooked up in a bowl,then refrigerated until it gets wobbly,then painted with water colours. The acting was equally awful and really nothing at all likable about any of the dull as dishwater characters,even the appearance of the required horror movie boobies did nothing to liven this sad offering up,with the music score even duller and more monotonous than the movie. Avoid this lemon at all costs.

This movie has some bad, but really bad, CG. well, all the CG in this movie are bad, not just some.... and there's not a lot, most of the "creature" parts are made with the old puppet way, seems to be cheaper from using CG.... music is not bad, but sometimes completely different types of music got into the main score, and we just paused the DVD to make sure none of the neighbors is listening to the radio...acting is terrible, OMG it is SO terrible, the lead actress is a disaster, and this is what might turn this garbage into a cult film, the other actress, the sister of the heroine is better, she is actually trying to act, which is not so good, because if she was as bad as her sister - this movie would surely get an Oscar for worst acting.

Viewed on Amazon Prime, I just had to watch it a second time to get a couple of fine points I might have missed the first time around.

I think one of the best ideas was to limit the visual contact we had with the creature (Lovecraftian and god-like). Additionally, the creature was given a childlike way of "speaking" that made me want to love it just as did the main character, Olive.

I just wish the ending had been given about one more full second in the ocean "reveal" scene for my eyeballs to love. Warning - I liked the ending.

First, the bad, and it is pretty bad. The CGI and green-screen work is simply atrocious. A lot of it does seriously remind one of a decade old video game, and not a good video game. The first ten minutes of the movie is dominated by it but if you hang in there, what you will find is something very surprising.

Now the good, and there is a substantial amount of good to be found here.

I'll start with a nod to the score which kept reminding me of something John Carpenter would have done and, to me, that is a very good thing. As the movie moves from its start as an action adventure/monster flick to a somber melodrama following our leads decent into madness, the score continues to keep the energy up through what I would term as very patient pacing.

As a bit of balance to the poor CGI much of the practical effects were good. With some unabashed blood and various levels of body horror as well as a satisfactory rendering, it has plenty of payoff if blood and guts are your sort of thing. The monster was left largely unseen, another nod to Lovecraft as were it actually shown correctly, we the viewers would be driven mad by the sight of it. Nudge nudge wink wink.

I found the acting and its direction to be solid, and at times quite good. While the somewhat dingy sister and the milquetoast boyfriend were a bit on the cliché eventual monster food variety the roles were played well and I found them to be believable enough.

The story, ahhhh the story. For me this is where the movie is really a bit special. It has proved to be very very difficult to correctly put together a movie that captures the essence of the stories of H.P. Lovecraft. This one, I think, rather nailed it. It is not a tale of us verses it where, in the end, the monster is slain and the heroine gets away. It is a tale of a person who, unwittingly, pokes at something vast and terrible and pays the price with first their sanity and then their life. It is the story of a decent into madness brought about by contact with something that is beyond reason. When watching it one knows that this is not going to end well for anyone pretty early on and this is all part of the way Lovecraft wove his tales. Again, to reuse a phrase from earlier, all of this is told, as Lovecraft told his tales, with a horrific patience that draws one in to the mounting madness.

I think for all fans of Lovecraft there was a complete geek out when the lead finally sinks deep into madness and starts describing the experience using entire passages of Lovecraft's work to do so. Placing Lovecraft's prose directly on to film is not an easy thing to pull off but here it was done quite well.

All in all what we end up with is a movie that works very well if one is a fan of Lovecraft as the "mythos" part of the movie is, in my opinion, some of the best ever done which makes it much easier to forgive the terrible special effects. For those that are not already a fan of Lovecraft, however, there may be more of a disconnect as it is a patiently paced horror/drama book ended by some bad special effects.

I would love to see those who were involved creatively on this project to be given the chance to bring what they seem to be able to do in a larger way. I would actually love to see this movie having been made with a substantial budget. Actually "getting" Lovecraft in a movie is a terrific thing, and not an easy thing to do. I would love to see it done in a more spectacular way.

When I saw the DVD cover for this film I was expecting a SyFy channel level production and whilst the opening 10 mins of CGI didn't convince me otherwise I was pleasantly surprised to find a very competently put together take on Lovecraftian horror. The film is certainly low budget and as the producers on the 'Making of' DVD bonus feature state, they worked with what they had, using their own houses as location. Any of these shortcomings are overcome by the great cast, all of whom I have not seen before but did a really good job with the script. Anna Dawson is very convincing as the lead character Olive, slowly loosing her mind to the creature which seems to have some kind of psychic control over her. The characters of Ellie & Matt are also well played and the chemistry between them seems very authentic. There are also some great supporting cast members in there like Doctor Fletcher and Olive's friend Dara. All of the cast play their roles with a straight face which I think was important considering the crazy script. Where the film truly shines is in the practical creature effects which are used sparingly but build up the mystery around the creature. There is plenty of blood and guts for gore fans but it isn't extreme in anyway so fans of more psychological horror films will also be satisfied. The ending of the film takes things to completely insane levels and also surprised me considering the small scope the film had shown thus far and there is potential for a sequel there. As I said before the film is slightly let down by the opening CGI which isn't very good but I don't think it lets it down too much there. For fans of H.P. Lovecraft this is a must see.

True, there are other somewhat similar movies. What makes this one stand out is the excellent acting. Other more mainstream movies of this kind inevitably always have linear acting - meaning that what you see from the first scene is what you'll get in the last frame. Not so with this one. Anna Dawson starts off by portraying an ambitious go-getter who becomes increasingly taciturn. The supporting actress, Michaela Longden, starts off by being something akin to a party girl, but ends up emotionally distraught. The silent ''screams'' at the end are surreal, and as such, are even more terrifying - reminding me of some nightmarish scenes seen in Europeen movies of the 70's. Very often, a film with a smaller budget has to maximize its limited resources in imaginative and creative ways that seem to elude bigger budget films. The Girl With All the Gifts, Morgan, Dog Soldiers - although all unrelated - are movies with limited budgets that excel in imagination and mood management. The Creature Below belongs in this company. I hope they make a sequel!

If your a horror or Lovecraft film fan, you'll probably give this a pretty decent rating. It had the same production values of "The Resurrected" AKA Shatterbrain with Chris Sarandon of course without Chris Sarandon.

I'm a huge fan of H. P. Lovecraft literature, one of the major fathers of modern horror. If you don't know the name and your a horror movie fan, it's time to pick up a book. Anyhow, there are a great number of specific film adaptations of Lovecraft but many decent movies based on the theme. I had been waiting for some time to get my hands on this one. Due to a trailer I had seen the movie seemed to be heavily influenced by and related to Cthulhu, one of Lovecraft's major antagonists.

This doesn't have any big-named actors and is a lower budget affair but I was pleased to say I enjoyed it and found it an entertaining addition to other "Lovecraft Themed Films". Basically it's about a deep sea research diver who brings up a semi parasitic creature she discovers on a deep sea dive. The creature grows and begins to influence her to... This film story is very similar to another Lovecraft themed movie a foreign 1981 film "Possession" with beloved Horror Icon Sam Neill but isn't a twisted and difficult to follow and it's in English.

If your a Lovecraft film fan, these is definitely worth the watch. They never directly mention the mythos but the crude cave drawing, images, monologue and the ending leave no doubt.

If I have one grip about this, it may be the further development of a human antagonist. They were doing a fairly good job with the story and the main character and I think they might have gone further if they hadn't deviated from it but I'm satisfied with the viewing experience nevertheless.

"The Creature Below" is a mish-mash of all sorts of "creature" movies poorly rolled into one. It is a story of a young marine biologist, Olive, who experiences a horrible diving accident while trying to test out a scientists latest diving suit. She sees "something," but when she comes to she cannot remember what she saw. While examining her diving gear, she discovers some sort of egg lodged in what was her oxygen tank, steals it, and returns home.

Face it, guys, we've already seen this about 20 times: Alien, Species, Species II, Grabbers, and Little Shop of Horrors, et al. The only difference is most of Creature's predecessor movies were much better. There was nothing original in here. What makes this movie even more unbearable is the stilted dialogue, characters complete obliviousness that something is wrong, characters which should wear signs that say "kill me next," and an ending which just helped the entire movie fall flat on its face.

"The Creature Below" is rated "R" for some violence, brief nudity, and language. Sorry guys, but I've already seen this movie.

Despite the awful acting

Zero budget

Weak story

Uninspired direction

Awful special effects

And did I mention just how terrible the lead 'actress' is?

I somehow made it to the end!

There is nothing to recommend this film and it has few redeeming qualities. But it is watchable (just), and the premise could be interesting if ALL the above faults were fixed. I've not seen a good Lovecraft inspired film for a long time - and this does not change that!

THE CREATURE BELOW is a British indie horror flick with some mildly interesting touches, but in the end the experience is soured by an air of tired predictability and a willingness to take the story in a very ordinary direction. The young female protagonist is a diver who brings something back from the depths; it turns out to be a bloodsucking squid monster which she keeps in a tank. Eventually, she feeds a few people to it. The story is as mundane as that, not helped by indifferent performances and direction that screams "first time". I'm a massive fan of Lovecraft and I was hoping this would be more along that line, but aside from the cheesy final scene this never rises above the ordinary.

The movie is basically an attempt of making dark brooding version of Little Shop of horrors. The more you watch the more the similarities are going to come to light. From the creatures first feeding attempts to its reaction to blood. The lead character even shares a suckling seen similar to Rick morranis and audry.

I will give it is sufficiently changed from the source material to not call it a copy it does fit in line as far as plot development

What kept running through my mind as I watched this movie was "what motivates someone, anyone, to make a movie like this?" I'm not speaking about the genre or subject of the movie, but rather a very legitimate question of what is the driving force to make a movie with the primary actress having no acting ability, the writing being almost non-existent, no real direction, and the lowest production value imaginable. Essentially it seemed like not a single person involved had any desire to make this movie.

My review isn't even regarding whether this movie is good or bad, as it's clearly meant to be a campy movie, as that's perfectly fine and often quite enjoyable. But rather there's something so completely off about this movie that it strikes me as extremely out of place. Like when you see a business in your town that seems to never have any customers, nor even seems to want any, but has been around forever supposedly making plenty of money and you get the idea that there might be something more to their business model. That is this movie. It wasn't made to be watched.

Really I'd give it a 1 but I did make it completely through the film, and there was 1 redeeming line near the end which I won't spoil but I presume was the only tag line planned for this entire film.

I actually enjoyed this low budget horror flick. The story line is great and was developed very well........as the little creature from the depths of the ocean is metamorphosing into a hideous creature, the smart biologist who found the creature is also struggling with her sanity as she bonds with the creature

There is no established actor in the film. The quality of acting is not the best. But the main character (Anne Dawson) played her role very well.

Over all, it is a nice film!

I heard nothing about this and just watched it on Prime, and although there's some plot holes it's still very enjoyable. It's notably hard to interpret Lovecraft on film, but this one did a good job. Scientist brings home only what I later interpret to be a baby Cthulhu, and gradually goes nuts as she melds with it physically and psychically. The film has the quintessential Lovecraft ending with the lone survivor ending up in the mad house; and a great final scene with more baby creatures washing up ashore and a big Cthulhu thing popping out of the ocean. Bring on more creature films please!

But still think it was worth a watch despite the somewhat bad acting.

Talking about The Creature Below, 2016 Directed by Stewart Sparke, who co wrote it with Paul Butler. Spoiler Alert, I will be talking about the plot and give spoiler details, so best advice, watch it, and then come back and see if I am on Target. Where to begin, Great Procuction values. The modest budget produced satisfactory effects, Lots of naked woman, and buckets of blood, Whats not to like? About the story, it starts with Anna Dawson, playing Olive Crown. A work obsessed explorer, virtually selling her soul to explore dark realms. She's going down, with some neat helmet effects, There she meets" it". What is it? the unnamed, but I suspect Cthulhu. Things go amok, and that's the first ten minutes. Next thing you know we see the same woman in a completely different light, Her loving boyfriend Matt Gardiner, played with charm by Daniel Thrace. She has a visit from her dear sister, Ellie, played by Michaela Longden. Her Pal shipmate who saved her life, and the Brutal Lead Wronged captain Dr Fletcher, ,played by Zachary lee. Fine acting all around, well and good, until, It turns out to be a Monster in the basement movie,, with violence murder and Madness above all.

The film vexed me, It follows plot lines we have seen before, the "simple experiment goes awry". Throw in the "Morphing blood Sucking baby to grown up" monster. A bit of raped by a monster, and a touch of Rosemarys Baby. The poor actors had to make the best of sometimes inane plot turns, As it turns out, it ended better then I expected.

About the monster, since that is what makes or breaks a film, Either for budget concerns, or plot points, we seldom get a glance of the monster, we see a inky egg, and after that, the terrible cliché of rubber tentacles pulled behind objects when spotted, all the while a cooing with baby monster sounds. Then there are the Feed Me scenes, I swear its true, that is exactly a tip of the hat to Mushnick. The Ten Little Indian plot device was wearing thin, when her sister, who heard all and saw all, saves the film. Entertaining, gore with discretion, over the top At the expense of some actors who gave it their all. Eight out of Ten black inky Stars.

Fair play I can't believe I've wot an absolute pile of junk this film was horrendous acting from all of the cast wot a pile of crap they should be ashamed this pile of crap was ever released wot a waste of time be warned people don't waste your time watching this crap I've never watched so much rubbish in my life worst film ever

A good concept, not an original one but with a real potential to be both fun and scary, and a creepy-looking DVD cover were what drew me into seeing 'The Creature Below' in the first place. Also have gotten some entertainment out of low-budget creature films, though there are too many weak or less ones.

'The Creature Below' is not good, let alone great. It is also not terrible, let alone a complete shambles, and has good points that make it semi-watchable. There are certainly far worse films in the genre, of similar creature films and overall and it didn't leave me angry or cringing, just that it is very underwhelming that doesn't do a good job with its objectives of being fun or scary.

Starting with the positives, the monster does have some creepiness. There are moments where 'The Creature Below' is moderately scary and fun, and it doesn't take things too seriously or go overboard on the camp factor.

It's effectively lit and shot too sometimes. The soundtrack has eeriness when it isn't being intrusive or obvious. Michaela Longden tries.

Conversely, a lot of things bring 'The Creature Below' down. The acting is generally not good, Anna Dawson being especially terrible in the lead and it does kill the film. The characters are dull and sometimes annoying, meaning there is never much of a reason to make one care for them. Some of the decision making as such bordered on silly.

Although the creature was not bad in personality, the creature effects are very cheap-looking. Even for low-budget, 'The Creature Below' is pretty slapdash, especially in the editing. Excitement, thrills, creepiness and suspense are too far and between. The scares are generally not enough and suffer from predictability and lack of tension. The story is far too minimal, another thing that affects the pacing with the padding and over-stretching, bland and often ridiculous.

Overall, semi-watchable at best and mostly mediocre. 4/10 Bethany Cox

I'm usually not one to make devastating comments or to debase a movie, I know that are always many people involved with every production and that they were all honestly aiming at making the best film possible for the budget that they had. Even in a production like this, where - according to the information on IMDb - the budget was extremely modest (a mere 12.000 English pounds), the list of cast, crew-members and contributors is long. That makes you wonder if all these people really were proud and satisfied when they witnessed the first viewing. Was there really no-one who took the director and producers aside to say: "hey, maybe, just maybe, we should reconsider bringing this one out in the open, at least in this form and state"! Because they really should have.

To start on the positive side: the premise is interesting and challenging enough. An ambitious female scientist takes an extremely deep dive in unexplored waters, to be met to her horror by a gigantic creature, and she can barely be saved. She finds an organic rest of the creature stuck to her diving-suit and smuggles it back home to study it. It turns out to be some sort of egg or spawn and (predictably) the hatch comes out and before long the scientist is stuck with a hungry and rapidly growing creature in her basement.

So far, so good. But now the lack of any substantial budget comes in. Obviously there wasn't any financial room for a decent script, so we have to deal with bad dialogues, totally unrealistic and illogical behavior (she must be the most un-scientific, un-ethical and irresponsible scientist in England!) and a tedious repetition of goings-on before anything exciting happens. The money for CGI was spent on a few cringingly bad effects in the first 15 minutes of the movie: the diving descent and, curiously enough, on a birds-eye view of the ship sailing over the ocean and into the harbour, that looked faker than fake. I mean, why not hire a heli for say half an hour or sent up a drone and film a real ship sailing?! For the creature, which is of course the main focus of the movie, they sadly enough decided to use old-fashioned handicraft, we see some sort of black jelly-belly pudding with rubber tentacles that slowly moves about and was a total let-down, every time it came into view. It really makes you yearn for good CGI.

The story gets an even sillier turn when the (meanwhile gone slightly delusional) scientist begins to feed family and friends to the creature and at last gets eaten herself (serves her right!), after which the creature succeeds in escaping. How on earth did it do that?!! Through the sewers, some police-officer suggests. Really?!? A by now enormous creature that can devour humans squeezes itself into some drain or tap?!

The closing scene is maybe the best (or: less bad) one of the movie, when we see a beach where hundreds of spawns wash ashore and the mighty mother-creature, in a Lovecraftian shape, swims flip-flapping towards us to destroy the unsuspecting mankind. What a pity that the rest of the movie didn't live up to this strong image!

Well, that's it, I can't make it any better or prettier. Okay, I liked actress Anna Dawson, she's a real beauty, at least in the rare moments that she didn't have to behave as an aggrieved ice-princess or an unrelenting maniac. And Daniel Thrace as her neglected boyfriend was cute as a puppy. But that is way too little to carry a whole movie.

I'm sorry, but I cannot rank it more than a 3 out of 10.