Film

Night of the Lepus

Name: Night of the Lepus
Genre: Horror, Science Fiction
Released: 1972
Cast: Stuart Whitman, Janet Leigh, Rory Calhoun, DeForest Kelley, Paul Fix

A 1972 sci-fi horror film where a well-meaning experiment to control rabbit populations backfires spectacularly, unleashing giant carnivorous bunnies on Arizona. It's earnest B-movie fun with real practical effects, clumsy dialogue, and a monster that sounds ridiculous but plays it straight. Perfect for anyone who loves 1970s creature features with genuine charm and zero irony.

TMDb rating

2.2

Should you watch it?

Watch it if you have a soft spot for creature features made with earnest, old-fashioned seriousness, where the monsters are a bit ridiculous and the people taking them seriously are the fun part.

Skip it if you need monsters that look convincingly menacing, since the rabbit effects may strike you as a stretch and the pacing lingers on pest control talk and town politics.

What it asks of you: Roughly ninety minutes of slow-building town tension and lab-coat bickering before the creatures take center stage, so patience matters more than thrills.

Not sure? Find tonight's pick in a minute.

If you liked this

Arachnophobia1990

A masterclass in making the mundane monstrous. Director Spielberg's touch elevates what could be disposable into genuine, creeping dread without abandoning practical effects and character warmth.

But Slower paced than expected, and the first act spends a lot of time on small-town setup before the real terror arrives.

Tremors1990

Desert monster movie that balances horror and humour perfectly. Great ensemble cast, creative creature design, and genuine suspense mixed with laughs that earn themselves rather than undercut the stakes.

But The practical effects, while inventive, occasionally show their age, and the tone can feel uneven if you want pure scares.

Tarantula1955

Classic fifties giant-insect cinema that perfects the formula. Real special effects wizardry for its era, a scientist protagonist you actually care about, and restraint in showing the monster.

But Very much a product of its time; the gender dynamics and military posturing feel dated even for creature-feature fans.

Not sure tonight? Get a pick in a minute, starting from Night of the Lepus

The wildcard

Something you would not have found on your own.

Willard1971

Both are 1970s practical-effects creature films where the monster serves as an extension of human dysfunction rather than pure spectacle, wrapped in genuine craft despite modest budgets.

A year before Lepus, this rat-horror film nails the same earnest monster-movie spirit while being a genuinely unsettling psychological thriller. Bruce Davison gives a career-defining performance; the rats feel like a character rather than just effects.

But Darker and more disturbing than a typical creature feature—the animal violence, even with fake rats, can be genuinely hard to watch.

The Deadly Mantis1957

Another fifties giant-creature triumph. Excellent monster design, genuine tension sequences, and a script that respects the audience's intelligence while delivering straightforward monster movie thrills.

But Slower burn than Tarantula, and the romantic subplot derails the second act considerably.

Anaconda1997

Taps into creature-feature traditions while modernising the formula. Strong cast (Jon Voight is memorably unhinged), practical and digital effects blend, and genuine set-piece excitement.

But Shifts tone inconsistently between thriller and adventure-romp, and some effects have dated more than others.

The Lair of the White Worm1988

Ken Russell's psychedelic riff on creature horror. Baroque visuals, fearless commitment to strangeness, and Amanda Donohoe's performance is absolutely fearless and magnetic.

But Surreal, campy, and deeply weird in ways that obscure the plot entirely—will feel like pretentious nonsense if you want straightforward scares.

Q1982

Creature movie that plays it genuine despite the absurd premise. Real New York locations, character-driven stakes, and a monster that serves actual thematic purpose rather than existing for spectacle alone.

But Very much a product of early-eighties filmmaking; the pacing feels slack and the monster doesn't appear often enough for action fans.

Empire of the Ants1977

Bert I. Gordon's giant-ant epic with genuine practical effects and Charlton Heston giving it his all. Absurd but committed, with real location work and creature sequences that showcase serious craft.

But Frequently nonsensical plot, draggy middle section, and the effects—while impressive—can seem obviously artificial depending on your tolerance.

The Giant Behemoth1959

Pre-CGI cinema where the technological limitations force creative solutions—the monster is genuinely impressive *because* you rarely see all of it at once, a lesson both films understand intuitively.

A dinosaur-emerges-from-the-ocean film that has *no business* working as well as it does. Stop-motion effects by Willis O'Brien, real-world consequences to the monster's existence, and understated direction that trusts the audience.

But Monochrome, glacially slow by modern standards, and the monster only appears in fragments until the final act.

Phase IV1974

Both use small creatures as the monster, both were made when practical effects meant *actual* creatures on-set, and both deliver genuine unease not through gore but through scale-inversion—what's tiny is now lethal.

Saul Bass's only feature film is a sci-fi arthropod horror that's genuinely alien and unsettling. Minimal dialogue, visual storytelling, and an ending that commits entirely to strangeness. The ant cinematography is extraordinary.

But Experimental and abstract; if you want narrative clarity and character-driven stakes, this will frustrate you intensely.