when it first came out because it was the "bottom half of a double-bill with the more colorful Blood of the Vampire". He quotes a few contemporary reviews. It was called "'a pretty fair shocker'" in Daily Variety. Jack Moffitt, in The Hollywood Reporter, said the film emphasized the "'human rather than the monstrous side of this modern 'Dr. Jekyll' story". The Monthly Film Reporter, however, called it "'depressing,'" even though it had been "'tailored for the horror market.'" BoxOffice magazine in its issue of 19 January 1959 showed positive reviews from most of the publications listed in its "Review Digest". BoxOffice, Film Daily, and The Hollywood Reporter all rated it as "very good"; Harrison's Report and Variety rated it "good"; Parents' Magazine gave it a "fair" rating; and the New York Daily News had not reviewed the film. The reviewing division of the Catholic News Service evaluated Monster on the Campus in 1958 for its "artistic merit and moral suitability". This resulted in The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) giving the film a rating of "A-III," which meant it was suitable for adults, although USCCB cautioned that it contained "stylized violence with some intense menace". Many of the more recent reviews have centered on the monster/caveman/ape-man makeup. Warren writes, "The mask is unconvincing, with tiny shell-like teeth and a built-in scowl; it resembles similar Universal-International over-the-head masks of the period, as seen in Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Tarantula and other outings". Bryan Senn notes that keeping the monster off-camera until near the end of the film is a good idea, as it adds a "bit of build-up and mystery", but doing so "only makes the rubbery mask and hirsute padded shoulders (making him look like a simian linebacker) that much more disappointing when finally revealed". But reviews have noted more than just makeup. Phil Hardy writes that "cinematographer [Russel] Metty and special effects man [Clifford] Stine make the most of the ape-man's path of destruction through the campus but the script lacks any sparkle". Senn calls the film "visually flat, with the 'action' taking place in labs, offices and cabins, and with exteriors consisting of one back-lot hillside". And Warren says that the film is "hampered by trivial locations and drab sets. The film has no arresting images. The best [Arnold] can come up with is a swift glance the ape-man gives