This Island Earth – Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie (1955) – MST3K Review

Summary:

Dr. Cal Meacham (Rex Reason) is your classic 1950s scientist. He’s big, he’s bold, he’s brave and he’s probably atomic. He’s also been selected by a group of aliens to help with a little project they’ve got cooking. Cal is tested in his lab by the mysterious Exeter (Jeff Morrow) to build a machine called an Interossitor. Cal is able to do just that, and so Exeter is convinced that Cal can help. Cal is spirited away to a out of the way farm in Georgia where he meets fellow scientists Ruth Adams (Faith Domergue) and Steve Carlson (Russell Johnson).

At first everything is swell, even if Exeter and his folks have huge foreheads and white hair. But alas happy times to not endure and before you can say ray beams and flying saucers, Ruth and Cal are abducted from earth and taken to the planet Metaluna. Exeter explains that his people need Uranium and gigantic quantities, and that Ruth and Cal can help them. But can Exeter be trusted? Is a Mut-ant just like insect life on our world? Will our scientists ever return to This Island Earth?

Movie Review:

When it came time for the folks at Best Brains to pick a riffing movie for their feature film debut, they settled on This Island Earth. It’s big, its colorful, its got memorable characters, a fun story and is silly enough in that 50s kind of way to provide plenty of riffing material.

This movie sports all the features of a classic 1950s flying saucer film, but with a bit more creativity packed into the story. I like how Exeter is actually a decent guy. He only wants to protect his planet, and he wants to work with the Earthlings to accomplish this. It’s his superiors who are bent on destroying Earthlings and repopulating Earth. I thought the test that Exeter comes up with was clever. I even liked the whole concept of the tubes and pressures.

But there are also all kinds of wacky “science” going on, including that odd metal toaster thing that Cal works with in his lab. You’ve got the Interossitor, a machine that can do just about anything. It just begs the question, if the Metalunans have this kind of technology how can they be getting their butts kicked so badly?

There are also some odd moments in the script to This Island Earth that leave you scratching your head. Why the cat Neutron? Why the mut-ant? Why introduce the character of Joe and then just leave him behind? Why blow up all the scientists before leaving earth? Some of these issues were addressed in the unedited version, but some are still puzzling if you’ve seen the whole film.

Cal is one of those heroes who is pretty silly the more you think about it. People keep saying how brilliant he is, but he doesn’t do much but look handsome, speak in his low sonorous voice and every once in a while (when he feels like it) perform some kind of action. Things just happen to Cal, and since he’s one of the few males left standing at the end of the film, he becomes our hero by default.

But one of my favorite characters is the nebbish Joe played by Robert Nichols. He’s a 1950s style nerd if you’ve ever seen one, and actually reminds me of a more realistic scientist than Cal is. This Island Earth could have been more fun with Joe in the lead role, but here he is the voice of caution. Still his nerdy vibe is missed after he vanishes after the first act.

Visually the film is bursting with color and motion. The visual effects are impressive for the day. Even the Mut-ant costume became a classic monster of sorts, with its exposed brain and huge eyes. The Interossiter is filled with blinking lights that wouldn’t be out of place in an original episode of “Star Trek”.

I even enjoy the music, credited to three composers on IMDB including the famous Henry Mancini. It’s bold brassy and dramatic but not in that ponderous Albert Glasser kind of way. And hey, it’s got Theremin in it!

This Island Earth is fun sci-fi stuff. It’s not really a bad movie, more of a pulp classic that you can enjoy on a lazy Sunday. But it also provides Mike and bots with a lot to work with and seemed ripe for the riffing.

Episode Review:

Whenever Mystery Science Theater 3000: the Movie is mentioned around the more hard core fans of the series, it is usually with dislike. Many of these fans know what the movie could have been, and what it ended up being after behind the scenes wrangling by the studios and issues among the cast is less the sum of its parts. What should have been one of the funniest episodes of the show turned into a fun movie that falls short.

But talk to any fans who started their love affair with the show because of this movie, or anyone who is a casual fan, and this is usually one of their favorite versions of MST3K. In fact I find it to be one of the best ways to get new viewers into the show.

This Island Earth is that perfect combination of watchable and yet cheesy enough to make fun of. It’s not as god awful as Manos: the Hands of Fate and has more appeal than something from Ed Wood’s bizarre mind. It really is a perfect pick for a larger audience who is not familiar with the premise. Yes, I wish the studio had allowed the crew to riff on the entire movie. The final presentation is well short of the running time for an actual episode of MST3K, and the film was only 87 minutes long to begin with.

But most of the editing is done with care and you don’t lose any key plot elements. Mostly you miss some of the more explosive special effects from the final portion of the film. Still, all the real goofiness of the movie is concentrated in the first two acts and that’s where the riffing gold begins.

Cal and Joe’s antics provide some serious laughs in this section. Cal finds himself spiraling out of control in a jet when a mysterious green beam of energy saves him. As the jet glows green, we see a POV shot of the cockpit, bathed in green light. Tom quips “Early LSD tests in the air force.” Joe jumps into his jeep and drives off as Crow yells, “Into the weenie mobile! Weenie-man away!” As the jeep rolls up to the landed jet Mike adds, “Nerdy Joe action playset. Nerdy Joe not included.”

And it just gets better from there. Cal’s experiments with his metal toaster causes all kinds of breakfast related humor. When the boys start to build the Interossitor, we are given one of the lines that is most used in my house “We start here, at goofy clown face.” – a riff that has to be seen to be enjoyed.

Sure the appearance of Russell Johnson as a man of science unleashes “Gilligan’s Island” jokes, but they keep those pretty low key. More often they are riffing on Exeter, his lumpy head and his assistant Brack. There is also the infamous picture in Exeter’s office that leads to the line “Who we are? Why we’re here? And why do I have a picture of a burger on the wall.”

For my money Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie was the funniest movie I saw in theaters in 1996, easily beating The Nutty Professor by a mile. It gave me so many quotable lines and is a favorite around our house. One of the comfort food episodes that we watch when need a good laugh or just want to hear Mike yell in a commanding voice “ACTING” when Exeter flails about at the end of the film.

If anything is amiss it’s the fact that the host segments are all over the place. The movie starts with Dr. Forrester explaining the premise. He goes way over the top and then right back around again. I know this actually freaks new viewers out a bit. But as the credits roll with the 2001 inspired jogging scene, it comes back down to a guy interacting with puppets and just being silly. Crows escape attempt is good for some laughs. As is Tom’s experience with suction. The first break occurs when the film snaps and Mike and the bots get to talking about flight. Mike ends up trying to fly the Satellite of Love and crashes in to the Hubble telescope. There is a neat call back to one of the more infamous episodes from the show. The next break occurs when Tom reveals that he has an Interossitor in his room. We then see Tom’s underwear collection and meet a Metalunan! When the movie ends Dr. Forrester tries to gloat, but Mike and bots are having a Metaluna Mixer and you’re invited!

But one of my favorite moments of Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie is when Mike and the bots sit down and riff on the credits to their own movie. It’s such a fun twist and the riffs are hilarious -easily one of the highpoints of the series.

Hardcore fans love to hate this movie. They claim the riffing is too slow, too subpar, and too lowbrow. They say the movie selection isn’t bad enough. They say that making this movie drove creator Joel Hodgeson from the show. They say the studio ruined the final product.

I say they’re all nuts. This is easily one of the most fun offerings of the series. It’s a great introduction to the concept and it remains one of the most accessible ways to get a taste of the series. If it proves anything, it proves that the team was able to handle anything that was thrown at them. And even if the experience of making the movie was pretty nightmarish, the final result was still a good time. And isn’t that why we watch the show in the first place.

I give this five Dr. Meacham (glad to Meet-chams) out of five.

This episode is available as Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie.

Tarzan the Ape Man (1932)

Introduction:

When Edgar Rice Burroughs created Tarzan back in 1912 I don't think he quite knew what he had unleashed. Not only did the character appear in countless books, radio adaptations, televisions series and video games, but there were also movies. Every decade or so, a new interpretation of Tarzan appears on the big screen. But the most famous have to be the 1930s classics featuring Johnny Weissmuller in the title role. Let’s take a look at the first, Tarzan the Ape Man.

Summary:

Jane Parker (Maureen O'Sullivan) arrives in Africa to look for her father James (C. Aubrey Smith). James is searching for the legendary graveyard of the elephants so he and his partner Harry (Neil Hamilton) can score some ivory and make it rich. Unfortunately the tribes in the area won't reveal the location of the graveyard for fear of a powerful force protecting it.

That doesn't stop our greedy explorers, so off they go with a group of native porters to drag their stuff around and act as lion bait. At first, things go as expected. They run into stock footage of hippos, get attacked by some puppety crocodiles and even run into a hostile tribe. Things take a turn for the shirtless when Tarzan (Johnny Weissmuller) shows up. He quickly takes a shine to Jane and abducts her. Not that she cares too much once she gets a good look at him. What follows is jungle romance, fatherly concern and shrieking chimps. Has Jane found her true love? Can Tarzan ever understand the ways of these bizarre pith helmet wearing fools?

Good Points:

• Some impressive visual effects for the time
• Weissmuller and O’Sullivan provide plenty of eye candy
• Has a great adventure vibe to it

Bad Points:

• This is one noisy movie
• Animal action looks a little too real
• Portrayal of anyone who isn’t white is pretty abysmal

Overall:

This is a classic adventure film through and through. The pace is a little slower than one would expect, but other than that, there’s plenty of impressive stunt work, visual effects and animal action. This is worth checking out for fans of classic cinema.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 3

Script: 3

Music: n/a

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Total: 3

In Depth Review

All the elements that would be borrowed or ripped off in lesser jungle adventure films can be found in Tarzan the Ape Man and done with skill. Sure the mix of stock footage rear projected behind the actors looks a bit dated to our eyes, but in 1932 this was exciting stuff to see on the big screen. Much of the footage was actually shot in Africa for another film Trader Horn, and you can tell the difference between the real savannah and the wilderness of Southern California. But that’s where the use of real animals comes in. This movie is filled to bursting with all kinds of wildlife, much of it real and used on location with the actors. A few moments of puppet or rigged animals are used, but they add to the fun of the film. You also get to see men dressed as apes hanging out with real chimps. So keep your 2001: A Space Odyssey remarks handy.

As far as full blown animal action is concerned you get a wide selection: lion attacks, elephant stampedes and leopards jumping all over the place. My wife got disturbed by the violence toward the animals (and wondering how many times the cast was using loaded weapons on them), but Tarzan the Ape Man was made at a different time, when things like that were not a concern.

This is also one of the noisiest movies I’ve seen in from the era. You get all kinds of animal sounds all the time. You expect to hear lions roaring and chimps chattering in a jungle movie. But the finale is nearly non-stop chaos of sound design, with elephants trumpeting and stomping all around. Natives screaming as they get squished. Cheetah the Chip shrieking and shrieking and shrieking. And you can’t forget the patented Tarzan call. Yes, you can tell Weissmuller isn’t really performing the call, but it adds to the fun. And from what I’ve read, he was able to duplicate the call pretty well as he continued to make the films.

For those more interested in the human cast, I was actually surprised by how decent the acting was. I always assumed from the parodies of these films, that they were loaded with over the top performances or wooden delivery. But O’Sullivan and Weissmuller actually do a good job. Weissmuller doesn’t have a lot of dialogue, but his physical presence is more important anyway. But the swimmer isn’t wooden at all, his eyes do a lot of the acting, especially when he’s angry. 

O’Sullivan is the real find. She is perfect as Jane: spunky, alluring and even if she does get put into peril, not a damsel in distress. Without O’Sullivan’s performance, Tarzan the Ape Man would be a lot weaker. Her character is the keystone to the story and she handles the role with skill. We are also talking about a movie made before the Hays code came into effect and toned down sexuality in movies. Tarzan and Jane spend most of the film in very little clothing and striking some provocative poses. Both actors are in great physical shape, so you don’t mind looking at them. But some of the scenes of raw sexuality surprised me. The sequence where Tarzan grapples with Jane in his hidey-hole surprised me with its aggression. I realized that this film was not for family viewing (something that did evolve in later movies), but targeted toward an adventure seeking audience.

Don't come to this film looking for a progressive portrayal of Africans. You get two types of black people in this movie: the clumsy superstitious porters or the bloodthirsty savages. The porters are there to get attacked by animals, fall off cliffs and get murdered by the angry tribes. The savages are there to chant, hurl spears and get their butts handed to them by Tarzan. Yeah it's pretty shameful to our eyes, but it was typical of movies from this era.

The themes of the greedy white explorers messing with jungle powers they can’t understand seems a bit progressive for 1932. Wile James and Harry aren’t villains per se, they are out of their element and end up paying for their greed. Jane immediately understands Tarzan’s world and because of this she remains unharmed. But her enchantment with the man, turns into a true love for the whole of the jungle and so she stays at the end of the film. A surprisingly strong decision for a woman to make for a film of this time. I knew that she would stay, but the script and O’Sullivan’s performance make it seem like an organic decision, instead of a plot point.

Director W.S. Van Dyke does a decent job with Tarzan the Ape Man. He has to work with stock footage, tricky visual effects, a gymnast, a swimmer who had done little acting as the leading man, and lots of animals to manage. MGM wasn’t expecting the film to turn into a hit, they just wanted something that people would enjoy and get some more use out of the footage from Trader Horn which didn’t do well. So Van Dyke wasn’t out there to make a masterpiece. Because the movie was showing off exotic locales and animals, it takes its time between action scenes slowing the pace down at times.

Did I enjoy it? From a historical perspective I did. Some of the adventure stuff was a lot of fun, but some the extended stock footage use got tiring. The movie could have been a bit leaner and it would have been a bit more gripping. It comes down to the charisma of O'Sullivan and Weissmuller, and how well you can tolerate all the jungle sounds in the film. Man, does that chimp ever stop shrieking? Luckily the next film in the franchise, Tarzan and His Mate was superior in every way - and may be the best of the series.

Read about the other lessons I learned from Tarzan the Ape Man at my review of the first collection of the films over at DVD Verdict.

A History of Violence (2005)

Introduction:

What’s with the name David and directors? You’ve got David Lynch who makes dark surreal films. You’ve got David Fincher who makes dark dramas. And then there’s David Cronenberg who makes dark surreal dramas. Ok, it’s a stretch, but work with me here.

Summary:

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) lives in a small town in Indiana with his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and two children. It’s a nice quiet life, and you know that since this is a Cronenberg film that can’t last. As Tom is closing down his diner for the evening, a couple thugs come in and try to hold the place up. As things escalate Tom is forced to act, and boy does he. He takes out both men using only a coffee pot and a dropped gun. Tom becomes a local hero, but word spreads to Philadelphia. When Fogarty (Ed Harris) arrives in town he confronts Tom, saying that he knows who he really is. Tom appears to have never seen Fogarty in his life, but Edie begins to wonder if the man she knows as her husband is everything he appears to be.

Good Points:

• Excellent acting by the cast
• Multiple themes and ideas weave throughout the film
• Howard Shore’s musical score works perfectly

Bad Points:

• Fans of Cronenberg’s visceral horror are going to be disappointed
• The pacing may be too slow for some viewers
• The ending is going to annoy the hell out of some people

Overall:

Cronenberg has crafted an excellent film here with a great cast and crew. The story is simple, but the ideas behind it are intriguing and it offers a lot of food for thought and multiple viewings. Worth checking out if you’re looking for a well-made drama, with a history of violence.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 5

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 5

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

In Depth Review

Cronenberg is one of those directors I’ve heard a lot about but haven’t seen much of. I’ve seen his remake of “The Fly” but it’s been years. I’ve been interested in seeing “Videodrome” for years, but never got around to it. So when all the buzz about “A History of Violence” was going around, I decided to check it out. I really liked it. The story pulled me in and kept me guessing right up to where Tom leaves his home for Philadelphia. But at that point, Cronenberg’s shown his hand and you’re along for the ride.

This type of movie doesn’t work without strong acting and Viggo Mortensen really makes it work. He creates two separate characters and fuses them together into one man. Some of it is very subtle, but when the changes kick in you can see a huge difference between “Tom” and “Joey”. But on top of all that Viggo allows you to see that Tom and Joey are the same man, and it’s that extra layer that adds to the performance and makes the final scene of the film resonate.

Maria Bello also does a great job as a loving woman who is really tested. Is the man she knows as Tom really hiding a dark past? And if that’s the case, how can she reconcile this lie with their marriage. She’s attracted and repulsed by Tom, a scene executed with brutality on the staircase proves that. But her character goes a long way during the film and in many cases her reactions provide a greater impact on the viewer.

Cronenberg took the graphic novel and turned it into a solid drama. This movie isn’t attempting to capture the graphic novel feel; instead Cronenberg turned this into a type of Western. There are all kinds of angles, musical cues and story setups that are right out of a traditional Western. But these elements are all slightly warped by other elements more common to a thriller or taking visuals an extra step.

It takes skill to weave all these elements together and Cronenberg makes it look simple. His opening sequence, one long slow take following two men leaving a motel is just a simple example. It does so much, setting up these characters, creating tension, setting mood, and establishing the setting. When we get to see a little more in the next shot – it’s a shock. It’s skilled film making all the way around.

What I found a bit surprising is that my second viewing allowed me to appreciate the acting and direction even more. I thought the movie was solid when I first saw it a couple years ago, but the second viewing really opened my eyes. I also suggest you give the commentary track by Cronenberg a listen. He talks about all kinds of things from adapting the script all the way up to the reception the film got. It’s very interesting as he covers all elements of the production and talks about how they all work together to cement the story and the themes it contains.

“A History of Violence” is an easy recommendation for anyone looking for a dark drama (with some black humor thrown in for good measure). You really can’t go wrong with this movie.

The Ghost Writer (2010)

Introduction:

Well how could I not check this one out. Not only does it have Pierce Brosnan and Ewan McGregor in it, but it’s about a writer. Throw in a few samples of the intriguing score by Alexandre Desplat and I was hooked.

Summary:

Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) is a former British Prime Minister in a bit of a bind. He’s currently being accused of war crimes. As the pressure around him heats up, a close friend and colleague is found drowned off the coast of New England. Turns out the drowned man was working on Lang’s memoirs, and the publisher involved is eager to get them completed. They hire a ghost writer (Ewan McGregor) to finish working on them. Unfortunately, the memoirs are a mess and Lang is less then helpful. As the writer begins to dig a bit deeper he becomes entangled in a mystery that includes Ruth Lang (Olivia Williams) and Amelia Bly (Kim Cattrall) – Adam’s assistant. What secret will the Ghost Writer discover and will it cost him his life.

Good Points:

• The acting is very good all the way around
• Roman Polanski keeps the tension and mystery flowing
• Desplat’s score balances the thrills with a sense of dark humor

Bad Points:

• The resolution is going to rub some folks the wrong way
• The movie takes its time weaving its story
• Roman Polanski directed it

Overall:

Polanski crafts an entertaining thriller. He builds tension and gets performances from his cast that fit the story perfectly. I was especially impressed by Olivia Williams as Ruth. At times the plot stretches itself a bit much, but there is a sense of dark humor to the whole film that keeps it fun. Still Roman Polanski directed it and that’s going to turn away a lot of viewers. If you’re looking for a solid but slightly wordy thriller, check this one out.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 3

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 3

Total: 4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

The Watcher in the Woods (1980)

Introduction:

Disney was really flailing around in the late 70’s and early 80’s, unsure of how to proceed with their film offerings. We got some really unique films from that era, and this is one of them. Yes folks, Disney’s first attempt at family horror. And no, that doesn’t include “High School Musical”.

Summary:

The Curtis family has just bought a creepy old house in the middle of the English countryside. Paul (David McCallum) wants some peace and quiet to work on his opera. His kids Jan (Lynn-Holly Johnson) and Ellie (Kyle Richards) take to the place quickly enough. But there is a mysterious force in the woods, something watching them and waiting. The caretaker of the home Mrs. Aylwood (Bette Davis) seems to know something about this. Is a ghost haunting the woods and is it the mysterious figure that Jan keeps seeing in mirrors? Soon omens start appearing all over and Ellie starts acting really strange. Can Jan figure out the mystery of “The Watcher in the Woods” before its too late?

Good Points:

• When its focused on ghostly mystery, the story is engaging
• Some great atmosphere with the woods and chapel
• Has a few genuinely creepy moments

Bad Points:

• The acting is sooo over the top
• The script takes a left turn at the end that is laughable
• The 3 mile zooms don’t add to the tension

Overall:

At the heart of this story is a really creepy movie waiting to get out. But the acting and script just scuttle the whole thing. Bette Davis is the only one who keeps things grounded. In a way I can see what they were trying to do, but it just never comes together. Nostalgia may save this for some folks, but this is for Disney obsessed or the curious only. The alternate endings are a hoot.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 3

Acting: 2

Script: 3

Music: 3

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Total: 2

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.