torgotom

I read Stuart Galbraith IV's DVD review of Clonus (Parts - The Clonus Horror) at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=14914 and...
Anyone calling Mystery Science Theater excreable is a humorless fellow indeed. It immediately makes me dismiss his review and his opinions - as he should expect. Starting your commentary with a gross insult to the tastes of your readers really demonstrates poor writing skills. I'd bet a large percentage of DVDTalk readers are also Msties.
Clonus IS a decent film - as are more than a few MST3K vicitms, The Crawling Eye, First Spaceship on Venus and Danger Diabolik! come to mind.
Their appearance on the show neither obliterates their value or alters their history. Do all the "I'll be bahck" jokes ruin Terminator? Is Gone With the Wind diminished by a million sketch comedy parodies? NO. Geez, is this what writing about Kurosawa does to a guy? Destroy your ability to laugh at things?
Glenn Erickson laments the MST3K treatment of Diabolik but at least doesn't condemn me for watching MST3K.
Some of us ENJOY film and some of us take it waaaaay too seriously. Guess which category I'd put mr. Galbraith in?

S Galbraith IV

Isn't it strange that fans of a show whose very purpose is to insult the work of others can get so bent out of shape when that show is itself criticized?

1. "Anyone calling Mystery Science Theater excreable [sic] is a humorless fellow indeed." Sorry, I don't see the logic here. So, what you’re saying is that just because >you< like MST3K, you expect everyone else to like it, too, lest they have no sense of humor?

2. "Starting your commentary with a gross insult to the tastes of your readers really demonstrates poor writing skills." I didn't insult the tastes of my readers, I insulted Mystery Science Theater 3000. It's also presumptuous to assume that everyone shares your tastes. I'm sure some of my readers probably love MST3K, while others probably dislike it. You speak only for yourself.

3. "Their appearance on the show neither obliterates their value or alters their history. Do all the 'I'll be bahck' jokes ruin Terminator? Is Gone With the Wind diminished by a million sketch comedy parodies?" No, because those movies aren't broadcast or sold on video with contempt-laden commentary.

4. "Geez, is this what writing about Kurosawa does to a guy? Destroy your ability to laugh at things?" Not in the slightest, thank you. For one, I found your angry tirade quite hilarious.

The fact that you refer to films subjected to MST3K treatment as "victims" pretty much says it all. Yes, I know, there are lots of fans of the series out there, and I can hardly begrudge anyone out there who can get some enjoyment watching it.

But I do believe the show 1) has had a negative impact at screenings of old movies, especially classic science fiction and horror films, where scattered nitwits feel compelled to "entertain" everyone else with unasked-for running commentaries; and 2) directly thwarts through ridicule the generally sincere efforts of others through a direct access to their "performance" without their consent.

As Gene Siskel once put it, “You can only see a film for the first time once.” That’s behind my feelings about MST3K, an opinion you don’t have to agree with anymore than I have to love MST3K to appreciate good comedy.

Cygnet74

"I gotta go pack."

"Then I gotta get ready to go."

flmfreakcentral

Hear, hear, Stuart! That show spreads a cancer of detached irony, and I've longed to see someone smack it down for ages. Mike Nelson has even poisoned a few DVDs that MST3K had nothing to do with (such as the most recent reissue of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD--NIGHT OF THE LIVING FREAKIN' DEAD, of all things) with "contempt-laden" commentaries; and Jesus wept.

Bill C

dhmac

I find it amazing that actual film critics are digging into the whole idea behind MST3K. If seeing people mock and scorn the work of filmmakers bothers a person, then I think that is a person who is definitely should not be working as a film critic. It just oozes hypocrisy.

"How dare MST3K make funny of that movie without the consent of the filmmakers! Now let me go and cut Joel Schumacher's latest opus a new arsehole in my next write-up!"

MST3K is just a form of film criticism, guys, basically doing what most of us already do with friends when sitting around and watching movies that we think are bad or cheesy.

Josh Z

Personally, I think the concept of MST3K had the potential to be funny, at least in very small doses, but in actual practice is extremely repetitive and boring. It's a one-joke show, and I got damn tired of the joke really quickly.

flmfreakcentral

The difference is that critics don't inextricably link themselves to movies; I hate the fact that it's impossible to mention CLONUS or MANOS without the qualifying MST3K plug.

S Galbraith IV

"I find it amazing that actual film critics are digging into the whole idea behind MST3K. If seeing people mock and scorn the work of filmmakers bothers a person, then I think that is a person who is definitely should not be working as a film critic. It just oozes hypocrisy...."

I completely disagree. My job isn't, as you suggest, to "mock and scorn the work of filmmakers" the way MST3K does. Not at all. Rather, I'm supposed to express an informed, personal reaction to a particular film. I want to enjoy every movie I review (why wouldn't I?), and even with movies I think are very bad I still make an effort to find >something< good to say about it, and to always be fair with any negative reaction. Any critic who puts their own would-be cleverness ahead of writing an honest reaction isn't doing their job. MST3K is >only< about trying to be clever.

To suggest MST3K is a form of film criticism is, in my opinion, utterly ridiculous, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what good film criticism is supposed to be. MST3K's purpose is strictly entertainment through mockery. It's a joke machine, and the fact that even fans of the show admit good movies have been treated no less mercilessly than "bad" ones pretty much negates that suggestion. And, as filmfreakcentral writes, film critics don't insist themselves into the viewing experience.

dhmac

Both MST3K and film critics are expressing an opinion of a particular movie, which when seen as a bad movie by critics, are both very similiar in injecting humor about the filmmaking into what is said. (Not all critics do this, but most do.) For a collected example of this, just read critic Roger Ebert's book "I Hated Hated Hated This Movie" which is a collection of his reviews of bad movies (IHO), all with humor injected into every one about the filmmaking and the acting. (For instance in his review of Battlefield Earth, he wrote that the film contained "no evidence of Scientology or any other system of thought" -- that humorous line is no different than what MST3K does in every episode.)

Josh Z

Stuart, if I had one complaint about your review, it's that you give away the big twist in your Final Thoughts section without a spoiler warning.

By the way, is Michael Bay's next over-budget crapfest a remake of this?

flmfreakcentral

Not officially, which seems to be becoming a source of controversy.

Holly E. Ordway

That's a good point, but I think there's a significant difference in intent. A MST3K commentary is done for the express purpose of mocking the film and making the viewer laugh. A review is done for the purpose of helping the reader decide whether that movie is worth watching or not. I think that makes a difference.

I've often used humor in my reviews of truly dreadful DVDs: after all, it helps make the review more fun to read (and to write). But my purpose is always fundamentally evaluative (is it worth your time to watch this?), which I think does make a difference in how the material is presented. A review (even if it uses humor to make its points) has a serious purpose, whereas a parodic commentary's purpose IS the humor.

I've seen a whole 20 minutes or so of MST3K in my entire life, so I can't really offer an opinion on its merits, but I certainly don't think you can call a reviewer a hypocrite for disliking the way MST3K handles its subject matter. There's a valid argument to be made that *too much* of a sarcastic approach can deaden the viewer to genuinely enjoying a film; if you're in the habit of being detached and ironic (which is the necessary perspective to mock a film), it's awfully hard to actually engage with a film on its own merits. You may or may not agree with that argument, or you may disagree as to whether MST3K pushes over the line to "too much," but it's a reasonable argument to make.

torgotom

Oh my, was that really an "angry tirade" I wrote? Bent out of shape? Well, I know inflection doesn't translate to the written word, so I guess it can be read that way. You know, I wasn't angry... I was offended, not really the same thing. But then, snarky, grumpy humor is one of the things I love about MST3K.

Normally I avoid the "let's pull a quote out of your letter, extrapolate and dissect it" in favor of genuine debate... but I'll play along.

"I didn't insult the taste of my readers, I insulted Mystery Science Theater..." OH. Thanks for clearing that up. If I told you I like tuna sandwiches and you say "but tuna sandwiches taste like human waste", you aren't insulting my tastes, you're insulting the sandwich?? Uh, am I out on a limb here that if you say a show is execrable, you are implying it appeals to those who enjoy excrement?

"Not in the slightest, thank you. For one, I found your angry tirade quite hilarious." As your whimsical, totally non-offended response clearly indicates. If that line was meant to make me feel inadequate, sorry, didn't work.

"excreable (sic) - OK, I confused the word for spittable with the word for sh+table. SORRY.

"Isn't it strange that fans of a show whose very purpose is to insult the work of others can get so bent out of shape when that show is itself criticized?". Well, I'd disagree that MST3K exists soley for that reason, though obviously it's an element. But really, the idea seemes to me to be to have fun with cheesy pop culture and point out when "entertainers" are not delivering the goods. I know how you feel about Clonus, but most of what they tackle on MST3K is pure garbage, produced only to suck dollars out of pockets at drive ins. I don't beleive that the creators of Warrior of the Lost World intended to create a meaningful film or even decent entertainment. I think they wanted to sell a movie, cheaply produced and sloppily conceived, and pocket some cash. Ditto for the performers. OK, somewhere in the editing room, or maybe the catering, was a person doing their best for the sheer love of the medium. But the end result was product, and bad product, and it deserves every wisecrack they shot at it.

The fact that a person is proud of their work and loves doing it does NOT automatically give it value. The folks at Enron thought they were doing GREAT work and loved every minute they spent cheating folks out of their money. Pat Robertson probably really believes that he is doing God's will by advocating murder. The person who invented chicken mcnuggets may have been proud of his acheivement. Steven Segal thinks his films are good.

"But I do believe the show 1) has had a negative impact at screenings of old movies, especially classic science fiction and horror films, where scattered nitwits feel compelled to "entertain" everyone else with unasked-for running commentaries" PLEASE tell me you don't blame MST3K for people talking at the screen in movie theaters; that's decades older than MST3K. You may have heard of a film called the Rocky Horror Picture Show? Midnight screenings across the continent? Please don't lay the legacy of bad behavior in theaters at the feet of MST3K.
"and 2) directly thwarts through ridicule the generally sincere efforts of others through a direct access to their "performance" without their consent." There again is the suggestion that sincerity of purpose gives something value. Tell it to the Unabomber. Then there's the matter of "consent". Perhaps you can prove me wrong, but it is my understanding that MST3K paid royalties to the film owners in most cases and was unable to parody the films without their consent? The MST3K episode guide makes mention of how, as the show garnered ACE awards, it became tougher and more expensive for them to secure the rights to the films they wanted to parody. If the owner of the film will accept cash to allow their film to be mocked, I think your consent argument may be flawed.
In addition, I don't see that consent often enters into the picture once you've made a film. The filmakers don't get to approve the commercials or hosts when their films run on TV. they don't get to consent to reviews. Very few get approve the version modified to fit your screen. When you offer a performance to the public, you lose the right to consent to their reaction to it. In fact, isn't that what it's all about - getting a reaction??

Will I give any ground? Yes. Due to not considering my words carefully, I said anyone who doesn't like MST3K doesn't have a sense of humor and that is obviously wrong. I should have been more specific and said that your statement gives me the impression that you are humorless. Plenty of people love Farelly brothers films but I don't, and I wouldn't appreciate them telling me that I have no sense of humor. I offer my sincere apology to all who dislike MST3K.

MY extensive library contains everything from Quatermass and the Pit to The Wages of Fear to Donnie Darko to Die Niberlungen and back to Robot Monster. I don't think my taste in films or entertainment is execrable, and it seemed to me that you were dismissing MST3K viewers' appreciation of film. I'm one of those guys who loves MST3K every bit as much as Kurosawa.

To sum up, let me say I just think execrable is an awfully aggressive way to dismiss MST3K. Had your review said "...the tiresome show MST3K" or such, I wouldn't have blinked. I had never encountered anyone who reacted so negatively to the show, especially a film fan. I spent much of my college years laughing at bad horror movies with my friends, and MST3K is simply an extension of that.
IMHO, The cast of MST3K is genuinely creative; the sketches between movies are often wonderful without demeaning the work of others. They have proven they are creative and talented beyond mocking bad movies and you may not have made it far enough into a show to get exposed to that. I wonder if you imagine that you think they're just riffing on the work of others while being incapable of doing better. Not so. That is Roger Ebert's job.

torgotom

I rather doubt anyone would even mention MANOS without MST3K popularizing it, but if they did, do you imagine they would be saying something positive? There's not a defensible frame of Manos. I'm sure it was ridiculed long before MST3K was even conceived.
Are you old enough to remember Monster Times? It IS possible to enjoy a film for it's awfulness, and MST3K didn't pioneer the notion. Chilly Bill Cardille, Vampira... did they ruin monster movies for all of us or are they part of the charm? If I'm not allowed to laugh at The Killer Shrews, why, in heavens' name, would i watch it??

jeffmcm

I can't blame anyone for disliking MST3K if they're coming from a position of feeling sorry for the poor beleaguered filmmakers who are being made fun of, but I have always thought the show was more interesting than mere mockery.

I believe that the show is a complex intertextual experiment that opens up the art of 'viewing' to audiences who have grown lazy and content to take the TV and films at face value. By offering skepticism as an appropriate response, MST3K makes people better viewers of the media we all consume every day.

MST3K has also shown me films that I now love and appreciate and love on their own merits. The Leech Woman, The Incredible Melting Man, Jack Frost, are all eye-popping works of non-standard art, and I am grateful to the MST crew for presenting them to me.

Ultimately, I don't think they could have made the show if they didn't deeply love the art of film.

jeffmcm

Also, Clonus is not a good movie. It's poorly made, emotionally uninvolving, uninspired 70s science fiction.

lotsofdvds

Clonus is pretty bad. I've seen much worse, though. But MST3K is just a puppet show, and the movies are only an excuse to tell jokes. When someone says "He looks like a Super Mario Brother", its not a slam on the movie, it's just a joke based on a visual appearance. Way more than half the jokes in any episode of MST3K are just pop culture references and have nothing to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the actual film at all.

When the female lead of Clonus rides off on a bike, Mike says "Parts: The Visible Panty Line Horror". That's just a joke based on the visual, a 70s cultural reference, and a play on the film's title. The filmmakers didn't do anything wrong to inspire that joke. Unlike naming your film "Hands: The Hands of Fate". That does deserve mockery.

Bill, you have a guy who writes for your site who writes contempt-laden, one star or less reviews for 80% of the movies he sees. Is he spreading cancer too or merely voicing his opinion? And I'd hope when he's tearing a movie a new asshole that he's doing it to be comical or at least entertaining, because if he legitimately is filled with that much hate he should find another line of work.

Hell, I love Night of the Living Dead, but that didn't stop me from enjoying Mike's commentary for it. Questioning things like "If zombies feast on dead flesh, then why don't they just eat each other?" makes me laugh, despite my love of the horror classic. It's most certainly not a hate filled commentary, as he gives recipes for zombie drinks and wonders how the colorization people determined what color the stains on a couch should have been.

And video games cause crime. TV shows cause teen pregnancy. Sure they do.

Throw the scattered nitwits out. Enforce the rules of the theater. MST3K didn't turn these people into nitwits, they were nitwits to start. If they weren't making "jokes", they'd just be making fart sounds with their armpits or flashing a laser pointer at the screen.

I'm sure my opinion about all this isn't entirely valid, since I am a huge fan of the show. But I've also been exposed to movies that I never would have ever considered watching before. I've bought the full versions of Girl in Gold Boots and Diabolik just because of this show.

I do think though that them doing Parts: The Clonus Horror will ultimately benefit the director of that film if he decides to sue over this whole The Island mess, since its made a number of people more aware of the similarities between the two films. The writers of Clonus damn well better get an "Original Story By" credit.

JM1

This has the distinction of being the first ever movie I rented when I first bought a video player back in the 80's.

This was when you rented videos based purely on the cover, which as I remember looked kind of cool with a picture of a motorcyclist dressed all in black with a black helmet.

But even way back then, it struck me as a sort of TV movie with the odd bit of gore that faliled to live up to the lurid cover - but then didn't they all?

bboisvert

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...andripoff.html

flmfreakcentral

You're just peeved because he panned ANCHORMAN.

Scott Weinberg

He might be a venomous bastid, but I do love that Chaw guy.

dhmac

The problem with Clonus isn't the ideas involved - it's an interesting concept for a movie - but the execution. (And the same could be said for The Island.)

My favorite review of Clonus is the one at the Agony Booth which hilariously dissects everything that's wrong with the movie.