Island of Lost Souls (1932) – Review

With the success of Universal’s Dracula and Frankenstein, as well as Paramount’s own Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the studio must have felt that film adaptations of classic literature were a surefire road to success, unfortunately, to adapt H.G. Wells' novel The Island of Dr. Moreau, a tale of true body horror, they had to work doubly hard to convey what Wells had written without repulsing the public.

H.G. Wells' novel The Island of Dr. Moreau can best be described as “all setup and no payoff” and thus Paramount took quite a few liberties to this story of the misadventures of a shipwreck survivor who finds himself stranded on a mysterious island ruled by an enigmatic mad scientist. The movie opens with shipwrecked traveller Edward Parker (Richard Arlen) being rescued by a freighter delivering animals to an isolated South Seas island owned by Dr. Moreau (Charles Laughton), but an angry confrontation with the freighter’s captain (Stanley Fields) results in Parker being chucked overboard and into the lap of Dr. Moreau. Parker gets some sympathy from Montgomery (Arthur Hohl), a disgraced doctor who joined Moreau rather than face a prison term in England, but he discovers that the island's inhabitants are not ordinary humans but instead are grotesque creations, half-human and half-animal, surgically altered by Dr. Moreau's mad experiments and he starts to wonder if maybe he hadn’t survived his shipwreck, instead, has actually ended up in Hell.

 

Moreau as a sadistically gleeful Lucifer.

Unlike Dr. Frankenstein, Moreau isn’t using parts from stolen corpses to make his creations, it’s so much worse than that, he is a vivisectionist who believes that he can speed up evolution through surgery and as he is one who clearly doesn’t believe in anesthetic his surgery is aptly dubbed “The House of Pain” and it’s the disturbing screams from his work that alerts Parker to the horrors being committed by the mad doctor. One of the biggest changes from book to film was the addition of Lota, The Panther Woman (Kathleen Burke) because while there is a Puma Woman in the novel, in the movie, Moreau takes the unexpected arrival of Parker as a chance to see how close to human he has reached with Lota, hoping to see if she can love and even procreate with Parker. Needless to say, when Parker leans of Lota’s true origins he becomes enraged, tipped off by her fingers reverting back to bestial claws, but when Parker's fiancée Ruth Thomas (Leila Hyams) learns of her presumed lost love’s actual location she arrives on the island with Captain Donahue (Paul Hurst), who she had persuaded to bring to Moreau's island, and Moreau sees this as another golden opportunity to determine if his “Beast Men” are human enough to mate and sire children.

 

It’s no surprise that this film was banned in twelve countries back in 1932.

In H.G. Wells’ novel, the character of Dr. Moreau is a cold, detached, and highly intelligent scientist, driven by his desire to reshape and control life and it explores his motivations, his scientific ambitions, and the philosophical questions raised by his experiments, while the movie presented Dr. Moreau as a more overtly malevolent and theatrical figure. Charles Laughton's portrayal of this obsession adds an extra layer of sadistic charm, with a dash of overt sexualism, highlighting the character's manipulation and control over the human-animal hybrids. Not only is the planned rape of Parker’s fiancée absent from the book she is another character created by the filmmakers out of whole cloth – one assumes they believed you can’t have a jungle adventure without a blonde damsel – and this added level of horrors was not something audiences of this time period were ready for.

 

Apes peaking in windows is a definite problem.

While Island of Lost Souls diverges from H.G. Wells' original novel in terms of narrative focus and character portrayals, it successfully captures the essence of the story's darker themes and explores them through its unique visual and atmospheric presentation. Both the novel and the film offer distinct interpretations of the ethical implications of scientific experimentation and the thin line between civilization and savagery, making them fascinating works to compare and appreciate in their own right. Under the capable hands of Erle C. Kenton, this adaptation of The Island of Dr. Moreau is a chilling and thought-provoking pre-code horror film that stands as a testament to the audacity and creativity of early 20th-century cinema. This black-and-white masterpiece explores themes of science, morality, and the fragile boundaries that separate humans from beasts. At its core,  H.G. Wells' story is a cautionary tale about the ethical implications of scientific experimentation and the hubris of mankind as it prompts viewers to question the morality of tampering with nature and the treatment of other living beings, and the film's exploration of these themes is both thought-provoking and deeply unsettling, leaving a lasting impact on the audience.

 

And don’t worry, Moreau will get his just desserts.

Stray Observations:

• If you are rescued by a boat that is travelling to “An island without a name, an island not on any chart” you’d probably be better off back in your lifeboat.
• As Moreau’s boat approached the island it passed through some heavy fog and I half expected it to reveal a skull-shaped mountain and giant wall.
• Author H.G. Wells hated this film but it remains the best adaptation of his novel, thank god he didn’t live to see Marlon Brando's version, it may have killed him.
• Despite this being an excellent movie it was a box office disappointment for Paramount, not helped by it being banned in several countries, while their rival Universal went on to great success with their adaptation of H.G. Wells’s The Invisible Man a year later. Which Wells, of course, also didn't like.
• Dr. Moreau asks his guest “Mr. Parker, do you know what it means to feel like God?” which has to be the biggest red flag when it comes to mad scientists.

 

As mad scientists go, there is none madder than Dr. Moreau.

Without a doubt, one of the most important elements that led to this film turning out as good as it is would be in the casting, and leading the charges is Charles Laughton who delivered a standout performance as Dr. Moreau, portraying the character with an unsettling mix of scientific curiosity and a god-like superiority complex. Many actors have tackled this part, from Burt Lancaster to Marlon Brando, but it’s Laughton's commanding presence and distinctive voice, which creates an aura of malevolence, that makes this particular version of Dr. Moreau one of the most memorable and chilling villains in horror cinema. Aside from Laughton’s chilling portrayal of the mad doctor a special shout-out should be given to Moreau’s “Sayer of the Law,” portrayed by the great Bela Lugosi, who may have turned down the role of Frankenstein’s Monster because it involved too much makeup here is pretty much unrecognizable, and he brings an extra level of pathos and betrayal to poor tormented creations of Moreau, and recitation of the law are quite chilling “Not to go on all fours, that is the law. Are we not men?”

 

Law and Order: Special Monster Unit.

To bring these poor creatures to life relied on the remarkable makeup effects work by Wally Westmore and Charles Gemora and their efforts here enhanced the film's eerie atmosphere and conveyed the unsettling nature of Dr. Moreau's creations. The grotesque makeup of the man-creatures, designed by Westmore, is hauntingly effective, causing discomfort and unease as we witness these unfortunate souls caught between human and animal forms. The Beast People are incredibly convincing, with their grotesque appearances and animalistic mannerisms. Their presence adds an additional layer of unease to the narrative, raising questions about the boundaries of science and the consequences of playing god. While Island of Lost Souls may not possess the graphic violence or explicit content found in modern horror films, its psychological depth and exploration of taboo subjects make it an enduring classic of the genre. It serves as a stark reminder of the ethical dilemmas that arise when humanity oversteps its bounds and plays with the natural order of things.

 

“We are definitely not coming back here for our Honeymoon.”

Another captivating aspect of Island of Lost Souls is its atmospheric setting and cinematographer Karl Struss uses light and shadow to evoke a sense of isolation and dread. The visuals he provides effectively capture the lush yet foreboding landscape, intensifying the film's macabre atmosphere. Struss’s cinematography is beautifully aided by fantastic set designs which contribute significantly to its overall sense of foreboding. The island is shrouded in an eerie mist, with dense foliage and sinister interiors creating an atmosphere that is both striking and unsettling, heightening the tension and unease that permeate every scene.

 

Justice for the Panther Woman!

In conclusion, Island of Lost Souls not only stands the test of time as a classic horror film but as one of the better adaptations of an H.G. Wells work, an entry in cinema that continues to captivate audiences with its macabre imagery, powerful performances, and profound themes. It serves as a testament to the enduring impact of early horror cinema and its ability to explore complex ideas that remain relevant to this day. If you appreciate atmospheric horror and thought-provoking storytelling, this film is an absolute must-see.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) – Review

There have been many adaptations of Robert Louis Steven’s famed novella “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” – from the most noteworthy version starring Frederic March to the comedic take by Jerry Lewis in The Nutty Professor – but this 1941 film, starring Spencer Tracy, we get a movie that was more of a direct remake of the Frederic March version than it was an adaptation of the original story.

From director Victor Flemming, the man behind such successful outings as Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz, Hollywood launches another version of the tragic story of Dr. Henry Jekyll (Spencer Tracy), a respected and brilliant scientist who becomes consumed by his curiosity about the dark side of humanity and then embarks on a dangerous experiment in an attempt to separate the good and evil within himself. His aim is to create a potion that will allow him to indulge in his wicked desires without compromising his reputation or endangering those around him, basically, to allow himself a life of debauchery without the consequences.

 

All you need is a nice laboratory.

The opening conflict of this movie deals with the medical community scoffing at Jekyll’s theory of "separating the good and evil aspects of human nature" and chief among these skeptics is Sir Charles Emery (Donald Crisp), but the real problem here is that he is also the father of Jekyll’s love interest Beatrix (Lana Turner), and when Sir Charles declares his displeasure of Jekyll’s insane notions he takes his daughter off on a vacation. Which is something you'd expect from an aristocratic pompous windbag. Unfortunately, this allows our hero to dive into his work and we know where this is going to end up, and after some failed experiments with lab animals he eventually creates a formula that proves his theory and he unleashes Mr. Hyde onto the world.  The problem here is that Spencer Tracy is never fully able to commit to the Hyde persona and the movie suffers greatly from this failing.
 

Note: When author W. Somerset Maugham visited the set during the filming, he supposedly watched a bit of Spencer Tracy’s performance and asked sardonically, “Which one is he now, Jekyll or Hyde?”

Once Mr. Hyde is out and about the movie follows the basic structure of the 1931 film, with our villain hooking up with dance hall girl Ivy Pearson (Ingrid Bergman), whom Dr. Jekyll had rescued from some random miscreant earlier in the film, and as the toxic relationship kicks into high gear the romance plot between Jekyll and Beatrix is put on hold – with us waiting for her to return so that we can get to our final act with Hyde can going on a murderous rampage – until the plot reaches the expected finale between our villain and the authorities.

 

“You are under arrest in the name of plot convenience.”

Stray Observations:

• When MGM decided to produce its own version of “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” they acquired the rights to the 1931 version and buried it in order to avoid any competition or unfavourable comparison, making it unavailable for viewing for many years. Talk about a dick move.
• Spencer Tracy is one of the all-time great actors but he was miss-cast as a Victorian gentleman, he’s not Keanu Reeves in Coppola’s Dracula bad but he’s simply too American to pull it off.
• Frederic March’s Jekyll suffered from sexual frustration, his father-in-law-to-be was a menacing cock blocker, but in this version, Jekyll seems like your average horny bastard who looks for any excuse to cheat on his girlfriend.
• In this adaptation, we don’t get any brilliant transformation effects as the first two times that he turns into Mr. Hyde all we get are horny hallucinations of Beatrix and Ivy, and then future transformation mostly consist of unconvincing lap dissolves.
• The decision to use minimal make-up effects for Hyde was a bad idea as it made Ivy look like an idiot for not recognizing Hyde as he looks pretty much exactly like Jekyll.

 

Is this the face of evil?

Spencer Tracy’s version of Hyde comes across as more of a prankster than a true monster, his relationship with Ivy is vicious and cruel to be sure but it’s no where close to what we saw in the 1931 version. We get implied violence but most of what we see is mental cruelty and even though it does eventually lead to murder this take on Hyde simply isn’t scary, and that is a cardinal sin in my book. The story is also harmed by Jekyll’s apparent lack of remorse concerning his creation of Hyde which results in a strange disconnect and makes him decidedly unsympathetic. The motivation for Jekyll’s decision to continue taking the potion is never made clear and this ends up making him seem more like a jerk than a man tortured by hubris and its disastrous side effects. While the film attempts at an exploration of the human psyche, raising thought-provoking questions about the nature of good and evil and the consequences of suppressing one's darker impulses, Tracy’s performance never quite embraces those “darker elements” resulting in more of a watered-down version of Hyde opposed to the one we got from Frederic March.

 

“Be quiet while I murder you off camera.”

The supporting cast, including Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner, feel underutilized and their characters lack depth, not to mention the romantic subplot between Dr. Jekyll and Beatrix Emery being weak and coming across somewhat rushed, it could have been developed further to enhance the emotional impact but the script doesn't seem to bother. It should also be noted that Bergman's Ivy is no longer a prostitute but now a simple barmaid – a change mandated by the production code of the time – and while she becomes entangled with Jekyll and Hyde her character is now reduced to a one-dimensional damsel in distress, lacking agency or a compelling backstory. Lana Turner as Jekyll's fiancée is similarly one-dimensional, serving as little more than a plot device to highlight Jekyll's inner turmoil.

 

What a waste of Lana Turner.

As mentioned, this movie was produced during the reign of the all-powerful production code and thus it was forced to adhere to certain “moral standards” of the times and this restricted the film’s exploration of more provocative and challenging themes which resulted in a missed opportunity to delve deeper into the darkness within the human psyche and thus we ended up with disappointingly diluted narrative. Like the 1931 version, some parts remained relatively faithful to the original source material while still taking some liberties with the narrative, condensing certain aspects of the story for the sake of pacing, and the story suffers for it. On the plus side, the film’s black-and-white cinematography by Joseph Ruttenberg is excellent and adds a nice eerie and atmospheric ambience, capturing the sinister essence of the story, the use of shadows and lighting techniques heightens the suspense and helps to emphasize the stark contrast between Dr. Jekyll’s respectable world and Mr. Hyde’s twisted existence.

 

"Let's play Hyde and Seek."

Without a doubt, Victor Flemming’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was a blatant attempt at capturing the magic of the 1931 film but with Spencer Tracy’s rather goofy portrayal of Hyde, it never came close to what Frederic March managed a decade earlier. Despite some commendable performances from the supporting cast the film suffers from a weak screenplay, uninspired direction, and a failure to explore the profound themes that makes this story so enduring. This version is a forgettable entry in the long list of adaptations and does little justice to the source material, instead of getting a movie that would delve into the darkest corners of human nature we ended up with was a film that didn’t properly convey the heart and soul of Stevenson's timeless tale, making this a remake that has no real reason to exist.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) – Review

In the early days of cinema studios quickly realized that the public's fascination with horror and adapting classic works of literature to the screen was almost a surefire recipe for box office success, Universal had amazing results with their adaptations of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, so in 1931 Paramount Pictures released a picture that was even more horrify and sexually charged than what Bela Lugosi’s vampire could have ever dreamt of.

Based on the 1886 gothic novella "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" by Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson, who is best known for"Treasure Island" his 1883 adventure novel, Paramount Pictures would release their cinematic adaptation of his tale of mad science and sex at the tail end of 1931 and not only would it shock the world and shake up the genre it would also be the first horror movie to ever win an Academy Award. Set in Victorian London, the story follows the brilliant Dr. Henry Jekyll (Fredric March), a respected scientist who is certain that within each man lurks impulses for both good and evil and he becomes consumed by the desire to separate the good and evil within himself, but the potion he concocts to unleash his inner demons ultimately transforms him into the sinister and cruel Mr. Hyde.

 

“I’m not a mad scientist, just an extremely horny one.”

While this film has several elements from Robert Louis Stevenson’s novella it is narratively quite different, the novella takes place over several years and has absolutely no love story, which is central to this 1933 production, while in this movie, Henry Jekyll is madly in love with his fiancée Muriel Carew (Rose Hobart) and wants to marry her without delay, unfortunately, her father, Brigadier General Sir Danvers Carew (Halliwell Hobbes), wants them to wait seven months before tying the knot. This does not sit well with Jekyll and when the Brigadier takes Muriel on an extended trip to Bath, Jekyll begins to experiment with his drug which he believes will unleash his evil side and leave him a calm and righteous man, needless to say, things do not quite go as planned and the result is a transformation into Edward Hyde, an impulsive, sadistic, violent, amoral man who indulges his every desire.

 

The ultimate alter-ego in action.

Another key addition to the story is that of Ivy Pierson (Miriam Hopkins), a prostitute that Jekyll had defended from one of her "clients" but when Hyde enters the picture this degenerate brute seeks her out and becomes her “Sugar Daddy” and sets her up at a boarding house where he could then rape and psychologically manipulate her at his leisure, whipping and beating her out of sheer sadistic pleasure. Hyde’s declaration of love via violence is summed up best in his line “Forgive me, my dear. You see, I hurt you because I love you. I want you! What I want, I get!” and this is what makes Edward Hyde one of the most horrific villains to ever grace the silver screen. As much as Jekylly is portrayed as an almost saintly figure, forgoing social obligations with the rich to help the sick, even making a little girl walk again, it's the idea that something like Hyde could lurk inside any of us that is the real terror of this tale.

 

Hyde and Ivey, the original toxic relationship.

Stray Observations:

• While the characters of Muriel Carew and her father do not appear in Robert Louis Stevenson's original story they are actually based on similar characters created by playwright T.R. Sullivan for his 1887 stage adaptation of the story.
• This is the only version of Robert Louis Stevenson’s tale where Jekyll's name is pronounced correctly as "Jee-kall" and while accurate it is rather distracting at times to the modern ear.
• The first four minutes are point-of-view shots through the eyes of Dr. Jekyll, with the character's face seen only when he peers into a reflecting surface, and this POV technique would later become a horror trope.
• Actor Edgar Norton plays Jekyll’s butler Poole, an occupation he will return to in the Universal classic Son of Frankenstein as Basil Rathbone’s butler.
• In the 1931 Frankenstein, art director Charles D. Hall and electrician Kenneth Strickfaden created the ultimate gothic laboratory, but in this film, the lab constructed by art director Hans Dreier became the gold standard for mad scientist laboratories to come.

 

I assume the number of beakers you own dictates how great at science you are.

Rouben Mamoulian's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde could only exist in pre-code Hollywood, with 8-minutes removed when the film was released again in 1936, and it’s this sexually charged energy that makes this film work so well, with Hyde boasting to Ivy that his sexual prowess compensates for his lack of physical beauty - which clearly tips the balance for her - and Hyde's emotional and physical abuse of Ivy would never have been so graphic post-Code, nor would her own sadomasochistic fascination with it.  Of course, the key element of the story and impetus for Jekyll's experimentation comes from the sexual frustration that stems from his perpetually postponed wedding and that kind of thinking was looked down upon by the censors.

 

Who knew that "blue balls" could be so dangerous?

One of the film's greatest achievements lies in its visual representation of the psychological battle between Jekyll and Hyde. Through clever camera techniques and makeup effects, the transformation sequences are executed with impressive artistry for the time. The scenes where Jekyll struggles with his inner demons, torn between his altruistic intentions and the allure of his wicked alter ego, are particularly effective and chilling. Of course, all of this artistry is elevated by Fredric March's portrayal of both Jekyll and Hyde which is nothing short of astonishing. His ability to switch seamlessly between the two characters, capturing their contrasting personalities and physicality is a testament to his acting prowess. Now, as Oscar-worthy as March’s performance is I would be remiss if I didn’t point out how truly amazing Miriam Hopkins was as the doomed prostitute Ivy Pearson, the terror and anguish in her eyes builds and builds until the final crescendo that ends her poor life at the hands of a true monster.  It is a truly heart-wrenching performance.

Note: The transformation sequence is not only brilliant but Wally Westmore’s makeup effects change over the course of the film becoming progressively more monstrous.

The work of cinematographer Karl Strus plays a crucial role in enhancing the film's overall atmosphere as the use of shadow and light creates an eerie ambiance, emphasizing the sinister nature of Hyde's deeds and with director Rouben Mamoulian's visual style effectively captures the Victorian era with its gloomy streets, fog-filled alleyways and eerie interiors. The use of innovative camera techniques, such as the subjective point of view shots, enhanced the sense of unease and suspense, allowing the audience to experience the turmoil of Jekyll's internal struggle firsthand. Furthermore, the musical score, composed by the talented Herman Hand adds an extra layer of unease and foreboding to the narrative. The haunting melodies heighten the film's emotional impact, elevating the sense of dread and moral conflict experienced by the characters.

 

Did the wicked queen from Snow White mix that particular potion?

Although released in 1931, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde still holds up remarkably well today and serves as a testament to the enduring power of Stevenson's original story, showcasing the timeless themes of duality, the struggle between good and evil, and the consequences of tampering with one's own nature. While some aspects of the film may appear dated to modern audiences, the strength of the performances and the exploration of human nature remain captivating to this day. The character of Jekyll’s best friend Dr. John Lanyon (Holmes Herbert) works as a template for those trying to save a friend from addiction and as substance abuse was a central theme in the novella, Lanyon’s character here is well-placed, but it should be noted that he dies of fright in the original novella while in this film he is crucial to Hyde and Jekyll’s downfall.

 

With a friend like Jekyll who needs enemies.

There have been countless versions of Stevenson's classic tale but this adaptation still remains the best, its engaging and atmospheric adaptation presented a gripping exploration of the human psyche. Fredric March's outstanding performance, combined with Rouben Mamoulian's deft direction, as well as the film's technical achievements, solidifies its status as a classic in the horror genre. Whether you are a fan of classic cinema or a lover of psychological dramas, this film is a must-watch for its historical significance and enduring themes.

Moonfall (2022) – Review

How do you top a movie that dealt with a global catastrophe that resulted in cities sliding into the sea and tsunamis cresting the Himalayas? Not an easy task and this was the problem facing writer/director Roland Emmerich when he attempted to outdo his own epic disaster 2012, a film that was a clear attempt to top his previous disaster film The Day After Tomorrow. Undaunted by this formidable challenge, Emmerich put pen to paper and brought the world a tale that would answer the question “What if the Moon was actually a spaceship and it was falling towards the Earth?”  But was anyone asking that question?

You know what they say, "In space, no one can hear you scream" but in Moonfall, you'll be screaming at the screen as you demand to know why the characters in this movie act and react like morons and not astronauts or scientists. It's as if none of them had ever seen a disaster movie before. Seriously, did they not see Armageddon or Deep Impact? Did not one person in this movie think of calling Bruce Willis? The plot of this film follows the adventures of disgraced astronaut Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) and work-wife Jocinda "Jo" Fowler (Halle Berry), who had both survived an encounter with a malevolent space anomaly that had killed a member of their team and damaged their space shuttle. Due to a NASA cover-up, and Jo's failure to back Brian’s claims of seeing a mysterious swarm of alien technology are ignored, he is fired and forced to live off money earned via speaking engagements for children. The third member of this film’s heroic trio is conspiracy theorist K.C. Houseman (John Bradley), a big nerd who believes that the Moon is an artificial megastructure created by an alien race and is powered by a dwarf star.  It's his discovery that the Moon's orbit has changed that gets the plot going.

“Hello, I will be providing much of the necessary exposition for this film."

Writer/director Roland Emmerich doesn’t like to stray too far from the disaster film formula so there will be loads of secondary characters that will have little to nothing to do with the main plot but are required to pad out the film’s running time. First, we have Brain’s family, which consists of his ex-wife (Carolina Bartczak), their juvenile delinquent son (Charlie Plummer) and Brenda’s new husband (Michael Peña), who if you know anything about disaster movies is not likely to make it to the end credits.  Then we have Jocinda's ex-husband (Eme Ikwuakor), who is a Four-Star General and part of the military complex who stupidly wants to nuke the Moon, next, there is Jocinda's 10-year-old son (Zayn Maloney) and the kid’s foreign exchange student nanny (Kelly Hu), who in a different film would have probably been a love interest for the delinquent,- lucky for us we were spared that dynamic - and none of these characters are well-developed and aside from the Four-Star General none of them will have any bearing on the plot and are only around so that they can be imperilled by the cataclysmic forces unleashed upon them by the approaching Moon.

Millions die but it’s all good as long as our hero’s family members live.

Brian, Jocinda and Houseman become Earth’s last chance at survival, with much of this consisting of flying a retired space shuttle up to the Moon and using a mothballed EMP weapon to destroy the alien techno-swarm. Things get interesting when our trio enters the Moon to discover that Houseman and his conspiracy nut friends were right, that the Moon is actually a Dyson sphere powered by a white dwarf at its center, but that’s not all, the Moon’s benevolent A.I. operating system explains to them that humanity is descended from an ancient alien race that was eradicated by ages ago by a rogue A.I. and that our Moon is an Interstellar ark that was created to seed life on Earth, but when the rogue A.I. tracked down this "Moon" it began siphoning energy from its power source, destabilizing its orbit and sending it crashing into the Earth, basically, killing two birds with one stone. This all may seem ludicrous, which it is, but I will give the actors credit for delivering and receiving such pieces of information with a straight face, and the special effects on display were really quite spectacular.  As I am a sucker for disaster porn and goofy science fiction, this film checked off a lot of my boxes.

Note: Our heroes entering the interior of the Moon really gave off a powerful V’ger vibe to me and one must assume that the design team were big fans of the Robert Wise's Star Trek the Motion Picture.

Stray Observations:

• The plot of this movie deals with the Moon's orbit being altered and chunks of the moon falling to Earth, which is the same plot line as the beginning of Flash Gordon (1980).
• Brian Harper is said to be the only pilot to ever land the Space Shuttle without power, but as the Shuttle uses a fly-by-wire system it would be impossible to move the control surfaces or deploy the landing gear, which is hydraulically driven using electrical pumps, without power and thus it is actually impossible to land the Space Shuttle no matter how awesome a pilot you were.
• During Brian Harper’s “Wrongful Dismissal Hearings” NASA claims that the incident could have been caused by a passing meteor or solar flair, but if that were the case, how could Brian be fired for negligence? Clearly, the government is really bad at constructing a cover-up.
• White dwarf's masses are hundreds of thousands of times greater than the Earth, while the Moon is one percent of Earth’s mass and any object as massive as a white dwarf placed as close to us as the moon would tear the Earth apart without needing to get any closer.
• As the Moon gets very close to colliding with Earth we continue to see our heroes using satellite phones despite the fact that all satellites would have long since been destroyed.
• The Moon’s operating system creates a construct that looks like Brian’s son to communicate with him much as the aliens in the film Contact did when they assumed the form of Jodi Foster’s dad.
• The A.I. that the Ancestors created became self-aware and launched a coordinated attack against biological life forms, which is pretty much the premise of the James Cameron Terminator franchise.

Obviously, this ancient alien race didn’t have a Sarah or John Conner to help fight.

This was one of the most expensive independently financed movies ever produced, with a budget estimated at $138-146 million, and it was also one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time, but I must ask "Does that necessarily make this a bad movie?" Sure, the plot is ludicrous and the acting is only slightly above what you’d find on daytime soap operas, but if you're looking for a movie that's out of this world, and it really is, then Moonfall might just be the thing for you as it has everything you could want in a sci-fi disaster movie.  From epic destruction to heroic astronauts pulling off daring acts and a moon that just won't quit, there is just so much batshit crazy stuff you that almost have to admire Emmerich for coming up with this insane stuff.

2012 (2009) – Review

The most surprising thing about Roland Emmerich’s 2012 is that he didn’t bother to wait those three years so he could release the film in the actual year of 2012. Maybe he was afraid the world really was going to end on that date and wanted one last disaster movie under his belt before the end times.

Roland Emmerich has never been one for subtlety, from Independence Day to The Day After Tomorrow the German-born director has made a career out of blowing stuff up in spectacular fashion. So it should come as no surprise that his latest disaster epic, 2012, is a non-stop barrage of CGI destruction that makes a film like Armageddon look like a picnic. The film's central character is struggling science-fiction writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) who is, apparently, the only person on Earth who can save his family from the apocalypse, and fortunately, he's pretty good at dodging falling buildings and outrunning giant tidal waves.

John Cusack, the limo drive from Hell.

The plot is as predictable as a horror movie – you know exactly who's going to die, who's going to survive and who's going to make that last-ditch effort to save humanity – then again, who cares about the plot when you have John Cusack driving a limo through the falling debris of Los Angeles?  And when you have a giant wave crashing over the Himalayas, who gives a damn if none of it makes any sense? It's like The Day After Tomorrow on steroids only with even more interpersonal drama. In this film we have the standard disaster trope of the hero being divorced only to be eventually reconciled with his wife, in this case, the role is filled by Kate Harris (Amanda Peet), a medical student with two children from her marriage with Jackson, but she is now currently dating plastic surgeon Gordon Silberman (Tom McCarthy), and he has about as much chance of surviving to the end of this movie as I do in lasting one round with Mike Tyson.

He turns out to be a great pilot, but sorry dude, the disaster trope requires you to die.

To fill out the film’s two and a half-hour running time Roland Emmerich populated his plot with tons of character for us to watch run for their lives as the world explodes around them; we get geologist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) who will spearhead the plan to save some of humanity – mostly the really rich part of humanity – then there is the noble American President (Danny Glover) who will decide to go down with the continent, next is his daughter Laura Wilson (Thandie Newton) whose job is to secure the world’s treasures before everything goes tits up, then we have Helmsley’s dad (Blu Mankuma), along with his jazz partner (George Segal), both get to have a brief Poseidon Adventure before their cruise ship is capsized by a giant wave, and because even a movie about a natural global catastrophe still needs a human villain to hiss and boo at we get Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), the White House Chief of Staff, whose only real crime is being blatantly frank about the hard choices you have to make when the world is ending.

That the script allowed him to live actually surprised me.

One of the film’s more interesting and outlandish characters is that of Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), a fringe science conspiracy theorist and radio talk-show host, whom Jackson runs into while he and his kids are camping at Yellowstone Park, and it's him that our protagonists learn of scientist Charles Hapgood's theory about the polar shift and the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar that predicts a 2012 phenomenon and the end of the world, but more importantly, on how the world governments are covering it up.  Lucky for our heroes, he happens to have a map of the location of these "spaceships" that are being constructed by the government to take the chosen few to safety. Basically, Charlie Frost is your typical exposition machine that is required to get the hero from point “A” to point “B” and while this is a standard and clichéd trope Woody Harrelson is so fun and entertaining in the part that you don’t mind the fact that you are being force-fed pure nonsense. Of course, it turns out not to be spaceships they are building but massive arks that are designed to ride out the upcoming tsunamis.

Note: The idea of humanity fleeing in a spaceship as the world ends had already been addressed in the wonderful George Pal science fiction classic When Worlds Collide.

The special effects in 2012 are undeniably remarkable, from the collapsing buildings to the massive tidal waves this film is a visual tour de force that never lets up, unfortunately, the same can't be said for the script as the dialogue is clunky and loaded with clichéd characters that are about as wooden as the contents of Geppetto’s workshop, and the plot so predictable you could set your watch by it. Though to be fair, even though the acting is barely serviceable, let's be honest, nobody's sitting down to watch an Oscar-worthy performance in a film that promises to send California sliding into the sea. We just want to see famous landmarks get destroyed in gloriously ridiculous ways. And boy does 2012 ever deliver on that front. The White House gets flattened like a pancake, the Hollywood sign gets wiped out and the entire city of Los Angeles sinks into the ocean.

It's like a disaster porn version of "Where's Waldo?"

Stray Observations:

• Jackson and company drive home from L.A. to Yellowstone in what looks to be a few hours but Yellowstone is 1,100 miles from Los Angeles, which is roughly an 18-hour drive.
• We see Gordon and company flying through an ash cloud which they somehow get through with no problems, but volcanic ash is basically very small stones, that will clog a plane’s air intake and engines and cause it to crash.
• A pyroclastic flow from an exploding volcano travels at speeds between 200 and 300 mph, while the top speed of an RV is between 55 and 65 mph, which makes Cusack’s escape in Woody Harrelson’s camper very unlikely.
• We learn that the President’s wife had suggested a lottery to decide who would be allowed aboard the Arks, which is somewhat the same plot point found in the disaster film Deep Impact.
• Chinese helicopters are scene airlifting giraffes and rhinos over the Himalayas, but with that extremely high altitude and the frigid air and cold wind blowing past them in flight, those African animals would die of either hypothermia or oxygen deprivation long before they reached the arks.
• They can’t start the Ark’s engines while one of the gates is still open, which is an insanely stupid design flaw and serves no purpose other than to derive more fake suspense out of this thing.
• During the climax a warning can be heard that the ship's compartments are flooding progressively, but all ships have been designed and constructed with watertight compartments for nearly a century. Didn’t the people who built this thing watch Titanic?

“Mount Everest, dead ahead!”

What saves the movie from being a complete disaster is its sheer audacity and bonkers levels of destruction on display because filmmaker Emmerich knew exactly what his audience wanted and they wanted was bigger explosions, higher stakes and more mayhem than ever before, which he delivered in spades. If you're looking for a brainless, popcorn-chomping thrill ride 2012 will deliver the goods, just don't expect to remember anything about it once the credits roll.

 

Fact Check: The movie claims that the Mayan calendar predicted the end of the world in 2012, but this is not accurate. the Mayan calendar simply starts a new cycle at the end of each 5,125-year period and does not indicate an apocalypse.

The Day After Tomorrow (2004) – Review

Hollywood disaster films tend to center around one particular type of disaster, whether it be a tornado, an earthquake or a mid-air collision it's usually only one particular issue, but with The Day After Tomorrow, Roland Emmerich took the Global Weather Crisis head-on and gave us a movie filled to the brim with all kinds of calamity, and with that in mind he created a disaster movie that delivered on all fronts...well, mostly a cold front.

The movie starts with a group of scientists, led by the heroic Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) an American paleoclimatologist who discovers that the melting of polar ice caps has caused a catastrophic change in the ocean currents.  The concern here is that this is leading to an instant and drastic climate shift, and results in the northern hemisphere being plunged into a new ice age within days and humanity is left to fight for survival against a relentless storm that brings freezing temperatures, blizzards, and floods. But the burning question that will keep the viewer on the edge of his or her seat isn’t whether or not mankind can survive this artic global shift but in finding out if Dennis Quaid is really "Father of the Year" material.

After this, he’ll be allowed to forget his kid’s birthday for at least a year or two.

Watching disastrous scenarios play out is fun but one of the strengths of the film is its focus on the human element, Emmerich’s screenplay gives us characters that are well-developed and relatable, and their relationships and personal struggles add a certain depth to the story. Dennis Quaid delivers a standout performance as a father desperate to reach his son, Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal), who is trapped along with his friends in a frozen New York City library, and the fact that Quaid’s noble scientist's arctic trek across America turns out to be fatal for his best friend (Jay O. Sanders), well, that is something one must accept as the price to pay for being in a disaster movie. Emmerich is clearly a fan of the disaster genre and he uses the formula to good effect here as he trots out a variety of characters to engage the audience. Not only do we have a heroic climatologist to cheer for but also Terry Rapson (Ian Holm), a Scottish selfless oceanographer who, along with his team, will nobly freeze to death.  Then there is Jack’s estranged wife Dr. Lucy Hall (Sela Ward) who stays behind to care for a young cancer patient as the world around them freezes, spending some quality time reading him Peter Pan, and next we have Sam's friend and love interest Laura Chapman (Emmy Rossum) who has to survive both the cold and a case of blood poisoning.  True love does have its trials.  On the political side of things, we have the Vice President (Kenneth Welsh) as the film’s climate denier, he's kind of the human villain of this story, and then there is the ineffectual President (Perry King) who is allowed to die offscreen so that he can remain useless to the very end. Of course, the central story is all about Dennis Quaid finding his son, the idea of billions dying is pretty much an afterthought.

Millions died during this storm surge but at least Jake Gyllenhaal and company survived.

It should be noted that by 2004, computer graphics were starting to make better strides in filmmaking and this particular outing was quite impressive in displaying stunning depictions of giant hailstones, frozen skyscrapers, and massive ships floating down the streets of New York City, unfortunately, the company they farmed out to provide the CGI wolves, who would threaten Jake Gyllenhaal and his pals, were not so great and this resulted in creatures looked like a cross between Wile E. Coyote and something out of Disney’s Peter and The Wolf.  When it comes to computer animation one bad effect can cause the audience to stop suspending their disbelief and in a movie dealing with an "overnight ice age" the viewer is already fighting a rather large piece of credulity, so this added problem is not a good thing.

They spent $2 million dollars on the CGI for those wolves.

I will give writer/director Roland Emmerich props for making a movie that highlights the crisis our planet faces due to the threat of Global Warming, that said, his depictions of catastrophic weather events have about as much scientific validity as what could be found in Michael Bay’s Armageddon – and this movie doesn’t even have Space Madness or Bruce Willis punching an asteroid to back it up – what it does have are some truly remarkable moments of disaster porn, from massive tidal waves to tornadoes ripping through Los Angeles the special effects teams did remarkable work and provided breathtaking visuals, stuff that will keep viewers on the edge of their seats, but just how unrealistic is The Day After Tomorrow in the science category?

Did anyone call Bill Paxton or Helen Hunt about these things?

Science Gaffs:

1. The rapid onset of a new ice age in this movie is a little too rapid. We see a new ice age taking place in just a matter of days, whereas in reality, the onset of an ice age takes thousands of years.
2. The movie suggests that the Gulf Stream, a warm ocean current that helps regulate the climate, can shut down suddenly and completely and thus lead to an instant ice age. In reality, while a shutdown of the Gulf Stream would cause a cooling effect it would not cause an ice age to occur suddenly.
3. Tornadoes in Los Angeles are not really a thing. In the film, we see a massive tornado hit Los Angeles, which is highly unlikely since tornadoes typically form in areas with flat terrain and not in mountainous regions like Los Angeles.
4. The movie depicts massive tidal waves hitting New York City, which is another unlikely scenario since tidal waves, also known as tsunamis, are typically caused by earthquakes or underwater landslides, not by storms.
5. The movie suggests that the solution to the problem of a sudden ice age is to use helicopters to drop chemicals into the atmosphere, to supposedly reverse the effects of global warming, but this solution is both unscientific and unrealistic.
6. The movie depicts people surviving in extremely cold weather without proper clothing or shelter, which is also highly unlikely since exposure to extreme cold can lead to frostbite, hypothermia, and death.

He froze faster than the T-1000 at the end of Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

Needless to say, when it comes to science this film is not without its flaws with some of the scientific explanations varying from the far-fetched to the patently ridiculous, and even the plot itself can be a bit contrived at times, but those issues can be easily overlooked in the face of the film's impressive spectacle and strong performances.

Stray Observations:

• A high school competitive team from Virginia is sent to New York without a chaperone, in my school even a field trip across the street required supervision.
• In many disaster films we will get a character claiming how it’s impossible to evacuate the city in time, there are just too many people and it would cause mass panic, but in this movie we get them evacuating the entirety of Southern States in a matter of hours, with seemingly no problem at all.
• Sam tosses some books into the library fireplace to burn and when the librarian protests he asks “What else are we going to burn.”  Strangely enough, no one points out that this place is full of wooden furniture, which would prove to be a helluva lot better fuel than paper.
• The cargo ship that floats down 5th Avenue must have some magical properties because the buildings on that street wouldn't provide enough space between them to allow a ship of that size to pass through.
• The Statue of Liberty’s skin is thinner than a penny and would not survive the kind of storm surge we see engulf it, and it certainly wouldn't have withstood the amount of ice we see hanging off of it later in the film.
• Dennis Quaid and his buddy are seen trudging by the frozen Statue of Liberty but as they came from Washington DC this means they somehow overshot New York and wandered out onto the frozen Atlantic before hooking back towards the coast.

Maybe Quaid forgot to pack a compass?

In the end, The Day After Tomorrow is a classic disaster movie that will keep you entertained and, possibly, make you question why you didn't study meteorology in college. But if you're looking for a realistic depiction of what would happen if the world suddenly froze over you might want to look elsewhere. Unless, of course, you're planning on building an igloo anytime soon.

The Core (2003) – Review

A group travelling to the centre of the Earth is certainly nothing new, Jules Verne tackled such a topic back in 1864 and we’ve seen film adaptations of his novel ever since, but director Jon Amiel took such a well-worn premise into the disaster movie genre in a film that's about as scientifically accurate as that of a children's Saturday morning cartoon.

The premise of the film is intriguing - the Earth's core has stopped rotating which leads to catastrophic events such as electromagnetic storms and the destruction of cities - and to prevent further damage and save humanity a team of experts is assembled to embark on a dangerous mission to restart the core's rotation using a nuclear bomb. Unlike many disaster movies, The Core starts with a bit of a mystery surrounding disparate incidents involving the Earth's magnetic field that causes pacemakers to fail and birds to crash into windows and its geophysicist Dr. Josh Keyes (Aaron Eckhart) who connects these events to the startling revelation that the Earth’s molten core has stopped spinning. With the knowledge that all life on Earth will end in several months if the core is not kick-started, the government quickly assembles a team to go where only a Jules Verne hero has gone before.

Note: At one point Josh gives a demonstration of the gravity of their situation by burning a peach in front of government officials and military brass, illustrating what would occur if the Earth’s Electromatic Field collapsed because, apparently, simply saying that we will all burn to a crisp wouldn’t sell the point so he had to dumb it down as if he were addressing preschoolers.

The team consists of nuclear weapons specialist Dr. Serge Leveque (Tchéky Karyo) and Earth specialist Dr. Conrad Zimsky (Stanley Tucci), who was the designer of something called Project "DESTINI" (Deep Earth Seismic Trigger INItiative) an earthquake-making weapon whose testing was responsible for the core stopping in the first place, next we have Dr. Edward "Braz" Brazzelton (Delroy Lindo) the designer of Virgil, which will be the craft that takes them to the Earth’s core and he also came up with the ultrasonic lasers that will allow the ship to pass through solid rock.  Then we have Theodore Donald "Rat" Finch (DJ Qualls) a computer hacker who is brought into “Hack the Planet” so as to control the flow of information on the Internet to prevent public panic. Next, we have NASA astronaut Rebecca "Beck" Childs (Hilary Swank), who pulled off an insane emergency landing with the Space Shuttle due to the electromagnetic disturbances messing with their navigational information, and finally, we have Commander Robert "Bob" Iverson (Bruce Greenwood) who is here to provide lots of stoic learning moments for Beck, such as “You’re used to winning and you’re not a leader until you’ve lost” which doesn’t make a lot of sense but Bruce Greenwood manages to sell it.  I bet he's a big fan of The Kobayashi Maru.

“I’m going to die so you can prove you’re ready, aren't I?”

One of the film's strengths is its well-rounded cast of characters, each with their own unique motivations and personalities. Aaron Eckhart delivers a solid performance as the stoic and determined team leader while Hilary Swank brings emotional depth to her role as the team's co-pilot. Stanley Tucci provides much-needed comic relief as the pompous scientist who tries to take credit for other people’s work and these moments of levity are important for a film with such a ridiculous premise because it lets the audience know that the filmmaker’s viewpoint was basically “We aren’t taking this seriously either, so let’s have some fun.” So during the film’s 214-minute running time, we will get a lot of comic banter among our crew of oddball heroes, banter that will be broken up by the occasional disaster sequence, just so we don’t forget what the stakes are.

All storms lead to Rome.

Even if you are able to let slide the complete ridiculousness of the film’s insane premise you still have to deal with some even dumber moments of “science” such as when the team accidentally drills through a gigantic empty geode structure and they are forced to traverse outside the ship to free the vessel from these crystalline structures, and one must ask "Why aren’t they instantly crushed by the intense pressure?"  We do get Josh calmly stating “Good news, the suits can take the pressure” but how is this possible? The hull of the Virgil was made from this magical metal unobtanium and is designed to get stronger as the pressure gets higher but when our heroes step out of the ship, leaving the safety of the unobtanium, they would be experiencing 800,000 PSI and should be flattened like a grape under a hydraulic press.  So to solve this problem the writers gave Aaron Eckhart a line that was nothing more than magical handwaving and made not one lick of sense.

“We’re here to make Michael Bay’s Armageddon look sensible by comparison.”

The special effects teams for The Core pulled out all stops to make this a visually exciting film, and the trip down through the Earth’s mantle is quite remarkable, it’s just a shame that their work was in service of a fairly dodgy script, one loaded with almost every disaster movie cliché in the book.  Despite the film's impressive use of science to explain its premise, which the writers tried really hard to make sound plausible, they still took great liberties with scientific accuracy in order to create an entertaining disaster movie. Here are some of the most notable scientific inaccuracies in the film.

"Hey, could someone fact-check this script?"

• The premise of the Earth's core stopping its rotation is physically impossible, as the rotation of the core is directly linked to the rotation of the Earth. If the core were to stop rotating, the entire planet would come to a halt.
• A small EMP device could not stop the core's rotation, no more than a fan could dissolve a thunderstorm. While nuclear reactions can produce a tremendous amount of energy they could not generate enough heat to restart the core, let alone do so without causing catastrophic damage to the planet.
• The team's journey to the center of the Earth involves drilling through solid rock, which would require temperatures and pressures far beyond what current technology can handle, even if they’d developed something as miraculous as unobtanium.
• The Earth's magnetic field is depicted as being caused solely by the rotation of the core when in reality, it is also influenced by the movement of charged particles in the Earth's atmosphere and the solar wind.
• The existence of a massive geode in the Earth's mantle, as depicted in this film, is highly unlikely, as geodes typically form in volcanic rock not deep within the Earth's mantle.
• That Mission Control can monitor and even remain in contact with the crew of the Virgil while they are deep within the Earth’s mantle is the cherry on top of the ridiculous science on display in this movie.
• During the Golden Gate Bridge scene the microwave energy is seen melting through several feet of galvanized carbon steel wire and the bridge beams themselves, but somehow the 2mm of metal of the car's body shell is fine as well as the car windows remain fine.

The Golden Gate Bridge must be one of the most destroyed landmarks in film.

Overall, The Core is an enjoyable and entertaining film that offers a refreshing take on the disaster genre, with our heroes burrowing towards the center of the Earth to save the day, and while it may not be the most scientifically accurate, which by this I mean not at all, and while it is lite on big spectacular disasters set pieces – we only really get two notable ones – the film still manages to deliver on its promise of thrilling action and adventure, basically, fans of disaster films will likely find this entry to be a satisfying and entertaining watch, as long as you don’t try and take much of anything you see on screen seriously.