Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie
The mad and evil scientist, Dr. Clayton Forrester, has created an evil little scheme that is bound to give him world global domination but first things first. He plans to torment Mike Nelson and the robots by sending them a real stinker of a film to watch called, "This Island Earth." He is convinced that this movie will drive them insane. Will this be the ultimate cheese that breaks the boys' spirits?
- Category:Sci-Fi, Comedy
- Stars:Trace Beaulieu, Michael J. Nelson, Jim Mallon, Kevin Murphy, John Brady,
- Director:Jim Mallon,
- Writer:Michael J. Nelson, Trace Beaulieu, Jim Mallon, Kevin Murphy, Mary Jo Pehl, Paul Chaplin, Bridget Jones, Joel Hodgson (television series "Mystery Scien
The film opens with mad scientist Dr. Clayton Forrester, working from an underground laboratory, explaining the premise of the film. Mike Nelson and the robots Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo, along with Gypsy, are aboard the Satellite of Love high in Earth's orbit . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie torrent reviews
(au) wrote: ...a lively rom-com treading familiarity in a way that it could stand on its own with its self-awareness that answers every question it leaves. It is mildly entertaining and has good performances but could've been better if its didacticism is full-time infused with the execution and acquires it. The film unfortunately throws away all of its wit during its cheesy final act.
(us) wrote: A super-average, run-of-the-mill culprit chase/crime drama film that is so mediocre that me and a family member, who were watching this film together, had a far better time exchanging stories the actors were involved in during their past films instead of giving this film much attention.The A-list cast of stars do absolutely nothing to give life to these boring, uninteresting as hell characters. Less reputable/noteworthy actors could have performed this film just fine. The fact that none of these characters are worthwhile to invest time into, only further emphasizes how shallow this film really is.This was an overall waste of my two hours and Robert Redford should just throw in the towel by this point. His days of directing/acting are over after what I had just witnessed.
(kr) wrote: 10/100. I'm giving this such a bad review because I couldn't stand to watch the whole thing. I tried for the first 20 minutes, but the whole movie consists of the camera focusing on a person, and continue to film that person with no emotion, dialogue, acting, nothing. The people just stand there with blank looks on their faces for 3/4 of the movie. I'm not exaggerating when I say that you will have a shot of this unappealing man or woman staring with a blank look on their faces without moving or doing anything- for 90 seconds, then they'll cut to another scene of another person for 90 seconds. No sound, music, dialogue, nothing. Then out of nowhere, loud cuckoo clocks or bands blasting uncomfortably loud. If the director was trying to be different, then he succeeded. *** Spoilers *** The girl on the cover is very hot. I did skip forward and see her with no clothes on, which was nice, but they also showed an uncut naked guy. Very gross. The nakedness and "provocativeness" was maybe supposed to add some realism to the movie, but it felt out of place. I do have to be real and say that I did not sit through the whole movie, but jumped forward... didn't really give this movie a chance, but I feel that I'm a patient movie watcher and I enjoy lots of slow movies. This one was painfully slow. Whatever message or drama that the director was trying to get across was nullified by my being bored. Maybe they could have made this a short story that lasts 15 minutes? I'd watch that. Apparently, the two main characters stole a baby, but it died. I assume they wanted to sell it for ransom or on the black market, but that didn't work out. He confides in the daughter of his boss, who is he paid to drive around and she confides in him that to "F" the authority, she is a prostitute even though she is well off and doesn't need to. She is a very attractive woman, I must add, but her sexual acts with the main guy were not erotic or sexy... they were disturbing more than anything. I think they were really doing it too, with penetration and everything. The opening shot of oral sex was certainly real. I think that after both confided in each other, she tells him that he should tell the police that he stole the baby, but instead he goes to church. Before he has that revelation to go to church, he stabs and kills her for no apparent reason. If there is more plot to it than that, then I missed it. If you can care enough to watch the whole movie without skipping forward, then you are more patient than I am.
(jp) wrote: Why was this movie made?? Anyway, you know what your getting. If your a fan of the series, you'll probably enjoy it...ish.
(br) wrote: Great batman excitement
(es) wrote: Very interesting content and I feel like everyone knows these people... in a way. I don't know how well it carried the story as a film, and that Ellen chick I wanted to smack around. But yeah it was alright.
(us) wrote: One of my favorite coming of age films. More than that its a film about the human condition family and siblings. The way we all see things very differently than those around us. Also how what we see and feel when we are when hurt and jaded are not always how things really are. Joaquin in one of his earliest roles showed the powerful tortured soul that would later allow him to take on Johnny Cash. Liv Tyler is at what could be her best in this movie.
(au) wrote: Worth finding and watching!
(us) wrote: I find this film interesting and good. Though I would still suspect that no one will ever handle women that well...
(fr) wrote: This film isn't bad, but it seems like it should have been a whole lot better considering the talent involved and a strong premiss. According to IMDB, director Nicholas Meyer was so annoyed at the studio's interference with this film's East vs West plot, that he recycled it on his next film, "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country," which is a far better film. Nicholas Meyer wrote and directed the film, and I've always thought of Meyer as someone who deserves more recognitions for reliably curing out good entertainment, ranging from "The Seven Percent Solution" to "The Wrath of Khan." In this film Gene Hackman is a retired CIA agent who is called back to facilitate a prisoner exchange with the Soviets. Mikhail Baryshnikov is the Russian prisoner. Things are not what they seem and Gene and Mikhail end up on the run from both the East and West. Kurtwood Smith and Terry O'Quinn play US baddies. There are some great moments sprinkled throughout the film, but you can definitely tell there was tinkering as the tone and focus of the story seems to make some wild shifts throughout. Michael Kamen provides one of his standard action film scores. Hackman is great and manages to carry much of the film on his shoulders, making it watchable, but this film should have been a whole lot better.
(mx) wrote: It's technically and aesthetically well-crafted, from production design to choreography to shot setups and camerawork. The story, however, is rather grating. And I just don't care much for Frederic Forrest. I know he's a Coppola favorite and he works fine playing secondary characters in The Conversation and Apocalypse Now. But here, he has too many scenes as the lead and his whole screen persona is just so bland and mopey. I don't find him interesting to watch on any level. Really, though, there's a kind of obnoxious streak the runs throughout the movie that I can't quite put my finger on, but affects me nonetheless. I can't fault Coppola for being self-indulgent with the "love letter" filmmaking he does here, but I simply didn't enjoy watching his storied angst as much as he seemed to enjoy making it.
(ru) wrote: Steve McQueen is the epitome of cool in this slick, stylish and seminal crime thriller.He plays Lt. Frank Bullitt, a reputable detective who is given the task of looking after a government witness until a court trial, but when the witness is killed by two gunmen, Bullitt tracks the killers and discovers there's more to the case.The story is quite unremarkable by today's standards, with similar variations in practically every TV episode of CSI and other such programmes, but considering this was made in 1968, it set an impressive bar for others to follow.McQueen is fantastic with a rather emotionless & professional character which the script calls for and Peter Yates direction builds up the tension for some classic action set pieces, including THAT car chase.
(de) wrote: (5: Loved It, 4: Really Liked It, 3: Liked It, 2: Didn't Like It, and 1: Hated It.)