There have been many movies that deal with mutant monsters spawned by nuclear radiation ("Godzilla" and "My Dinner With Andre" spring immediately to mind), and there have been movies that deal with virgin sacrifices ("Dragonslayer," and...uh, sorry, I couldn't think of another one), but as far as I know, "Danger on Tiki Island" is one of the few films that combines the themes of mutant monsters and virgin sacrifices.

But now that I think of it, are the sacrifices in "Danger On Tiki Island" virgin sacrifices? Or are the superstitious islanders just grabbing the hottest chicks they can find, tying them to a pole, and then sacrificing them to the mutants based solely on their hotness without worrying about their relationship histories? Either way, shouldn't any kind of human sacrifice be based on what someone is really like as a person deep down inside, and not on their physical appearance? Okay, maybe I'm being a Pollyanna, but I just think that when we sacrifice our fellow human beings to wrathful, vengeful Gods, we shouldn't be so shallow about it.

I will also add that any society that allows virgin sacrifices is going to have a hard time instituting an "Abstinence-Only" program for teens. I'm just saying.

The Story:

A small group from the states charters a boat to a remote island in the South Pacific. Jim Ferrell, on commission from the Peace Corps, and scientist Paul Henderson, accompanied by his wife Carla, are there to do research on the biological aftermath of the atomic testing in the area (loosely based on the atom bomb test on Bikini Atoll in the forties and fifties). The group finds that the denizens of the island have reverted back what they call "primitive ways"-- i.e. virgin sacrifices to a living island god! All in all, it's a pretty provocative and potentially dramatic premise for a Filipino monster movie.

This film also features lots of on location tropical atmosphere, and is oozing a kind of mystery throughout, not just in the usual movie content, but also within the film's context. There are some real "head scratching" puzzles as to the great peaks and valleys of production quality "Tiki Island" presents. To start with, there are some damn creepy screaming trees that populate this island. The strangest and most dreamlike element is that no one ever seems to speak about them. They flee from them, they point at them and they get strangled by them, but they don't really seem to ever mention it.

The characters are pretty interesting too: Alma, played by the beautiful Eva Darren, is a girl from the island who was educated on the mainland. She seems to be the most embarrassed by the whole "primitive ways" regression the island has taken and she is torn between her manipulative father Arturo, who is the man pulling the strings as the island elder and the chief organizer behind the weekly virgin sacrifices and Jim, the very ruggedly square-jawed American played by John Ashley, who isn't going along with the virgin sacrifices for a second.

The Hendersons seem to be having marital problems as Carla, played by Beverly Powers, is always on the prowl, though I guess once they start talking about their real problems I got totally confused. Dr. Paul Henderson is played by Kent Taylor, who you may remember from our first CT title "The Oozing Skull". Kent plays pretty much the same guy in "Tiki Island", which is fine by me, as he happens to be great at it. I think he brings a real sense of gravity to the role in a pretty silly movie, and he's really fun to watch. He also delivers my favorite line: "It seems that some living organisms on this island are undergoing drastic mutation."

Only John Ashley, the official star, seems to be sort of over his head in a few scenes: but he works hard, fights, runs through the jungle and shoots flare guns, and looks good the whole time he's doing it.

The Hendersons and Ferrell meet Esteban, played by Mario Montengro, who is the wealthy overlord of the island. He's poised and educated, and you totally get the feeling that he's the mutant god the villagers are sacrificing the virgins to, and not to spoil anything for you, but he is.

So I guess this is just my way of telling you that I love the world of this movie. It's the perfect kind of place to spend 80 minutes, if you like your cheesy movies as I do. It's photographed well-- somebody knew what they were doing here-- with some very rich saturated colors and nice, simple art direction. I can only imagine the film processing was somehow done in three track Technicolor, but again, who knows how they were doing it in Manila in the sixties. The locations look very authentic, as do the tikis that decorate the village. There is a sort of giant ceremonial idol where they stage the sacrifices, that actually looks like a fiberglass set piece built for a Luau, which is completely possible given the splashy dance sequence at the end. Yes, I said "SPLASHY DANCE SEQUENCE"! Also, another production puzzle: Whoever was doing the foley work had a heavy hand when they were doing the footsteps through out this film. No matter what the surface they're walking on-- grass, sand, or jungle terrain-- it all managed to sound like someone walking on a gym floor in corrective shoes.

However, the Achilles heel of this movie-- its kryptonite, if you will-- and its most stunning mystery is the god awful monster. I'm willing to say this, and you can quote me: Out of all the movies I've riffed on over the last twenty years, it's simply the crappiest movie monster I've ever seen, even worse than "The Killer Shrews". It's a tantalizing mystery how the pretty much competent and thoughtful filmmakers let this slip through the cracks. You have to see it to believe it. Overall, I found this movie to be a sheer bliss-riff.

 I like a movie with a lot of fabric. Lots of bright, colorful fabric as seen in Danger on Tiki Island. Reminds me of my seventh grade home ec class and my dreams of becoming a fashion designer using only remnants off the sale tables at Minnesota Fabrics. And rarely has a Peace Corps volunteer been so rigorously scrutinized under the gimlet eye of a filmmaker.

 Now, I know that this is a cheesy movie and it’s not to be taken too seriously, but I will say it really steams my beets that all the young women get sacrificed to keep the monster at bay.  It’s sexist and ageist!

 This village may have been “primitive” (by their own admission); however, primitive does not necessarily equal stupid.  Didn’t anyone consider that, ya know, if we keep killing off the young women to assuage the beast, do you think we might to run out at some point? And then we won’t have any women to make more women, so maybe we should have a managers’ meeting, comprised of the men whose plan this was in the first place, of course, to address this situation, and do some long range planning to keep apace of the woman consumption and perhaps discuss conservation measures.

 As I’ve mentioned before, sometimes viewing the movies we use for Cinematic Titanic can be very fractured.  It’s not just that filmmaking is inept and certain plot points or themes are unclear, there's also the fact that I often the view the movie a couple of seconds at a time, stopping and starting to write lines or ideas.

So the information that the story tries to convey is often lost on me.  Although I confess that I’m usually lost by the first commercial break of any given episode of Law & Order, so….

It took repeated viewings of Tiki Island to realize what the problem was between Paul and Carla. The couple is kind of cryptic whenever they allude to what's going on between them or at least it seems cryptic to me. (Permit me to quote Coach from Cheers who, when Sam asked with frustration if something wasn’t obvious, wailed, “Nothing is ever obvious to me!” 

 With every viewing it vexed me and I believe it was before a show in Phoenix, during a sound check, when it dawned on me. I excitedly crowed to the guys, “Hey, I think I figured it out! He’s impotent!”  I was so pleased with myself to have some insight.  If memory serves, Josh looked at me with a somewhat bemused look, as if to say, “Der-hay.” It was suggested that perhaps he’s not so much impotent, but that he is a scientist, all intellectual and all in his head, and only cares about scientist-ing.  He does not understand or care about Carla’s amorous nature.

In any case, I was really interested in the portrayal of Carla. However poorly executed the film is, it is still pretty bold in terms of showing a woman with an unabashed sexual appetite.  She’s a caricature, sure, and of course of movie of this nature is going to have its salacious elements heightened - but still – they’re showing it!  And of course, we’re talking 1968, in the midst of many social revolutions including sexual. It seems like even though Paul disapproves of his wife’s goings-on, there’s some sort of understanding between them.  She loves him; but she also wants her needs met and is, ahem, proactive about it. Nor is she ashamed of it; she seems to want the situation to be different, but she almost embodies a prototypical film portrayal of male desire.  Kind of interesting.  Or maybe I’ve read way, way too much into this movie that I’ve watched no fewer than one million times.