The Island of Dr. Moreau

Rating:
Summary: An insult to the genius of H.G. Wells
Review: I wasn't planning on writing a review of "Dr, Moreau" 1996, as it is an inconsequential and wholly forgettable movie, but when I read reviews that described it as "intelligent," I felt I had to write a response. "Dr. Moreau" 1996 is NOT an intelligent movie. Like most bad science fiction it shows contempt for the viewers' intelligence.

The plot revolves around a scientist, Dr. Moreau (Brando) who lives on an island where he is turning animals into humanoids in order to create a race without malice. Now, while this motive (a huge departure from the original book) has a grain of interest in it, that single grain is lost as the plot unfolds. Dr. Moreau controls his race with pain and injections of street drugs, hardly elements condusive to discouraging malice. He has given them a set of laws to obey, but in previous tellings of the story the law was simple and easy to repeat in an almost ritualized fashion. This movie has Ronald Perlman reciting the law in long, pretentious speeches. How are the humanoids supposed to rememeber, and thus obey, these long narrations?

Assisting Dr. Moreau is Montgomery (Kilmer), who is described as a brilliant neurosurgeon. Despite this description, he neither says nor does a single brilliant thing during the movie. At various times he behaves oddly, a forced attempt to make him seem unstable that only comes off as goofy. At other times he flaunts the order of the island and ignores the potential for rebellion among the humanoids. It is hinted that he is so erratic because of drug use, which only begs the question of why the "genius" Dr. Moreau keeps this dangerous and unstable individual around.

The hero of the story, Douglas (Thewlis) is supposedly a UN negotiator. This implies that he is capable of dealing with differences among people and tense situations, including potential violence. However, he shows unbridled disgust for most of Moreau's creations and continuously comes across as a coward. For example, there is a boat that can take him to Timor, a few days away. He won't take it, however, because there is a ratman in a cage (yes, in a cage) guarding it. Plus, whenever there is gunfire, he cringes into a ball, some hero.

And speaking of gunfire, there are evidently tons of guns on the island for the humanoids to use during the predictable (and unimpeded by the "genius" Moreau) rebellion scene. Why does Moreau keep guns around when he is trying to build a malice free society? Why does he need so many when he and Montgomery are the only ones who might use them? Why didn't some one involved in the movie wonder about this?

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. I would add that the special effects, while entertainingly gruesome at times, contribute little to the story. The humanoid make-up does not represent an improvment over the 1977 version of the story, and thus cannot be cited as a saving grace. Overall, "Dr. Moreau" 1996 presents as just another insipid, poorly designed movie that Hollywood frequently tries to pass off as "science fiction."

Rating:
Summary: With this range of opinion, don't pass this one up
Review: The vehemence of some of the many negative reviews intrigues me. I loved the original Burt Lancaster version years ago, and found this one better to my tastes. The acting and direction is just right, IMO, *for this particular story.* It is not a happy tale.

My guess is that the negativity here is partly or mainly the result of subconscious rejection of the quite disturbing plot and realistic portrayals. Winston's "makeup" is marvelous. It goes to the core of what is it to be a human animal versus all the other beasts. If you liked "Artificial Intelligence," check this one out also. Rent both versions, this and the Lancaster one, and judge for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: The line between animal and man has been evolutionized.
Review: An ocean plane wrecked diplomat (David Thewlis) is rescued and brought to an island inhabited by a Nobel winning now reclusive scientist (Marlon Brando) and his children; the animals he has been genetically manipulating with human DNA in an attempt to create his vision of a pure species.

When this film opened it was panned by the critics. I was never sure why. It opens strong, both visually and musically. The locale is beautifully claustrophobic, appropriate for a secluded tropical island. Stan Winston's creature make up is excellent. The body language of the "humanimals" is very interesting. The underlying commentaries on the savagery of society and the morality of biological scientific experimentation are intact. Performances are excellent (Brando makes a daring, and critics said poor, choice in his interpretation of Moreau in that he plays him like an effete, physically feeble, unbelievably polite British University English Professor, more eccentrically insane instead of the usual madly insane that most crazy scientist characters are portrayed as). This is a well done film.

Rating:
Summary: Crazy Val, Crazier Marlon
Review: One of the craziest remakes of a remake of a remake that was totally a waste of talent from such top shelf stars. Marlon Brando walks around most of this picture as if he were on medication. What was that thimble on his head? Or was it an ice chest? Who knows...who really cares. Val Kilmer looks as if he were looking for his agent to get him out of this crazy thing. The one thing this film has going for it is the special effects. Its also very quirky, but stick with the 1977 Burt Lancaster version. Its much better.

Rating:
Summary: There is no pain, there is no law!
Review: Horrible, yucky, and riddled with imperfections only begin to scratch the surface of possible words to describe this film. From the opening scene until the very end this film was doomed because of one insurmountable flaw, the actors and director just didn't care. There is a point in a film when you can literally look into someone's eyes to see if they are interested in this film, or just collecting a paycheck. Kilmer and Brando were collecting paychecks with this film. It says something about the film when the lead, David Thewlis, refused to see the final version because he knew that it would be bad. That is someone on the inside reviewing the film and pointing out the flaws, now we all know that can't be good.

From the small person next to Brando to the unquarkiness of Kilmer's part, this film never went anywhere. I kept waiting for this pivotal moment where suddenly it would just click, but it never did. The monsters, if you dare call them that, were unfrightening and dull. They seemed to be a cross between Burton's Planet of the Apes and leftover garbage. Sadly, these horrible costumes overshadowed the possibility of some interesting symbolism. Oh wait, I think that was all Brando's fault. I realize that he was trying to play God and bring some religious moments into the film, but failed because Brando forgot to build his character. I don't mean to jump on the bandwagon here, but this was a horrible film. The story was cheap, the set was even cheaper, and the actors felt like a cheap leisure suit. It works, but you know the quality just isn't there.

I will go with others and say that this film was bad. I couldn't watch it in one sitting, and I do not feel as if anyone else should. This is a classic case of a Hollywood blunder that chose to stick with it instead of pull out for the better of everyone involved.

Grade: * out of *****

Rating:
Summary: The worst adaption of an H G Wells story .....EVER!!!
Review: Absolute TRASH from the word go - I can't even believe that I had to give it one star - 0 is more appropriate. How can so many people give this junk 5 stars??? I appreciate the fact of artistic license, in respect of reworking the Well's book, but this is a damn right liberty - loose plots & characters made this one of the most abysmal yawn inducing films ever made - not to mention the extremely diinterested looking David Thewlis - who obviously wishes he were elsewhere, you know what so do we!!
I hate films that take a narrative from the original story and twists it so far that it becomes nothing like, or remotely like (In this case) the original. It also has the audacity to tack onto the end a 'cheesemungous' lecture about how we should all take care of our environment and the ecology of the planet.....yeah, right!
It would be a good idea for all those that think this movie is some kind of class act to revisit the Well's book and read what the original concept was for the story - instead of accepting this abortion as some work of genius.
If you don't want to read the original then for goodness sake go and watch the 1977 Burt Lancaster film - an entertaining film even if it drifts from the original story, but one heck of a better film than this clanger!

Rating:
Summary: Chaos. Not the good kind.
Review: I really wanted to like this movie. I thought the time was right for a remake, given the breakthroughs in genetic science, and I thought Brando and Kilmer would be ideal.
But this is a mess.

I saw it in the theatres and I even went as far as buy the Unrated Director's Cut on DVD. But it's still a mess.
The original director/screenwriter has a website and he explains how the entire movie ran off track. He was fired and then snuck onto the set as an extra (to meet Brando!). I realize his rants might read as sour grapes, but too much of it makes sense.
Original lead Rob Morrow (of NORTHERN EXPOSURE) quickly escaped. The expressions of replacement Thewlis almost looked like special makeup effects. Kilmer was completely out of control, Brando was bored and went into mad improvisations, hired-hand director Frankenheimer arrives to rewrite scenes daily. Yikes.

But I thought Fairuza Balk was beautiful. Maybe with Morrow, I could see a relationship working with her character and the lead--but not as it plays.
Too bad. The material deserved better.