Rating: 
Summary: The HOUSE of PAIN INDEED!
Review: Next to "Battlefield Earth" this is probably the worst film of the 1990's. It's hard to believe John Frankenheimer directed this horrible disgrace. It bears very little similarity to H. G. Wells original novel and distorts the characters and story to the point of a maniacal stupidity that has little rhyme or reason. Even the make-up work isn't that great.
The script is awful and as far as I'm concerned it's an insult to the genius of Wells.
If you want to see a good film based on the novel by H.G. Wells skip this and go for the 1977 version starring Burt Lancaster and Michael York. It took artistic liberties that did not match the book but at least it did it effectively and well with a well-written script. It depicted the characters realistically and true to the way they are presented in the novel. This 1996 remake should never have been made -- like several other remakes of the same era (for example a certain Hitchcock classic which will remain nameless).
Go for the 1977 version of "The Island of Dr. Moreau" and avoid this one like the plague!
Rating: 
Summary: A STRANGE AND UNUSUAL FILM !!!!!!
Review: THIS MOVIE OFFERS WONDERFUL CREATURE EFFECTS, BEAUTIFUL CINEMATOGRAPHY AND A VERY STRANGE STORY. IT'S NOT MY FAVORITE MOVIE, BUT IT IS WELL WORTH THE VIEWING. THE FIRST HALF OR SO OF THE FILM WILL KEEP YOUR INTEREST, BUT THE SECOND HALF MAY NOT. HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD STICK IT OUT FOR THE FINALE!! JUST REMEMBER, PEOPLE ARE NOT ANIMALS AND IT MAKES A GREAT POINT- NEVER MESS WITH SCIENCE!!!!
SEE THIS FILM, IF NOT FOR THE SPECIAL EFFECTS, BUT FOR THE SCENERY!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Everyone Will Have a Different Take
Review: I've never seen such a strange, bizarre, and unique movie. However, I watch this every time it's on TV, and enjoy the DVD. Something keeps me coming back, and watching this over and over. Why? If anything, the performance of Val Kilmer alone should turn anyone off to this movie - he flips between sanity and insanity.Whatever reviews you see, good or bad, forget them - rent this movie, and form your own opinion. It's really something that everyone will see differently. The majority will find it too bizarre, but it's worth the risk. You could also draw upon a number of themes: - The raw behavior inside humanity
- The dangers of playing God
- Existence is Suffering
- Instincts Just take a chance.
Rating: 
Summary: THEWLIS RULES
Review: This is by far my favorite film ever. Brando is entertaining and Kilmer is handsome, but it is the startling work of David Thewlis that stands out in this exciting and wonderful picture. His sensual scenes with the dancing Fairuza Balk are fascinating. I am still hoping for a sequal.
Rating:
Summary: The Island of Dr Morose
Review: I use this movie as the bottom end of my personal rating scale for movies that I've seen. Whenever I see a really lousy movie, I can always find solace by saying to myself, "At least it wasn't as bad as 'Dr. Moreau'!" See this one at your own risk. It's the only movie that I have ever almost walked out of. I like freaky, bizzarro movies too; this one was just insipid without intending to be.
Rating:
Summary: so bad, its good
Review: Assuming this movie was intended to be a serious sci-fi thriller, I would say it failed miserably in that aspect. It was a horrible movie the first time I saw it. The second time, I realized how funny it was, especially Brando and Mini-Brando. In my opinion, its not worth owning in a serious collection, but a good rental.
Rating:
Summary: Give it a Chance!
Review: This is a movie that added to the destruction of Val Kilmer's reputation. AFter doing a stunnign performance in The Doors, this was what came out not too long after. His acting was not horrible, nor was Brando's as critics have said. The problem was that it was not just to their full ability. The DVD is great because the surround sound makes you feel like your sutck on the island as well. I overall thought it was an entertaining version, and an interesting concept. I recomend it, even if you're not a sci-fi fan.
Rating:
Summary: MARLON BRANDO ROCKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Review: THE FILM IS JUST GREAT. DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE AWFUL REVIEWS. THOSE CRITICS ARE A BUNCH OF FRUSTRATED ACTORS, DIRECTORS,ETC
Rating:
Summary: One Of Frankenheimer's Very Worst
Review: I thought that the laughable eco-monster movie "Prophecy" was John Frankenheimer's only horror-science fiction movie until I came across "The Island Of Dr. Moreau" a few weeks ago. Sadly, "The Island Of Dr. Moreau" is even worse than "Prophecy" and qualifies as one of John Frankenheimer's very worst films. British ambassador David Thewlis is planewrecked at sea and rescued by "veterinarian" Val Kilmer. Kilmer takes Thewlis to the island of Dr. Moreau(Marlon Brando), a mad scientist who is attempting to create a superior species by inserting the DNA of humans into animals. John Frankenheimer's adaptation of H.G. Wells' "The Island Of Dr. Moreau" is the director's second worst film after "99 and 44/100% Dead." The makeup work is excellent but this one element cannot save the film. John Frankenheimer and screenwriters Richard Stanley and Ron Hutchinson apparently wanted "TIODM" to be a thinking man's horror movie. In a manner somewhat similar to "Prophecy," Frankenheimer and the screenwriters take Wells' horror-science fiction tale and attempt to create a social fable by interweaving socio-political concepts into the story. In "TIODM," Stanley and Hutchinson interweave themes such as class division and revolution into the tale. Unfortunately, "TIODM" simply becomes another disastrously ridiculous and forgettable horror movie. The screenplay is howlingly poor. With the possible exception of Arthur Penn's "The Missouri Breaks," Marlon Brando has never looked more embarrassing in a movie. With dark classes, white makeup, robe, and cap, Brando makes an absolutely absurd entrance into the film. Val Kilmer also manages to look equally foolish. "TIODM" is only for diehard Marlon Brando fans and science-fiction enthusiasts.
Rating:
Summary: A truly intelligent film. Up there with Kubrick!
Review: I wonder how a film can arouse so much negative reaction. Why are most people really angry about it not just ignoring it? From reading all the reviews I could find, I think the explanation is: It is too different from the mainstream formula. People think they get Stallone/Schwarzenegger/Willis mindless action when they get Kubrick-like intelligence.
If the film DIDN'T have big names like Frankenheimer, Brando and Kilmer, people would not have a standard Hollywood cliche to expect. It confuses them.
I came across a few quotes that sums up the anger against the film: "it's weird and too many people die which leaves you depressed" and "it kills the sympathy the audience should feel for such tormented and abused beings".
I have the opposite opinion. It's EXACTLY what makes this film unique. I don't need another Hollywood soap but most people are comfortable with the cliches they have seen in 99% other Hollywood films. They MUST have the superchic, the "moral dilemma", the black judge and the happy end. They can't cope with a story that unfolds in a more "documentary", bizarre way. For me the whole excitement comes from the sense of realism. The "heroes" dies when logic requires it. As a matter of fact! You watch things happen because it's inevitable from a biological sense NOT because it has to conform with a Hollywood formula. The main characters are not important, the "has-it-all great story" is not important, the essence is to show how strong a force biological mechanisms shaped through millions of years are. DISREGARDING the conformity rules of filmmaking. That's why Island of Dr. Moreau is a masterpiece in my mind. It's up there with Kubrick.
| 
