This item is currently not available. If you have this item,
Join and post it to share with others.
Previously filmed in 1933 (asIsland of Lost Souls) and 1977, the classic H.G. Wells story was filmed again for this graphic 1996 version. The film was roasted by critics, but it's an utterly fascinating failure, largely due to the performances of David Thewlis, Val Kilmer, and especially Marlon Brando in the title role as a mad (and in this case outrageously bizarre) scientist whose experiments in crossbreeding humans with animals have gone terribly awry. Thewlis plays the wayward scholar who is rescued at sea by Kilmer and brought to Moreau's island to discover the doctor's unnatural "children." Fairuza Balk plays Moreau's half-cat daughter, but it's Brando and Kilmer (in one scene doing a killer Brando impersonation) who steal the show, along with the astounding makeup effects created by Stan Winston. A guilty pleasure by any measure, this movie has definite cult-favorite potential, and in addition to offering a "director's cut" with previously unseen footage, the DVD includes audio commentary by director John Frankenheimer, who replaced the original director on short notice and completed this film under highly stressful conditions.--Jeff Shannon
ALL PLEASURE WITHOUT THE GUILT THE CAST WAS SUPERB, THE SPECIAL EFFECTS SUPERIOR. THE PLOT A CLASSIC....WHAT MORE CAN YOU ASK OF A FILM?
An insult to the genius of H.G. Wells 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."With this range of opinion, don't pass this one up 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.
