The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) User Reviews

Troubled production is semi-coherent with some entertainment

[Wuchakk · 5/10 · 12 March 2014]

Ever wonder where Col. Kurtz would've ended up had he survived the end of "Apocalypse Now"? Well, now we know: He exiled himself to a deserted island to create humanimals - the horror, the horror.

This 1996 version of "The Island of Dr. Moreau" was such a troubled production that articles, books and documentaries have been made about it, like the 2014 documentary "Lost Soul: The Doomed Journey of Richard Stanley's Island of Dr. Moreau." Stanley championed the project, wrote the screenplay and was set to direct, but was fired after a few days of filming due to conflicts with Val Kilmer, who wasn't in the best of moods due to being served divorce papers while on set.

Actually that wasn't the main reason Stanley was fired. He was fine for small indie productions, but he was out of his league with a blockbuster like this. Veteran filmmaker John Frankenheimer was brought in to save the production from being a complete disaster. He got the job done, but his tyrannical approach didn't help matters.

The production was so bad that Fairuza Balk (the cat-lady, Aissa) literally tried to escape the set, but was caught at the airport in the nick of time. Add to this Brando's well-known eccentricities, not helped by the recent suicide of his daughter, Cheyenne, and constant rewrites and you have a formula for a cinematic chaos!

In light of the horrible production and the ensuing bad press you would think this would be a lousy movie, but it's actually not THAT bad. I can see why some people don't like it because parts of the third act are pretty crazy and don't flow very well, but if you're a sucker for lost-on-an-island type yarns and appreciate the mood & insanity of films like "Apocalypse Now" and the original "Planet of the Apes" ("It's a madhouse, a MADHOUSE!") you'll probably appreciate some of it. Don't get me wrong, it's nowhere near the caliber of either of those films, but comparisons are inevitable and there are entertaining bits.

The main problem is that the story isn't that compelling; the flow of the movie is off, which is mostly apparent in the mounting craziness of the final third, which tempts the viewer to tune out.

Thankfully, there are some positives. The title sequence is kinetic and dazzling; the score by Gary Chang is varied and all-around phenomenal; the plot is intriguing; the humanimal make-up and actors are quite good with Daniel Rigney's 'Hyena-Swine' standing out (Rigney would be dead a mere year after the film's release); there's some creative pizazz, like Marlon Brando's 35-minute stint where he's as captivating as always, albeit a fat bastage; the inclusion of Dr. Moreau's "Mini-Me" is hilarious in hindsight of the Austin Powers trilogy; and there are flashes of nigh greatness, like Edward's revelatory talk with Aissa in the third act.

Marlon's Dr. Moreau is a variation of Kurtz, i.e. nutjob in the jungle, albeit twenty years later. For Brando fans it's enjoyable seeing him in his old age. This was one of his final films and it shows that he had his magnetic charm 'til the end.

Furthermore, there are some interesting themes: The humanimals who get to live in Dr. Moreau's abode are more human-like in appearance than the animals living in the smelly humanimal 'village' in the forest; the most human-like one, Aissa, he even refers to as his daughter. Wouldn't this lead to tensions between the factions? Moreover, while Moreau is a benevolent dictator he's still a dictator and dictators are rarely good. When Hyena-Swine usurps the crown he immediately becomes a malevolent dictator.

The original version runs 96 minutes and the DC 99 minutes. The film was shot in Cairns, Queensland, Australia.

GRADE: C+

Average adaptation based on H.G. Wells' novel realized by John Frankenheimer and with remarkable makeup by Stan Winston

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 31 March 2011]

It's an excitingly produced remake of ¨Island of the lost souls¨ with Marlon Brando heading a solid casting as a nutty doctor who develops a process of transforming animals into half-humans at an desolated tropical island . Through DNA experimentation Brando has upset the balance of nature. By turning animals into humans, he's turned heaven into hell . It starts when David Thewlis is rescued at sea by Val Kilmer and brought to a strange island where he's terrified to discover the terrible genetic experiments realized by Dr. Moreau , a former prize Nobel winner .

Passable horror-fantasy chiller that is developed up and down with some lousy moments and in other side contains eerie and thrilling scenes. It results to be a strong rendition of H.G. Wells' novel about an isolated scientific who has spent several years creating half-animals turning beasts into half-human . Good secondary cast as Fauriza Balk , William Hootkins and Temuera Morrison . Ron Perlman's sturdy acting , displaying a magnificent portrayal of one of the beasts . Watchable by excellent makeup by the late Stan Winston . Colorful cinematography filmed in Queensland , Australia , by the classic cameraman William A. Fraker and atmospheric musical score by Gary Chang . The motion picture is middlingly directed by John Frankenheimer and the director's cut version runs several minutes more . The movie will appeal to Brando devotees and Val Kilmer fans who will want to check out their excessive performances . Other adaptation based on H.G. Wells' known novel are the following : The classic of 1933 titled ¨The island of lost souls¨ by Erle C. Kenton with Charles Laughton , Kathleen Burke , Bela Lugosi and Richard Arlen ; and 1977 retelling by Don Taylor with Burt Lancaster , Michael York , Barbara Carrera and Nigel Davenport .

Well-produced but out of control

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 15 April 2006]

David Thewlis is very good as air-crash survivor who is taken to mysterious island in the South Pacific where recluse Marlon Brando mutates various animals with human genes; Fairuza Balk is Brando's daughter, Val Kilmer (in arguably his weakest performance ever) plays Brando's assistant. Uncontrolled version of H.G. Wells' horror story is crippled by behind-the-scenes strife and ego clashes. It opens well, sustains itself for about forty-five minutes, but then goes completely to hell afterward. John Frankenheimer is credited with the scrappy direction, though he stepped in mid-production and finished the picture after Kilmer had the original director canned. Too bad, with more focus this could've been incredible. Story previously filmed in 1933 (as "Island of Lost Souls") and with Michael York and Burt Lancaster in 1977. ** from ****

Fascinating mess of a movie

[Dodger-9 · 22 December 1999]

David Thewlis, looking like he's wandered in from another film, is totally miscast in this much-troubled version of the HG Wells classic.

After being rescued by toothy vet Val Kilmer and taken to the eponymous location, our Mancunian UN hero comes across cat girl Fairuza Balk and the balloon-like doc (Marlon Brando), all pasty-faced and with an Ealing comedy accent.

Marlon hasn't just been doing beached whale impressions on this exotic isle. You see, mad old Moreau has been messing around with gene-splicing and has created a race of humanoid beasts - courtesy of effects whiz Stan Winston.

He controls them with electric shock implants and is so taken with his work, has little other defence when the beasts inevitably start running wild. In essence, it all goes a bit Jurassic Park.

There are a few good points in this mish mash. A stunning opening titles scene - very necessary considering the lack of any adventure for the first 10 minutes; Thewlis' extraordinary presence; and an okay finale. In fact, any scenes without Brando and Kilmer are quite fascinating. This is partly down to the Richard Stanley screenplay which boasts some flashes of brilliance amid much re-worked studio editing and re-jigging.

This is one of those films where the making of the movie is perhaps more intriguing than the final product. Stanley, the film's original director, was fired and banned from the set. He actually went back, dressed up as a dog man extra, and watched the rest of the production unfold. Had he been allowed to finish his directing chores and had final cut, the result would probably have been a thousand times better.

However, John Frankenheimer does a fair job under the circumstances.

Look At Him!

[SteveResin · 5/10 · 6 November 2017]

Legendary movie I only saw once, back in the day when it was released. I remember watching it with mouth wide open, aghast at what I was seeing. It's widely regarded as one of the worst films in history, and in many ways it is, if you consider the quality of the cast, director and budget.

But revisiting it 20 years later after seeing the interesting documentary "Lost Souls" about this car crash of a movie, I didn't find it quite so bad. It's poor, no doubt about it, but it's not tedious and mind numbing in a Battlefield Earth kind of way and nowhere near real dross like Batman & Robin or The Spirit. It's entertaining for many reasons, chief among them being Marlon Brando's blatant trolling of the entire production, insisting on wearing white make up and using buckets instead of hats to keep his head cool. His performance is worth the admission alone.

The rest is worth watching for the implosion of Val Kilmer's career as an A-List actor. Fresh from the success of films like The Doors, Batman Forever and Heat he was apparently extremely arrogant during the making of this film, and he just oozes apathy in every scene he's in. If he truly was as insufferable as he's been accused of in "Lost Souls" then karma certainly paid him a visit here, as his career never recovered from this wreck. Fairuza Balk is decent and tries her best with weak material, Ron Perlman is solid as always, but David Thewlis is miscast, his North England accent and bad teeth detracting from his performance. But those scenes with Brando and the worlds smallest man as his freaky sidekick are pure gold.

The make up effects are decent, and the location is gorgeous. Everything else is terrible. But it's certainly entertaining, even if it for all the wrong reasons.

Once More with Moreau

[zardoz-13 · 5/10 · 9 May 2012]

Sitting through "Prophecy" director John Frankenheimer's pretentious horror fantasy "The Island of Dr. Moreau," starring Marlon Brando and Val Kilmer, may be enough to turn anybody into an animal. Presumably, the financial success of recent genetic thrillers such as "Jurassic Park" and "Species" prompted producer Edward R. Pressmen to reanimate H.G. Wells' literary classic for its third rendition. Ironically, this deeply flawed but imaginatively updated version suffers a fate similar to that of the genetic mutants created by the titular villain on his remote island.

The movie opens on three plane crash survivors who have been adrift in the Java Sea for days. Two of them are killed by a shark leaving our hero, Edward Douglas (David Thewlis of "Naked"), a United Nations peace negotiator. Douglas awakens to the sight of a sailing vessel hovering over him. He collapses from exhaustion and reawakens to find Montgomery (Val Kilmer of "Tombstone") attending him. Douglas is too weak to do anything more than swoon. Eventually, the ship deposits them at an exotic island where the research center of Dr. Moreau is located. Montgomery persuades Douglas to join him, on the basis that they have a telecommunications system on the island that Douglas can use to contact the UN. As we soon learn, however, Montgomery is lying.

The island is actually the home and refuge of Dr. Moreau, a brilliant geneticist who was forced into seclusion due to his controversial experiments on animals. Moreau has learned how to transform common animals into human beings, or almost human beings. Douglas finds himself trapped on the island, surrounded by Moreau's beastly creations. He tries to escape several times to no avail. First, he stumbles in on an ungodly birth scene, then finds himself in a half-man, half-animal zoo at an abandoned military airfield. Finally, Douglas meets Moreau. They argue about which way the scales of morality should tilt and dredge up Biblical passages to support their arguments. Moreau tries to explain how his experiments will help mankind. He reveals that he has discovered that the devil is a collection of genes. Moreau means to sort out those bad genes and produce an ideal human. He is even willing to accept a failure or two along the road to success, which accounts for the vast number of beast-men. Moreau keeps these ugly creatures under his thumb by means of implants which he uses to shock them into paralysis. Meanwhile, Montgomery keeps the creatures dazed and confused with narcotics.

The inventive but predictable Richard Stanley & Ron Hutchinson screenplay updates the 1896 Wells novel and does a good job of establishing the action in the 1990s. The opening 40 minutes introduces audiences to everyone and everything they need to know about the plot. Sadly, the script packs no surprises. If you cannot figure out what's going to happen from one moment to the next in the film then you must be on horse tranquilizers.

Suffice it to say, "Moreau" doesn't qualify as a date movie, (unless you never want to see your date again). Some of the gruesome looking creatures may even go on to inhabit the island of your dreams. Stan Winston's creature designs are impressive. His mutants look as convincing as mutants could possibly look. Sometimes, they are even nauseating. Typically, they retain the basic shape of the animal from which they were mutated so they have a beastly looking head, hands and feet, while the rest of them is hidden beneath their apparel to conserve on costs. The first grisly glimpse that Douglas gets is a multi-breasted beast mother siring an "E.T." infant. The other animals are a hideous collection of mutants with claw hands and snaggled teeth. They gallery of beast men and women appears twice as grisly, gyrating their horrid bodies as Montgomery peddles narcotics to kill them happy.

Marlon Brando treats moviegoers to another of his characteristically peculiar performances. There is nothing ordinary about Brando's brilliant but eccentric Dr. Moreau. Brando stages a dramatic entrance, swathed in white garments under a pagoda-style hat, resembling a Japanese Kabuki actor in sunglasses. He tolerates the steamy island heat and wears chalky make-up to preserve his delicate skin from the sun. Metaphorically, this sun allergy relates somehow to Moreau's moral infamy; he cannot stand up to the light of morality. He appears like the great white hope in the camp of the beast men. Brando adopts the same sissified voice that he used for his Fletcher Christian in the 1962 version of "Mutiny on the Bounty." He also never appears twice in the same wardrobe. One scene finds him garbed like a nocturnal fridge raider while in another scene he appears bundled up like an Arab sultan. Audiences are meant to identify with the David Thewlis' narrator. Incidentally, Thewlis replaced Rob Morrow of CBS-TV's "Northern Exposure." A similar air of mystery clouds Val Kilmer's Montgomery. Montgomery gravitates between moments of extreme clarity and apathetic zombie like drug dazes. Either the script is purposefully vague or (more realistically) the editors sheared Kilmer's performance to reduce the film's running time to 90 minutes so they could squeeze in more showings and parlay a quick profit. Ultimately, Montgomery assumes a Luifer-like character in his apparent rivalry with Moreau. Again, the script doesn't clarify this part of the story. Is Montgomery Moreau's rival? We never know for certain.

"The Island of Dr. Moreau" ranks as an ambitious but flawed horror fantasy. Anybody who relishes Frankenheimer's version of "Moreau" can hope that someday New Line Cinema will release a director's cut that restores the lost parts of the film. This well-made but routine concludes with Douglas moralizing about how Moreau's island serves as a microcosm of the world and that we must all go in fear of man's unstable nature. The only thing that audiences can really go in fear of is the sequel that might lie over the horizon.

Enterprising science-fiction/adventure film with serious underlying issues

[mark-rojinsky · 5/10 · 22 July 2020]

Produced in the second half of 1995 in tropical Queensland this science-fiction film has the ambition of an 'adventure' film and deals with serious contemporary issues such as fears of genetic engineering/mutation, aggressive tendencies in the human and animal world and the context of nature. The visual props/relationships are amazing:- skulls of exotic animals, interesting framed high-quality acrylic/oil paintings and murals, classical busts, the light wooden hues flanking the walls in Moreau's house, sophisticated lighting- super-bright electric Cambridge-blue and pure neon white colours and shimmering chrome props and tubes and scientific hardware, the deployment of 17th/18th-Century baroque oratorios and Balinese music in the background. In appearance Brando is tubby - he sports a golden/green silk kimono, bandanas, granny glasses, steel wristwatch and cropped silver hair and re-deploys the preposterous upper-crust English accent of his Fletcher Christian (Mutiny on the Bounty (1962)) and Sir William Walker (Burn! (1968-1970)) - which were adventurous flairful performances. Young Lancastrian actor David Thewlis (Naked (1993)) shows Northern English common sense. The special effects - explosions, makeup, costumes etc are very impressive. The opening credits are sensational - a montage of embryos, cells, aggressive spermatozoa, flashing vulpine eyes, moody pinkish/brown tropical skies, screeching animal cries etc while William Fraker's digital video camerwork is pin-sharp.

HG Wells And The Acid House

[Theo Robertson · 2/10 · 10 January 2005]

I first became aware of this remake when a clip was broadcast on Barry Norman's FILM 96 . It's the scene where Dr Moreau ( Marlon Brando ) sits with his animal experiments and tries to justify himself to UN diplomat Edward Douglas played by David Thewlis . The reason the scene stuck in my mind was because Thewlis is best known for his work in British social realism movies so as Douglas points to the animals asking " What the bloody hell's this all about ? What's he supposed to be ? " I couldn't help thinking that Thewlis's performance had jumped out of a Mike Leigh movie . Even more bizarelly when Moreau replies " You expect me to condense seventeen years into seventeen minutes ..." Brando plays the part exactly - And I mean exactly - as he did as Col Kurzt in APOCALPSE NOW , and all the time the camera intercuts with Moreau's creatures all of whom are giving embarrassed looks . I thought because this clip was shown out of context that may be the reason it looked so ridiculous but unfortunately after seeing the whole movie I can say this is one of the least ridiculous parts of the movie

THE ISLAND OF DR MOREAU isn't as well known as some of HG Well's other books like THE TIME MACHINE or WAR OF THE WORLDS but it deserves to be remembered since it deals with humanism , genetic engineering and vivisection . Obviously these concepts were beyond the productions knowledge and we have a film that makes little sense . It goes without saying everything about the movie is bad , the directing is bad , the screenplay is bad and the acting is bad but the worse thing is the way the producers have tried to update the storyline by having much of the action take place in an acid house ! No seriously in order for it to appeal to a 20 something audience Val Kilmer's character ( Who's not really a character - He's just there to spout lines and be used as a plot device ) decides to have an acid house party with his furry friends . No doubt the animals favourite tune is Panic by The Smiths because they decide to hang the bloody DJ and install a new furrier music maker who then shoots anyone who either appears too sycophantic or too critical to his choice of music . The film ends with Douglas escaping after the animal experiments have killed one another in a shoot out

Anyone reading this review without seeing the film will no doubt be phoning an ambulance for me . But the events take place on screen exactly as I described them and an ambulance would be better served by being sent to the house of the studio executive who was insane enough to finance this mess

Ugh

[BandSAboutMovies · 2/10 · 3 June 2020]

Literally, how did this get made?

Bruce Willis was originally the lead, but allegedly dropped out in the aftermath of divorce procedures from his wife Demi Moore. He was replaced by Val Kilmer, who had limited availability and unlimited anger issues after he too got divorce papers. Then Rob Morrow quit because the script kept changing. Brando left after his daughter committed suicide and upon his return, he would refuse to learn his lines and only listen to an earpiece.

Oh yeah - Richard Stanley also had been fired days into production and replaced with John Frankeheimer, who saw this as anything but his dream project.

I mean, what could go wrong at this point?

After spending four years developing the films, Stanley had come to work with New Line, who responded by going behind his back to offer the film to Roman Polanski. Furious, Stanley got a meeting with Brando, who unexpectedly - or not, as Stanley had undergone a magick ritual to gain the actor's trust - proved very sympathetic to Stanley's vision. That said, Stanley was beyond familiar with the source work, as well as its connections with Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, which became Apocalypse Now, which still fascinated Brando. Even better, Stanley was directly related to African explorer Henry Morton Stanley, who had been the inspiration for Conrad's lead character - and Brando's role - Kurtz.

That said, days into filming, Stanley was having difficulty with New Line executives and Kilmer, who was a legend of ego on this film. At one point, the former Batman burned a crew member in the face with a cigarette.

Stanley was fired, but disappeared, finally showing up in dogman costume and acting in the very movie that he was to direct. Oh yeah - the full fury of nature would also destroy much of the set.

This movie is an example of actors off the literal rails, with Brando's wearing an ice bucket on his head with the idea that he had mutated into a dolphin and the bucket was to cover up his blowhole. He also pushed for Nelson de la Rosa, the world's smallest man, to be his mutated twin. Brando was obviously in a much better movie than the one that we're watching.

Meanwhile, the actors playing Doctor Moreau's children had a better time than anyone else, pretty much using the movie's long periods of downtime getting up to alcohol and drug-addled craziness. Again, they were in a much better film than ended up getting unspooled on the screen.

Charitably, this movie is a mess. Would it have been better if Stanley stayed on board? Well, it certainly wouldn't have been boring.

Sense of humor needed to watch this

[hgni · 7/10 · 7 October 1999]

This movie gets a bad rap -- viewers say Brando plain sucks and that it butchers a good Wells story. Perhaps the latter is true, but I consider Brando, as the mad doctor, a fine choice and, while he is rather subdued, he is still the candid, self-conscious actor we all know and love. He practically mumbles his lines as his mouth is lined with cotton and (probably) cheeseburgers. And, the scene where Brando plays piano along with his "pre Mini-Me" sidekick is a classic. Now, I know Brando refused to learn his lines for this movie and Kilmer is known for being a real ass to work with, but the in-production feuds add to the aura of this film. These characters aren't supposed to like each other and the tension fills the air. The special effects are top notch, albeit gruesome and a bit overdone. It all adds to the feel of the movie. I have this movie on tape and watch it again and again, alongside "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," "Taxi Driver," "Rear Window" and "Dr. Strangelove." If you thought you shouldn't see this based on other user's comments, put your expectations aside and just enjoy!

Inconsistent and Intolerable

[LeonLouisRicci · 5/10 · 31 October 2012]

A confusing composite of make-ups and performances that border on absurd. Both Brando and Kilmer make their characters behave like they are in a comedy sketch while the rest of the cast and assorted monstrosities are caught in a nightmarish Horror Film.

There is literally no depth or exploration of the genetics and cloning science or the morality of it all, just scene after scene of half-breeds running around looking as bewildered as the audience. This has got to be the Director's worst film as he strays wildly from his usual gritty political and crime action dramas and finds himself unable to get a handle on the material.

The monster makeup ranges from pretty scary too silly and is as inconsistent as the rest of the proceedings. Nothing at all comes together and the result is a laughable and embarrassing take on the profound H.G. Wells story. The still definitive version is Island of Lost Souls (1933).

Critically Pummelled Entertainment

[worldsofdarkblue · 9/10 · 7 January 2011]

Most people seem to dismiss it, if not hate it. Certainly the critics. But. really - we get a Brando performance that again displays his long-held dismissal of Hollywood-ism, we get Val Kilmer hamming it up joyously (even to the point of repeatedly doing Brando impressions), we get David Thewliss (a damn fine actor) actually playing the most important character with admirable commitment, we get cat-eyed Fairuza Balk (yum!), we get the great Ron Perlman, playing a beast yet again, pretty much stealing the movie, we get something that is Dr. Moreau's constant companion, becoming a pop-culture icon thanks to South Park - as Chef puts it "what the hell are you supposed to be? You don't look like anything". Outstanding photography, effective tropical suggestibility (you can almost feel the humidity), excellent animal make-up, some truly memorable scenes (the birthing scene, the Hyena-Moreau confrontation) and even a sense of philosophical examination. And though the story of this insane scientist attempting to humanize animals has been done several times, only this one goes to the extreme of showing us that he's even created a bunch of tiny rat people! What a loon. Too much enjoyment for a movie so slammed.

don't believe the bad reviews

[silentbdeadly · 7/10 · 30 May 2003]

I still don't understand why this film generates such negative reviews. What is it people were expecting? Maybe people still don't get Brando. Brando doesn't "act," he just IS and he's never been one for memorizing lines; it's never been about the words he says anyway, so why shouldn't he have the lines taped to the table, to the foreheads of other actors, etc. It's all about how he gestures and becomes the part and maybe just says whatever comes into his head as the character anyway.

I will admit it took me two viewings before I got into the film myself, but I've seen it more than 10 times by now and it still holds up. It's beautifully photographed for one thing and the tension on the set between the actors -- especially Val Kilmer and Brando adds to the tension of the film itself. If for no other reason than to see the original "Minnie Me" in action, rent this and try to keep an open mind.

What A Movie!

[AaronCapenBanner · 5/10 · 5 October 2013]

Troubled adaptation of the H.G. Wells novel, directed by John Frankenheimer after he replaced original director Richard Stanly, who wrote the script. Marlon Brando gives an indescribable performance as Dr. Moreau, as if he's barely there at all, looking and acting like a phantom, though it is strikingly original! Val Kilmer is bizarre as his assistant Montgomery, playing it for camp, yet it is an amusing performance. David Thewlis is Edward Douglas, shipwreck survivor who looks every bit as bewildered as the character he's playing. Fairuza Balk is the panther woman Aissa, and she is quite effective, as is Ron Perlman as the Sayer of the law.

Film is faithful in spirit to Wells, if not in execution, and though it is far from a success, there is some guilty pleasure enjoyment out of it, and has some striking end narration in its memorable finale.

The type of film that was more entertaining to watch than it was to make, if the first hand accounts from the cast and crew are to be believed!

Go rent it! WAY better than the negative reviews...

[Eric-1226 · 3 September 2001]

You will have to chalk me up as belonging to that camp of viewers who actually *wanted* to see a truly horrid film (as based on all the negative reviews) only to discover to our delight that there was a gem of a movie hiding there all along.

For me, watching the film was a *great* escapist experience. I felt exactly what the character played by David Thewlis would have felt, had I been in a similar "lost in the middle of the ocean, end up on a strange island" sort of predicament. The movie did a superb job of instantly whisking me away to a strange and beautiful and ominous place - the Island of Dr. Moreau - and I found myself staying with the fantasy the whole way through.

The cinematography was just beautiful, and if you have ever been in or near the tropics, the filming and the movie setting did an awesome job of conveying that hot, thick, humid, teeming-with-life feel that can only be found in the tropics.

I really enjoyed the eery background music, it really added to the overall creepiness of the whole weird "mad-science-gone-amok" theme of the story. Plus that scene where David Thewlis first encounters Faruiza Balk, and she starts to dance to that utterly hypnotic and awesome Balinese music, was just too spine-tingling for words. I only regret that I haven't been able to locate any soundtrack information yet on the movie, so I don't know who played that song, but the whole scene was absolutely and truly memorable. I'd watch it again just for that song and dance scene alone.

I noticed that many people didn't like the acting or the characterizations. I, on the other hand, felt that the four main characters (Brando, Kilmer, Thewlis, and Balk) were flawless in their depiction of a familiar tale. Brando was admittedly "weird" - but hey, give the guy his due, he was SUPPOSED to be a weird, crazed scientist. What were you expecting, the Maytag Repairman? Kilmer was deliciously evil, can't say enough good about Val Kilmer, he's always been one of my very favorite actors, and he DID NOT disappoint in this film, either. Balk, as mentioned above, was just awesome (and I REALLY liked the scene where she and "father" Brando had their moment of emotional bonding). Thewlis was right spot-on with his interpretation of an innocent "sane" observer who barely made it off this mad-house of an island without totally losing his own sanity. I think I would have done exactly as he had done, in his circumstances. Well Acted! Bravo!

One scene that didn't work for me was early on when the man-beasts were shown to be delivering a hideous-looking baby from a hideous-looking beast-woman. I don't know, but somehow I felt that it should have been Dr. Moreau and Montgomery (Brando and Kilmer) who should have been the doctors doing the delivery. Nevertheless, it was a truly creepy scene.

Finally, I thought the movie was well-stocked with thought-provoking comments on the morality of scientific experimentation. The scene at the dinner table, where Brando expounds on his personal views, comes to mind, as does the final parting comments, voiced by Thewlis. I had to watch the movie several times just to hear those words. They will REALLY make you think. I truly believe this movie should be seen and actively discussed by students at high school or college level - not just in science prep classes, but philosophy and social science courses as well. I don't care what the naysayers have to say, this was by no means an empty or shallow movie.

So, go take a trip to the Island of Dr. Moreau. You won't come back unchanged....

Marlon's Freak Show

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 21 September 2008]

This expensive remake of the Paramount classic, The Island of Doctor Moreau fell on all fours in the telling. It looks like the inspiration wasn't Moreau, but rather Tod Browning's classic Freaks.

The film was not done on the cheap either either, shot in gorgeous technicolor in a tropical location in Queensland in Australia, replacement director John Frankenheimer did the best he could, but he had a couple of runaway actors in Marlon Brando and Val Kilmer who just went completely over the top. And the computer graphic creations made me think that Narnia had gone over to the dark side.

This was once again one of Marlon Brando's Christian Defense Fund films made to pay the lawyer's for his son's murder trial. It was during the filming of The Island of Dr. Moreau that daughter Cheyenne Brando committed suicide. I'm not sure what anyone could have done with Brando at that point.

Of course I'm not sure what Val Kilmer's excuse, was except that he might have seen this was going to be an expensive turkey and he might as well cut himself a slice or two of ham. Brando's three hundred pound albino Moreau reminded me of Dale the Whale from the Monk series and he seemed to recycle bits of Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now into his performance. Then Kilmer decides to do an imitation of him.

When we first meet Brando he's being carried through the jungle on what looks like the Popemobile and dressed all in white and giving waves and benedictions to the crowd of his creations looked for all the world like the Pope going through St. Peter's. If this was to inspire awe, it missed the mark, I laughed myself silly.

This version of The Island Of Dr. Moreau had to bow to advances in medical science since Charles Laughton and Arthur Hohl were operating in the House of Pain. What Brando is doing is injecting human DNA in various amounts in different creatures, creating his freak show. Still Laughton's sadistic experiments gave us more genuine terror than what Brando was doing.

This one will make you nostalgic for the old House of Pain.

Worse than bad (or better?)

[yoyodinepropulsion · 1/10 · 23 November 2003]

Here's a rare case of a film that's not only bad, but incompetant (Only "The Avengers" comes to mind as another recent example). The fact that original director Richard Stanley was fired only days into the shoot, and that a pouting Val Kilmer was allowed to run loose pretty much self-destructed this film. It's obvious that the heavily altered script was either slapped together, written on the fly, or at the very least not well thought out. The tone of the picture changes dramatically as it progresses (especially after its relatively assured beginning) but its not until we see Val Kilmer doing a Brando impression (certainly one of the most inexplicable scenes I've ever come across) that we realize no one seems to be in control of this incoherent mess. If this was just a schlocky b-movie there wouldn't be much to consider, but given the excellent cast, a capable director, and good makeup work, the occasional bits and pieces that register with the audience just make the film see that much more disjointed. For a big-budget action picture, "Island of Dr. Moreau" is a unique experience. It isn't as much bad as a mess, a cacophony of sights and sounds lacking a coherent narrative, and occupied by two egotistical stars too caught up making their own movie in their minds to bother with what's in the abysmal script. The one positive thing that I can say of "Island of Dr. Moreau" is that it does have value as a curio. It's almost fascinating to watch what happens when a film just plain goes bad, and makes you start to take for granted witless moronic fare that at least makes a bit of sense.

How not to make a movie

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 6 August 2016]

An unnecessary second remake (following the oft-forgotten '77 version with Michael York) of 1932's THE ISLAND OF LOST SOULS, based of course on the classic short story by H.G. Wells. A huge flop on release, this movie starts off pretty well and looks extremely promising with the crisp, highly colourful photography and interesting locations (Queensland actually). Sadly it deteriorates constantly as it goes on, until it becomes an almost parody of itself at the end, and is completely impossible to take seriously!

Directorial disputes resulted in original director Richard Stanley being fired in place of the more mainstream John Frankenheimer, although even his veteran presence can't hide the dodgy editing and episodic nature of the narrative. The movie opens very promisingly with an well-choreographed fight aboard a rubber dinghy (trust me, it is very impressive) but that about as exciting as it gets. British star David Thewlis (not a bad actor, but his character is far too whiny to be likable) meets up with the ever-grouchy Val Kilmer, who takes him a remote island where they meet the incredible Marlon Brando. Brando overacts as never before in this movie, dressed in a white sheet and white face-paint, and his hamminess knows no bounds; his performance is so terribly and completely off beat that it serves as one of the movie's highlights.

Soon afterwards, a hyena man discovers the implant which Moreau uses to control him through painful shocks, and tears it out, thus inciting a riot amongst the beast men, who eventually storm the island and learn how to use guns. The action-packed finale is absolutely terrible and laughable, with the beast men having far too much screen time (forget the eerie glimpses in the original - here they're on screen for ages which totally ruins their impact) and running and jumping about all over the place before they all kill each other.

Aside from the miscast Thewlis, the wooden Kilmer and the laughable Brando, there is one other main character - Fairuza Balk (THE CRAFT), who plays a panther woman. Balk is far more attractive here than she was as the teenage witch in that other '96 horror movie, and indeed her feral beauty does most of the acting for her. Hidden inside costumes and make-up are a number of noted actors like Ron Perlman, Mark Dacascos, and Verne Troyer, but you'd never recognise them. The special effects are by Stan Winston, and the beast men are initially very impressive, with CGI being interspersed flawlessly with live-action footage. Sadly their overexposure soon shows and, as you see more and more of them, the less impressive they become until the laughing stocks of the finale.

The morals are muddled and the film ends in an inconclusive fashion with most of the cast dead and the rest carrying on with their lives. A tragedy it is not as most of the dead characters are selfish and unlikeable or just plain odd. In the other versions, Moreau was attacked and killed at the end of the film, but that happens halfway through here, leaving the movie floundering with nowhere to really go afterwards. Kilmer ends up going mad too and dressing as Brando, but the irritatingly non-conclusive script means that you never figure out why.

With an above average cast wasted along with a substantial budget, hopefully the poor reception of this movie at the box office has put off any other chancers with an idea of making a buck from a remake of a classic horror film. In an ideal world it certainly would, but I'm not so sure. THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU is worth a look as a curiosity piece for sure, but it feels all the more frustrating as you get the impression that a good idea is in here somewhere, waiting to get out.

What was that?!

[Boba_Fett1138 · 3/10 · 15 December 2006]

What exactly did I just watched here?

To be honest, the movie started of promising. It seemed to have some nice actors and character and above all the movie made SENSE. However the movie started to go down hill rapidly and I mean really down hill!

This movie is real wasted potential. The premise is good and interesting and good enough to raise some provoking issues. The actors are also good and so is the visual look of the whole movie (with the exception of its early special effects), with its Stan Winston make-up effects, settings and cinematography. Yet somehow they messed everything up and all of its potential is wasted in this messy, confusing, weird cinematic piece of garbage.

It sounds ironic but from the moment when Marlon Brando's character appears in the movie, the movie becomes all quirky, weird and extremely messy. The movie starts to become very unbelievable and toward the end also very far from understandable. Marlon Brando and Val Kilmer are of course great actors but in this movie also unintentional funny and not credible as persons who like to play God. The act like a bunch of idiots in this movie and they do some weird things, Marlon Brando especially, who also looks totally ridicules with weird make-up and odd clothes. In one sequence he even wears an ice bucket on his head! Ice bucket helmet...I rest my case. I think that says enough about how this movie is like. The ice bucket sequences is iconic for the rest of the movie. He is also accompanied by a small dwarf like creature, who wears the same clothes and sits by his right side. It obviously formed the basis and inspiration for the character of Mini-Me in the Austin Power movies. It makes these sequences even more unintentional hilarious to watch.

But yet it are still the well known actors who give the movie still some 'watchability level'. David Thewlis was perhaps not the right choice for the main character, he isn't charismatic enough for that but nevertheless he's a great actor of course. Marlon Brando doesn't plays such a prominent role as you would expect. He actually appears quite (too) late into the story. Val Kilmer perhaps delivers the best performance of the movie, until the moment when his character goes crazy. The movie further more features well known actors such as Ron Perlman, Temuera Morrison and William Hootkins in unrecognizable roles.

I wish that the movie made more sense. It would at least had made the movie more entertaining to watch. It instead now offers very little entertainment, even to the most objective and open viewers. The way the story is told makes it far from interesting, compelling or thought provoking. If I had to tell what the story is about, I would say; about a bunch of weird like half human-animals who want to break free from their master and 'God', played by Marlon Brando. Everything else gets muddled into the messy story. It makes the movie look like a ridicules potential-less Z-movie from the '50's.

Really not worth seeing. I only have one more thing to say, that should sum it all up; Ice bucket!

3/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

May God Have Mercy On Your Soul

[tim_sparks · 1/10 · 5 March 2012]

I got together with a friend and we made a HUGE MISTAKE. We watched "The Island of Dr Moreau." I don't think either of us will recover. We looked into the gaping maw of cinematic Hell. But enough about Marlon Brando's mouth. I have never seen.. I .. I am speechless. The train wreck, the carnage.. the .. OH THE HUMANITY! There is a scene where a little naked mutant dude with a butt-penis shows up, he is like Brando's mutant mini me. He has a look on his face as if to say "yea I know! How can I exist? WTF am I? I'm as dumbfounded as you are over my existence in this movie. what can you do?I'm stuck here just like you are, but cut me some slack, you're only watching. I am in this thing!" Throughout the movie this little thing is just sort of there. At one point he's lounging around and flashing his mutant butt like we are at a photo shoot for midget mutant porn.

Midget Mutant porn would be a better thing to watch.

This movie is a crazy train going off the rails into a black hole that is at the center of a volcano populated by insane clown posse demons. Kilmer and Brando.. appear to giving us, Hollywood, Earth, and reality itself a huge "F*CK YOU." Sarcasm mode on.

My friend and I both agreed, however, that the decision to have Val Kilmer play 13 different characters who all dressed the same and went by the same name was brilliant! the only way you could tell he was different is how he would behave completely different, and then you said "aha GENIUS! he's playing one of the other characters now!" Sarcasm mode off.

OK so Brando is there in one scene with his body slathered in white crisco, and a weird outfit on, and a f*cking bucket on his head that is being filled with ice and water..sitting in front of a piano..

OK reread that last part. I dare you! That's 100% real. That's what was going on. OK now take a deep breath and read forward if you dare. I warn you though.. your head might explode.. only keep reading if you read this out loud first with a legal witness: "I, state-your-name, will forbid my friends and family from suing IMDb.com if my head has exploded due to reading about/watching The Island of Dr Moreau (1996)." OK still here. Well don't say I didn't warn you. Fine. Read on. Idiot.

Greased up Brando starts playing the piano and butt-penis mini brando plays the tiny piano on top of brando's piano and they were dueting or whatever.

At that point I think part of my brain actually died. I forgot how to drive a car, how to shave, and how to use a fork. later on the movie continued to wipe out various other abilities that I used to take for granted. right now a surrogate is typing this out, I am in a bed with tubes snaking through me and various machines regulating various things.

I don't think you can use points to rate this. You need to rate it 1 crisco brando plus 4 mini-mutant-butt-penis-Brandos. And may God have mercy on your soul.

Method in the madness

[tomsview · 7/10 · 11 July 2021]

To get the most out of this film, it's best to watch it in conjunction with "Lost Soul: The Doomed Journey of Richard Stanley's Island of Dr. Moreau" a 2014 documentary about its making.

Questions about how the movie ended up so crazy are answered in often hilarious detail. Yes there is an explanation as to why Marlon Brando as Dr. Moreau wears an ice bucket on his head in a bizarre scene.

I didn't know anything about Richard Stanley, the original director who was sacked and replaced, until I read the information on IMDb trivia after watching the movie. Much of that information comes from the documentary.

Like the 1977 version of the story, the film is based on H. G. Wells' novel where Dr. Moreau retreats to a remote island to put into practice his theory about creating humans from animals. The story is told from the point of view of a sailor who ends up on the island and witnesses the good doctor's work unravel as the creatures regress and tear up the joint.

This version sticks closer in some ways to the basic structure of the book, but overlaid with the original director's vision of updating it to the present. The makeup and special effects are also many notches above the 1977 version.

However it was the actors that sent the film off kilter, and that's where the fun really started. Few mainstream Hollywood movies ever went as completely out of control as this one. What becomes obvious in the documentary as you watch the interviews with the actors and crew is that they could dine out for years on the stories they have to tell - most of which revolve around Marlon Brando.

Marco Hofschneider who played one of the creatures proves to be a brilliant raconteur as he describes interactions he had with the legendary actor. Fairuza Balk who was a supporter of the original director, and seemed traumatised by the experience tells of a conversation with Marlon where she actually does a brilliant impression of him. All were provided with pure gold for a lifetime of anecdotes, and reveal that what went on behind the camera was more entertaining than anything in front of it.

The 1996 version is a mess and wears out its welcome before the end, but when you know why it ended up like that, it could be the most enjoyable movie you'll watch all year.

Train wreck

[jarvis-83710 · 3/10 · 6 September 2020]

Some may have you believe that this film is unfairly judged and the Richard Stanley version would have been a triumph. Neither are true. This film was always destined to be a B-movie and the blame cannot be put on Brando, Kilmer or Frankenheimer solely. Even Thewlis puts in a cringe inducing performance, who can blame him with the campy source material he and everyone had to work with. This film is like a compilation of all the worst bits of the original Planet of the Apes movies.

not nearly as bad

[Cioran · 8/10 · 19 November 2000]

This film was not nearly as bad as judging from the comments by some Americans. Acting was good, dilemmas were relevant, only thing seriously lacking was contextualization. Characters weren't historically well contextualized to make their activities coherent. Action wasn't founded but happened unexpectedly out of nowhere . It gave a chaotic sense to the film. Calling this film boring is totally off base. This is not a boring film. It just tried to encompass too many complex topics into a relatively brief film: animalistic brutality, confusion of origins, the frustration of many unanswerable questions to existence and suffering, the fragility of civil society and the often rigid adherence to laws to maintain a community. The film portrayed the dilemmas of human condition, suspended somewhere between gods and animals. This film is definitely better than 90% of cheesy, brain dead, rubbish coming out of Holy wood.

Strictly so-so.

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 31 August 2012]

Third official version of the H.G. Wells novel was such a troubled production that it's fortunate it would be watchable to any degree. In any event, the story of its making is infinitely more interesting than the final result.

For those not familiar with the story, it deals with a plane crash survivor, Edward Douglas (David Thewlis), adrift at sea and picked up by a passing ship, and ending up trapped on a remote island where the local mad scientist, Dr. Moreau (a hilarious Marlon Brando) has been busy turning animals into human like abominations. He's just in time to witness as the beasts start tiring of their treatment and stage a horrific uprising, while Moreaus' second in command, Montgomery (an amusing Val Kilmer) goes bat *beep* crazy, and Edward becomes taken with a cat woman named Aissa (sexy Fairuza Balk).

This film is never terribly involving, but at least it manages to be a somewhat *intriguing* mess. The ideas at work here still make some impact, although it would have helped had there been a stronger protagonist. Thewlis, who has gone on record as saying this was a very negative experience for him, looks largely disinterested, unlike Kilmer and screen legend Brando (Brando looking very pasty faced and rotund here); they both ham it up something fierce. Balk is quite appealing, and there's also the always welcome presence of Ron Perlman, playing the Sayer of the Law.

One good thing that can be said is that the creature designs by the Stan Winston Studio *are* indeed impressive, and the actors buried under the makeup all do a creditable job, especially Daniel Rigney and Mark Dacascos as the scary characters Hyena-Swine and Lo-Mai. This movie is beautiful in a visual sense, so it does have the look of quality, with production design by Graham "Grace" Walker and cinematography by William A. Fraker; it was filmed on location in Queensland, Australia.

One can't help but wonder what could have been had original director Richard Stanley (the man behind the cult items "Hardware" and "Dust Devil") not been fired. As it is, legendary political thriller master John Frankenheimer ("The Manchurian Candidate", "Seven Days in May"), who was brought in to try to create something releasable, does a slick job, even if his heart wasn't really in it.

Fans of the book would be advised to stick with the '32 and '77 adaptations; overall, this film does have good horror movie moments, and ends fairly well, but isn't too memorable when all is said and done.

Six out of 10.

Disappointing

[treeroland · 5/10 · 29 September 2022]

The Island of Dr. Moreau is a very disturbing story, but the plot of the novel by H. G. Wells is even more disturbing. The premise of the book is that evolutionary advance is greatly accelerated by the experience of pain. For background, consider the "dumb blonde" stereotype - when a woman is exceptionally beautiful, everything is given to her on silver platters - she has no need to do anything but receive all of the good things offered to her on every hand, so she never has any need to develop any intelligence or talent. In contrast, a man who is unattractive, poor, and/or otherwise disadvantaged must constantly devise strategies for survival and growth, leading to sharper imaginative and cognitive skills.

In the novel by H. G. Wells, Dr. Moreau cuts to the chase by administering pain to animals directly (at the "House of Pain"), in an effort to produce an adaptive response. Of course, this is a disturbing and chilling premise, but as the basis for a story it is pretty powerful, and it renders the development of the plot sufficiently plausible as to disturb one's sleep (or cause one to go running to Mama in terror).

That, at least, was the original premise of the work by H. G. Wells, but the present production morphs that original premise into the combining of human genes with animals to create hybrid creatures. This film lacks all of the genius of H. G. Wells, and degenerates into an ordinary garden variety monster movie, targeted, presumably, at fourteen year old boys. Dumb movie producers think they know better than H. G. Wells, and the result is just frivolous junk.

Fortunately, for fans of H. G. Wells, there is another and very excellent version of the story, Island of Lost Souls, 1932, featuring a delightful performance by Charles Laughton who totally nails the role of the gentleman mad scientist. This is the real deal. In fact, it was so disturbing to many people that the movie was banned for years. Compared with this achievement, the 1996 effort looks really stupid.