One of the things which has always puzzled me is how a film with such a plethora of talent as the Island of Doctor Moreau turned out so badly. Here we have a top notch director (Frankenheimer), Brando ('nuff said), Val Kilmer (who has his moments, and is anything but wooden in this), Thewlis (underrated actor), Balk (underrated actress), a good score, good effects. Sure, most of the actors chew the scenery with glee, but that comes with the cinematic territory. Somehow, this all adds up to a really bad movie. How?
I blame the screenwriter(s). For those of you who have seen the definitive Dr. Moreau movie, Island of Lost Souls, (which Wells hated, I might add), you will see how well this works. OK, question 1: Who is the antagonist? Dr. Moreau, right? Well, in the 1996 version, he dies about 30 minutes in. So the "bad guys" become the Dr's creations, who in every other version of the story are innocent victims of the antagonist (the Dr.) just like every one else. The message of this is that we should fear the animal people because they are different, not a particularly enlightened view. Question 2: Who is the hero? In the 1996 version its Edward Douglas. Makes sense, right? Except for one small detail: Douglas in every version of the story is a closed minded, moralizing holier-than-thou prick. There is just no way to get around it. If you think about the 1933 version, the real protagonists are the animal people, especially the Sayer of the Law and Aissa (she is called something else in that version), who GIVES HER LIFE to rescue the others as the other creation's desire for revenge on the doctor accidentally destroys the island. THEY are the moral compass of the movie, and they are more kind hearted and human than the human characters, who all in all are a pretty rotten bunch. Their only crimes are their ignorance and their circumstances. By contrast, the humans are actually evil: Moreau is a self centered psychopath, Montgomery has sold his soul, Edwards is an ungrateful pontificating ass. By contrast, Aissa and the Sayer of the law (in both versions) are polite, respectful of their creator and each other, brave, and helpful to those in need. Can that be said about any of the human characters? By making a person like Edwards the protagonist and moral compass of the 1996 version, the film essentially endorses his rather nasty attitudes and ideas. Also, by portraying the creatures as motivated by a lust for destruction and power AFTER the Dr's death, it kills the sympathy the audience should feel for such tormented and abused beings.
I blame the screenwriter(s). For those of you who have seen the definitive Dr. Moreau movie, Island of Lost Souls, (which Wells hated, I might add), you will see how well this works. OK, question 1: Who is the antagonist? Dr. Moreau, right? Well, in the 1996 version, he dies about 30 minutes in. So the "bad guys" become the Dr's creations, who in every other version of the story are innocent victims of the antagonist (the Dr.) just like every one else. The message of this is that we should fear the animal people because they are different, not a particularly enlightened view. Question 2: Who is the hero? In the 1996 version its Edward Douglas. Makes sense, right? Except for one small detail: Douglas in every version of the story is a closed minded, moralizing holier-than-thou prick. There is just no way to get around it. If you think about the 1933 version, the real protagonists are the animal people, especially the Sayer of the Law and Aissa (she is called something else in that version), who GIVES HER LIFE to rescue the others as the other creation's desire for revenge on the doctor accidentally destroys the island. THEY are the moral compass of the movie, and they are more kind hearted and human than the human characters, who all in all are a pretty rotten bunch. Their only crimes are their ignorance and their circumstances. By contrast, the humans are actually evil: Moreau is a self centered psychopath, Montgomery has sold his soul, Edwards is an ungrateful pontificating ass. By contrast, Aissa and the Sayer of the law (in both versions) are polite, respectful of their creator and each other, brave, and helpful to those in need. Can that be said about any of the human characters? By making a person like Edwards the protagonist and moral compass of the 1996 version, the film essentially endorses his rather nasty attitudes and ideas. Also, by portraying the creatures as motivated by a lust for destruction and power AFTER the Dr's death, it kills the sympathy the audience should feel for such tormented and abused beings.