L'île du docteur Moreau

This chilling adaptation of the H.G.Well's novella, "The Island of Dr Moreau" remains unsurpassed, despite two later wretched attempts to improve upon it. Banned in England upon release! An exotic, but sinister atmosphere pervading Moreau's privately-owned island is enhanced by filming in Black & White, whose shadowy contrasts imbue the setting which a dark, suspenseful tone. Moreau amorally attempts to "play God" by creating "manimals" - hybrid humans and animals - via surgical vivasection and blood transfusion in his laboratory, The House of Pain. Charles Laughton has never been more campily devilish as when playing Moreau - an exquisite performance by a great actor.

Bela Lugosi plays a small, but effective part as "The Sayer of the Law": "Are we not men?" Kathleen Burke as the beautiful, erotic "Panther Woman" who develops an ill-fated romance with the protagonist, Edward Parker (played by Richard Arlen). Crisp direction by Erle Kenton, with nice make-up effects by Wally Westmore. The cutaway from the grisly ending when Moreau is about to be subjected to "surgery of the most fatal kind" in The House of Pain is most appreciated and is what I consider to be an exercise in directorial restraint and finesse. My imagination more than filled in the horrific details. Kudos to Mr. Kenton!

This is the first screen adaptation of the H. G. Wells' novel The Island of Dr. Moreau, and also the best. It is a bit shocking and one can easily see why the British censors, who were notoriously squeamish where horror films were concerned, did not let it appear in Britain for almost 30 years after its release. The story is about a man brought to an island where a strange doctor and his medical "failures" live. Charles Laughton plays the god-like doctor who creates and distorts life in his "House of Pain." Laughton is a marvel to behold with his goatee and his ever-expressive eyes, supplying enough ham to feed an army! He steals every scene he is in with his menacing demeanor and his subtle yet evocative speech. The rest of the cast is pretty good, and Bela Lugosi even makes an appearance as the "Sayer of the Law." The film has some good sets and deals with the issue of man wanting god-like powers rather well. This is easily one of the best non-Universal horror offerings of the 1930's. But again the real thrill of the movie is seeing Charles Laughton decked out in white cracking a whip and leering throughout the picture. His demise also supplies one of the horror screen's most terrifying moments filmed off-stage! Definitely one not to miss!

The basic plot:Edward Parker is picked up by a ship, and then thrown off by a drunk captain along with the ships cargo,the cargo being a ship of animals. The cargo arrives at an uncharted island with strange natives . He makes the acquaintance of Dr. Moreau , who turns animals into the natives which we see .....

The praise: Actually very creepy ,intelligent and entertaining .Charles Laughton gives an excellent, silky performance as Dr. Moreau, the perfect villain . All of it is perfect entertainment, and all of the scenes in the woods are still frightening, including the superb " What is the law?" sequence. Bela also turns in a fine performance as the keeper of the law. Creepy, simple makeup. All finely staged, structured , with a terrific script . The intelligent subtext about the line between man and beast and disturbing order is still interesting.Top-notch lighting, design, atmosphere and art direction. a must-see, and an all time great.

The flaws: Comic relief and the romantic couple date it somewhat.

Note: It's ironic that Paramounts 4 Horror movies( this, Dr. J and Mr. H, Murders in Zoo, and Murder by the clock) are darker than universals horror movies of that period, for Paramount wa known as a light entertainment company.

I first saw this film in 1933 when I was 7 years old. My 20 year old aunt, who was also my nanny, used to drag me to these things (also took me to equally horrifying Trader Horn and King Kong) instead of taking me to the playground. Even after 67 years, I remembered the scene when someone was lashing the rebellious half-animals.

I checked it out from my video store last year for a re-run. Absolutely magnificent Laughton. Still scary.

It's a good story, based on one of Wells' best science fiction novels, but ISLAND OF LOST SOULS never has gotten the kudos that it's fellow science fiction and horror tales of the early 1930s got. For all it's flaws, Dracula (Bela Lugosi's version) remains a classic, and the Spanish/Mexican/American version has gotten an increased audience in the last thirty years. FRANKENSTEIN, restoring the cuts, is still powerful, and the sequels (THE BRIDE and THE SON) are also popular. THE INVISIBLE MAN, for all it's dated special effects, still packs a wallop, as does KING KONG. THE MUMMY, THE BLACK CAT - they have not lost their powers to hold interest. Neither has ISLAND OF LOST SOULS, but it seems to get more of a lambasting by critics than the others. Why? My guess is that the very strength of the film is what turns off the critics: Charles Laughton's performance as Dr. Moreau. I happen to find it a fascinating performance of a talented scientist who is driven to madness by his success in a situation where he cannot really reveal it. For Moreau's ability by physical operations (I almost said by grafting) on animals has led to his being ostracized and forced into exile by his peers in Europe, and he is stuck on this island ruling a kingdom of his half-human/half animal followers. His only companion is Montgomery, who turns on him in the movie and Parker and Ms Thomas are just two people who bungle onto the island by accident (as does the ill-fated sea captain). But in the novel, while there is no love interest like Ms Thomas, the state of the human companionship is not so good either.

Parker's literary version - Charles Predinck - is a shipwreck survivor too, who is horrified by Moreau's experiments (and almost made part of them). Montgomery is more willing to work with Moreau, but Montgomery is not a very admirable type - he's an alcoholic (which is how he ended up with Moreau), and his lack of common sense leads to his demise.

The novel was trying to make a statement about ego-maniacal dictators and their falls from power, which is clearly delineated in the film version. But the end of Moreau is not at the end of the novel. He is killed off by rebellious "subjects" earlier, and Montgomery, thinking they won't harm him, proceeds to drink too much and sets himself up for his own gruesome end. Predinck just manages to kill the most dangerous of the animals, and escapes at the end (as Parker and Ms Thomas do in the film with Montgomery).

Laughton was one of Hollywood's greatest actors. I can't think of that many character actors who had such a wide variety of successful performances. But Moreau, although in his setting he seems natural, is an over-the-top Laughton performance. I believe that is why the critics are so harsh on him. The threatening shouts about "the law" and "the house of pain" are repeated and repeated like the mantras they are. But the critics who hear this think of the Laughton who, a year earlier, had overacted as a mad and jealous submarine commander in THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP with Gary Cooper, Tallulah Bankhead, and a youngish Cary Grant. There are similarities, but that film had a pretty weak script (unlike THE ISLAND OF LOST SOULS). These critics tend to think of those films made by Laughton before his Oscar winner in THE PRIVATE LIFE OF HENRY VIII as overripe, and tedious - not the expert work of his later career. They fail to notice that he was learning his craft in movies, in these years, and his ranting in parts like Moreau or the submarine commander were necessary to learning the restraint that paints Henry VIII and Captain Bligh and Quasimodo. I find one might not think of the film as highly as the other contemporary films I mentioned earlier, but it is a worthy film nevertheless, and important in Laughton's growth as an actor.