"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) – 30th anniversary revisit

August 23, 1996

I don’t remember knowing anybody else like this, but I loved THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU at the time. It was a big summer movie, hugely expensive by New Line Cinema standards, but it was sci-fi horror, and rampant with outstanding Stan Winston makeup effects. It had more of Fairuza Balk fresh off of THE CRAFT, but this time she grows cat fangs. I knew that Ron Perlman (CRONOS, THE CITY OF LOST CHILDREN) was under the makeup of the goat man called “The Sayer of the Law,” and Mark Dacascos (CRYING FREEMAN) was the leopard man Lo-Mai, but I didn’t know who Temuera Morrison (BARB WIRE) was yet so I didn’t know it was motherfuckin Jango Fett as the dogman Azazello. A great character I’ll come back to in a bit.

The crucial thing about the movie is that it was defiantly, extravagantly weird. Watching it now I realize how much of it tonally and texturally reminds me of NIGHTBREED, but since it starred two big time movie stars it wasn’t marketed as weirdo shit. It was marketed toward a mainstream crowd, and they didn’t like it. Nor did any of the other crowds. But sometimes you gotta stay away from crowds.

There are many possible criticisms of the movie, a few I might even agree with, but the popular one that to this day infuriates me is the claim that Marlon Brando is bad in it as Dr. Moreau. Unsurprisingly he won the Razzie and Stinkers Bad Movie Awards for Worst Supporting Actor, so for the record that’s the company you keep if you hate this performance. The way they talked about it at the time it seemed like it wasn’t a performance, it was documentary footage of Marlon Brando misbehaving. Why is he on set wearing white makeup and a weird hat, riding a popemobile, making weird speeches, playing a piano duet with a little mutant pal? How unprofessional! He was supposed to be the normal version of this character. Why did he do it unlike anything we’ve ever seen? Why must he be so captivating and bizarre and hilarious? What an embarrassing bungle, that they accidentally did this. I want to talk to the manager. I’m calling the cops. I’m going to sue.

Gary Thompson in Philadelphia Daily News: “with comical dialogue that can only have been meant to elicit laughter.” Oh, you think so? You think so?

I just can’t fathom this opinion that being weird was a failure. It’s up there with “STARSHIP TROOPERS is fascist” as one of the most flagrantly off-base common movie takes of the ‘90s. And I don’t think the conventional wisdom has changed much. So I guess it’s hard to use this movie to support my Slam Evil Summer thesis that the movies that were popular then were not as good or interesting as many of the ones that were overlooked and seen as fiascos. But I know it’s true. I feel it deep in my human DNA.

That’s the baseline understanding I need to establish: Brando is brilliant in this movie, and I don’t care if you attribute it to him being off his rocker or what. He made that character, this is a gift to the world. In fact I think in 2026 it’s even better than it was in 1996 because we’ve had so many reminders that this can happen. A person of great power can silo themselves off in their own world, become more and more detached from reality, and more full of their own bullshit. He’s a great physicist so he decides he’s also qualified to be a law decider and spiritual leader.

Since almost everyone on the island is an animal-human hybrid of his creation they have no idea what normal human behavior is, they just have his example. The only other human is his assistant Dr. Montgomery (Val Kilmer, HEAT), who after ten years of this shit is not exactly a model normal person either. Into this world comes the control group, the castaway Edward Douglas (David Thewlis, DRAGONHEART), who theoretically is the audience surrogate whose eyes we discover all this craziness through. But since this a weirdo movie we prefer the strange people and identify with the strange monsters, so Douglas plays to me like Edward Woodward in THE WICKER MAN – the uptight visitor whose discomfort with all this is comical.

I reviewed THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU when it was less than a decade old, back in 2004. Not my best work, but I made the very true point that “THIS IS A PICTURE THAT OPENS WITH A KNIFE FIGHT ON AN INFLATABLE RAFT. Two minutes into the picture, a guy has been eaten by a shark and David Thewlis has beat another guy’s face in with a plastic oar.” Douglas has spent 3 days adrift in the Java Sea after his small plane crashed, and pretty soon those are gonna seem like the good old days.

He’s rescued by a boat with one American on it, Dr. Montgomery, and it’s funny that Kilmer was originally cast as Douglas, because Montgomery ended up being much more of a Kilmer character. He’s a degenerate beach bum who aids Douglas by shooting him up with “a little Jimi Hendrix” after admitting he’s “more of a vet” than a doctor. Later he brags about adding methamphetamines, morphine and shrooms to the inoculations. It’s easy to imagine the generic version of this character who wouldn’t keep me constantly wondering what’s up with this guy? I prefer this.

Montgomery is an accomplished neurosurgeon who dedicated himself to Moreau’s research, ended up just kinda being his servant, has now lost his shit enough he’s decided to become the chaos agent who knocks over the first domino toward the island’s downfall by serving Edward meat in front of Moreau’s “children.” It’s against the rules and it’s a deliberate act of provocation, whether or not he knew it would inspire Lo-Mai to kill some rabbits and be put on trial and then for Azazello to misunderstand what The Father wants and put him down and then for the Hyena-Swine (Daniel Rigney) to notice an implant on his cremated remains and to start a movement of clawing out their own implants so The Father can’t control them with pain anymore and they can take over the island.

When all that does happen, though, Montgomery responds in kind of Jim Morrison fashion, lounging on Moreau’s throne at a beast orgy, passing out drugs, doing his Dr. Moreau impression. Also destroying the serum that prevents the animal people from reverting to beast form.

Man, there are so many wild parts in this movie that I didn’t even remember all of them after multiple viewings. I forgot that Douglas finds out about the animal-human hybrids by sneaking into a lab where some of them are delivering a llama-woman’s baby. Not an easy thing to take in all at once. And I really had no memory of the part where he tries to steal a boat to leave but gets swarmed by little humanoid rats. Reminded me of DEAD ALIVE, but they’re digital – the only CG creatures in the movie besides Lo-Mai when he jumps. They’re creepy, though. They work.

Douglas’ reaction to Moreau’s daughter Aissa (Balk) is pretty funny. When he’s first arrived on the island, before he even knows about the animal people, he sees her bellydancing and just sits down and watches until she opens her eyes and is startled. She acts as sort of the Ruby in THE HILLS HAVE EYES, the sympathetic family member who tips him off about things, and he never exactly makes a move on her. But he caresses her face, notices her cat features, tells her she’s not like the others. He has little reason to believe that other than she’s the only pretty female on the island. I’m not saying I wouldn’t do the same, so it’s a funny commentary on men. And it makes the scenes at the dinner table even better because he’s sitting next to her and it kinda feels like his first time meeting the crazy family of the girl he likes.

When Edward sees Moreau’s animal children all dressed up and serving food he’s openly disgusted, can’t even couch it in concerns about ethics, just makes it clear he finds them disgusting. And Balk calls upon her facial mega-acting gifts to bug her eyes out at his reactions. Meanwhile Moreau acts like the calm, reasonable guy, at first thinking it’s his sunblock that upsets him, then explaining the philosophy of his genetic tinkering, with a brief interruption to tell little Maiji (Nelson de la Rosa, RATMAN) to take his foot off the table.

Every Moreau scene is a classic in its own right, especially his final one, when the Hyena-Swine and friends break into his residence at night, and he surely understands that they’re there to kill him, but he calmly offers them biscuits, says that their banging on the keys of his piano was “rather interesting” and “reminded me of a man named Schoenberg,” and sits down to play for them. It’s partly a distraction to try to get to the device that he doesn’t realize will no longer incapacitate them, but also I think he believes he can win them over with his charm. It’s such a tense scene. And the way that Maiji is sneaking around trying to help the doctor, and knows his safe combination! I bet he thinks he’s next, like Corpus Colossus when the Citadel falls in FURY ROAD.

I can’t write about this movie without taking a minute to sing the praises of Maiji, who would be a great cinematic creation if he had been planned from the beginning, but it’s even better when you learn that Brando saw 2’ 4” tall de la Rosa and knew he should be more than a background monster. Wikipedia says he’s “a homunculus of Dr. Moreau who does not speak and was created from a fusion of pig DNA and human DNA.” He’s delightful whether scurrying around dressed as Moreau, or dancing on Montgomery’s Jeep naked, when we see he actually has a hot-dog-like tail (or a dong hanging off his ass?).

The idea of taking one of the world’s smallest men, giving him full body creature makeup and using him as an unexplained sidekick is pure analog movie magic. Of course he also inspired the character of Mini-Me in AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME, and I would argue that that was less a parody than a celebration of what a fun concept Maiji is. I’m sure many never knew the reference, but enjoyed the weirdness of Dr. Evil having a small, identically-dressed friend.

But I don’t think I’ve ever appreciated Azazello enough. I always loved his weird look, some kind of a wolfboy trying to dress up nice, unable to tame the wild shock of hair exploding from his scalp, but there’s so much more to him. He seems so proud to be one of Moreau’s top stooges. He works as a surgeon but also “enjoys a hunt” – chasing the others when they go rogue. He has the fanciest suit, carries himself the most upright. Even after fucking up and shooting Lo-Mai dead when Moreau had just forgiven him, he holds his head up arrogantly. When they cremate the body he seems to enjoy the smell. When he eventually joins up with the rebels he still wears his formal outfit, maintains his posture, teaches others how to use guns. All the things that make you human, he must think.

I used to kinda drop out as it gets into the animal uprising part of the movie, but maybe it hits different now. Creatures climbing on top of cars, driving around blowing shit up, taking machine guns and blowing the shit out of every diploma and Nobel Peace Prize and shit on the walls of Moreau’s study, later everybody combing through the wreckage and destroying things even more, poor M’Ling (Marco Hofschneider, EUROPA EUROPA) stumbling around dazed like Mother Sister after the riot in DO THE RIGHT THING.

The narration and stock footage at the end is heavy-handed with its moralizing, and some of the themes of the movie are very obvious (some of them mentioned in my original review). But 30 years on I see other applications of the story. Moreau certainly has parallels to the tech lord oligarchs currently terrorizing the world – the claims of a grand mission, the bizarre lifestyle, the complete detachment from reality, the soul-less exploitation, the reckless disregard for consequences. Also that all this stems from his insistence on skirting the law and avoiding criticism. Moreau left the States because of animal rights activists protesting his experiments. “It got so bad you couldn’t cage a rat without reading him his rights,” Montgomery jokes. All these regulations. All this wokeness.

John Hartl of The Seattle Times and William Arnold of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote the two most positive reviews on Metacritic (rated 75 and 67), so maybe it’s a Seattle thing. Maybe we just get it here. We have some islands and tech people and stuff. Actually, David Ansen of Newsweek gets it: “Brando’s performance is enormous fun, but it’s not just a joke. He’s hilarious and gently mesmerizing at once, and director John Frankenheimer savvily adjusts the tone of his movie to fit Brando’s daft brilliance. This update of H.G. Wells’s 100-year-old novel is – until it collapses in the last 30 minutes – giddily entertaining, a tropical-horror potboiler with a wry sense of its own absurdity. Any movie that casts gnarly, intense David Thewlis as straight man is going to be pitched at a pretty baroque level.”

You said it! We’re lucky Rob Morrow got fed up with the madness and quit. Now, how it would’ve been with first choice Bruce Willis? That I cannot imagine. (He bowed out so as not to leave the country during divorce proceedings.)

Along with my fascination for THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU came a fascination with the stories of its troubled production. Legends of original director and credited screenwriter Richard Stanley, coming off of HARDWARE and DUST DEVIL, trying to inflict his sensibilities upon the mainstream with this movie, struggling with the hurricane of Kilmer changing his mind about starring, plus an actual hurricane destroying the sets. And of course Stanley was fired after 3 days of shooting and replaced by the great John Frankenheimer. The real kicker was the part about secretly staying nearby and spying on the set disguised as a dogboy extra. There was such a mystique around him and this movie.

And yet I didn’t jump to see David Gregory’s documentary LOST SOUL: THE DOOMED JOURNEY OF RICHARD STANLEY’S ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU when it came out in 2014. Like JODOROWSKY’S DUNE it seemed made just for me, a major documentary about a niche topic that had long captured my imagination. But I was bothered by all the reviews that presented it like hey, remember that movie that sucks and no one likes and is worthless, well here’s a funny story about how it went wrong, how they fucked over the most visionary genius of all time, who was going to make a movie that would’ve changed the world and turned water to wine and shit to gold, but they robbed us of it, to make that bad movie that is really bad, can you believe it? And I felt like I was the one and only person saying hey, wait a minute.

I considered Stanley an interesting director at the time. I was excited to see him do a studio movie, I thought it was gonna be subversive or something. But… in my memory at least, not having rewatched them, his movies aren’t that good. How can I believe he would’ve made a movie better than Frankeneheimer’s when, to my mind, he never had before? I didn’t see many people vouching for them based on having actually seen them. They were just assuming they must be amazing because that’s the underdog story we all believe in, the genius screwed over by The Man, because we can’t have nice things.

So I kept delaying watching LOST SOUL, because along with it I wanted to watch and write about all of Stanley’s movies, to prove or disprove my theory. Very likely it would turn out I saw them too young and they’re much better than I remembered. I was excited to find out, and when he had his comeback with THE COLOR OUT OF SPACE I swear I was about to finally get around to it. Then his former partner and screenwriter Scarlett Amaris posted a horrific account of suffering years of abuse from him, which she said she decided to go public with after another partner filed charges against him. If you search for it now you’ll find Reddit posts claiming he was cleared of the allegations (source: Richard Stanley), but if you read her story and think “this is the kind of thing women make up and put their names on to smear the obscure director of 3 okay cult movies” then I don’t know, man. I don’t know. (Actually I do. But I’ll be nice because you got this far in my review.)

Point being, the Richard Stanley retrospective is permanently cancelled, but Slam Evil Summer inspired me to finally watch LOST SOUL, which is as interesting as hoped. Of course, today’s knowledge prevents me from being charmed by Stanley croaking out his cheeky stories about how outrageous his ideas were. At no point in his interviews is he able to suppress his “I’m a clever boy” smile, which is less cute now that we know he beats up women.

But we didn’t need this information to see that the guy is a kook. He proudly tells the story of when he was told he was going to be replaced by Roman Polanski so he “resorted to witchcraft,” contacting “this warlock chappy in England” who, at the moment Stanley was meeting with Brando, “convened his coven, cut his arm, drew a sigil and did some sort of routine to fix it and make it all right.”

Would a guy who really believes and/or does shit like that and thinks it’s an impressive story to tell make a good movie? Maybe, yeah. Crazy people sometimes make the most exciting art. But I don’t think it’s the sure thing people portray it as. The transgressive ideas he brags they wouldn’t let him do to do don’t all sound that great, and one of the story contributions he insisted on was having the beasts take over earlier than previous adaptations, the main thing everyone complains about. Even some of the people interviewed who are sympathetic to him say that he was in over his head. Executive producer Tim Zinneman (THE JERICHO MILE) says, “He would come on surveys and talk to people, but as a leader and director he really didn’t get involved. He stayed in his house.” Production designer Graham “Grace” Walker (MAD MAX: BEYOND THUNDERDOME) says, “We’d have to drag him to look at locations and even meetings. He wouldn’t come to meetings… I really liked the guy alot but I kept saying to him, ‘Hey Richard, you’ve got to go to meetings if you’re going to make this movie’… I think he did have visions, whether they were clear, I’m not so sure. He would probably say he did, and perhaps I misinterpreted some of what he was saying, but I never thought they were exactly clear.”

At one point he says that Grace joked about blowing up the set, and laughs that New Line worried he wanted to sabotage the movie. But later he says that he immediately started shredding documents because he “wanted to make it particularly hard for them to make that film.”

To his credit, though, his script is the basis, he was there for the development of the monsters, the supporting actors seem to have really liked him, he seemed to care about having good relations with the locals (appointing the Bison Man actor David Hudson [SINGAPORE SLING] as an ambassador to the aboriginal community). And on the negative side about Frankenheimer, all the interviewees seem to agree he was an asshole who yelled at them.

Marco Hofschneider, who plays M’Ling is one of the main interviews. His character was Montgomery’s assistant in the book and original script, but Kilmer didn’t want to be overshadowed by a creature, so the part ended up being much smaller than he signed on for. He was clearly very disappointed, but seems to have a sense of humor and surprising amount of objectivity about it. Balk, on the other hand, is still upset about the betrayal of a director she believed in and her disillusionment as a young actor to find that she had to just go along with it.

At the end of the documentary nobody says anything good about the finished product, ashamedly parroting claims about it being the worst movie ever made. The happy ending is Stanley having found some kind of peace living in mountains away from people, doing some “strange experiments” and feeling optimistic about making another movie, more modest than MOREAU. He did do that one and post-sort-of-cancellation he soldiers on, so far not hooking up with Ben Shapiro like other alleged abusers, but he shot some kids’ movie with Cynthia Rothrock and wrote WINNIE THE POOH BLOOD AND HONEY 3.

This dark turn in the saga has inspired one final reading for this 30-years-later viewing. Like I mentioned earlier, I instinctively side with the freaks, even if the movie doesn’t entirely (see Fairuza in THE CRAFT). I don’t mind these beast people going overboard in their search for freedom. But some of them immediately want to be the oppressor themselves, and Stanley is a reminder that that’s true, that some of these guys are not on our side, to not be surprised that some of the weirdos, outsiders and artists are just as bad as the other guys.

Once we expel them we can’t necessarily continue exactly what we were doing. We might have to rethink some things, try to learn and evolve in the ways we continue in our search to find the life we want. I like at the end when The Sayer of the Law, who once commanded everyone to walk on two legs, refuses Douglas’ help to stop the beast-people from regressing.

“We have to be what we are, not what the Father tried to make us,” he says. What they are is up to them to discover.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 11th, 2026 at 3:58 pm and is filed under Reviews, Monster, Science Fiction and Space Shit. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

28 Responses to “The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) – 30th anniversary revisit”

  1. I really want to revisit this one soon. I heard of course all those stories about the shoot and the negative reviews but when I saw it on TV, it was pretty good. It was like they were desperately looking for the next WATERWORLD, a movie that they could make fun of unseen, based on the stories of a chaotic shoot.

    The two things I remember about LOST SOULS: Fairuza Balk still being really upset about Stanley’s treatment and how the movie was received and a random extra who played a pig woman being very delightful and one of the few people who (kinda) enjoyed being on the island much longer as planned and bonding with everybody over the shitty situation. (And smoking weed and having sex.)

  2. Dooley the Gravedigger

    September 11th, 2026 at 8:32 pm

    “If you search for it now you’ll find Reddit posts claiming he was cleared of the allegations (source: Richard Stanley)”

    Yeah I think you summed this up well. Stanley did a Facebook post with a screenshot of a French legal document (with a couple of sentences redacted) stating that a French court had cleared him of everything. And much as I wish Stanley was untainted by this, logic makes me ask, if a French court had decided this, wouldn’t there be a judgement or summary or legal finding online, rather than Stanley photographing some document with his phone. I’ve seen legal things happen in courts before and they’re usually big on telling us what happened afterwards rather than keeping it a secret and making it impossible to learn anything more.

    A Finnish documentary called SHADOWLAND, which I did not know existed until five minutes ago, shows Stanley wandering around in a remote locale smoking cigarettes and acting like a bit of a cult guru. The bad stories about him came to light during filming and the filmmakers shifted the tone of the documentary to include a lot of he said / she said stuff.

    Stanley’s two earliest films came out through Umbrella in Australia with fat new extras and documentaries, and I’ve always found his first couple of films intriguing though not great, but somehow the idea of what Stanley has done or was doing or could have done is more interesting than the final work. Oh well.

    There aren’t enough weirdo loopy horror SF directors around and we could always use a few more of them, but I agree that Stanley walked all his supporters out onto a big wooden bridge which we later found was surrounded by an unusually high volume of smoke.

  3. I don’t remember getting much out of this one when I saw it on cable back when it was still pretty new. I tend to think of 1990s Hollywood would-be-blockbusters as bloated misfires made without care or intelligence, and I don’t remember considering this one an exception.

    But a difference I’ve realized about 1990s culture compared to today is that back then, critics and audiences (and fandom) judged movies and TV by what seemed tasteful or highbrow or dramatically satisfying, in what seems like a political vacuum compared to today. The world seemed less crazy then, so certain things that would now seem politically charged or timely, instead seemed cliched or decadent or narratively inert.

    We’ve probably all seen memes about how 1999’s THE PHANTOM MENACE basing its epic conflict on a blockaded trade route seemed really lame at the time but sadly makes more sense now. Similarly, the disaster movies made in the wake of INDEPENDENCE DAY played differently after 9/11, and movies in the zombie and post-apocalypse genres play differently after the pandemic. Megalomaniac villains who would once have seemed like stale cliches now feel very relevant. And it’s become much harder to deploy the “oh come on, people wouldn’t do that” accusation of bad writing, because in the social media age it’s become much harder to assert that there is anything people wouldn’t do or believe.

    Weird movies that go against their era’s expectations of quality and good taste eventually stand out as cult novelties. And maybe the artistic choices that seem “bad” end up being the most true to human flaws and foibles.

  4. Wait, did you ever consider Jack for Slam Evil Summer? Ever see it? It’s not good so I wouldn’t subject yourself to it just for classification purposes but it’s such a weird misfire it kind of fits some of the other 1996 duds. Not worth going back to. Just curious your thoughts if any.

  5. Before the movie came out I also read a news blurb in a magazine, about how Brando suggested to the studio that he shoots a teaser in which he would explain in character the basics of genetics to the audience. No context, just Brando in full Moreau gear, talking about genes and shit. The studio loved it. That he wanted 5 million bucks extra for that, not so much.

  6. Fred – I did see it at the time (don’t remember liking it) and considered watching it but I’m so behind now I’m streamlining the list a little.

  7. I’ve also been meaning to revisit this. I only saw it once a couple years after it came out, and while I didn’t love it, I thought it was alright. It didn’t hang together very well but it had a lot going for it. It wasn’t until years later that I heard it was supposed to be the worst thing ever. I just don’t see how anything that’s actually onscreen merits that evaluation. I think a lot of people just like being told what to think. Figuring out your own opinion is hard. Getting handed a readymade opinion module is a lot easier.

  8. The concentration of the “critics” of Moreau only on Marlon Brando and that giant sewer wave of goldenraspberrying of the man into the mud were due to the fact that, only weeks before, Brando spoke out his famous words that caused his Hollywood death sentence.

    You will not find them on any “search engine” nowadays, maybe in Usenet archives or Yandex. But we who were there remember.

    His earlier words on the same subject, surprisingly, have not yet been hammered out of all search engines yet. The ones that included the phrasing “…besmirched, but you never saw an unfavorable image of…”.

    The same subject of which Brando wrote in his “Songs my mother taught me”. Open the book on the yellowed page with the words: “…making refugees out of them in order to take their land” — and there it shall be.

  9. Viktor, that’s a strangely longwinded and cryptic way of pointing out that Brando said some (easily googled) antisemitic stuff, which I believe he later apologized for. I have no idea if it killed his career, but it’s not like he had been in many things during the years before Moreau.

    I saw this in theaters and I remember being annoyed by what felt to me like a very “affected” performance by Thewlis. I suspect I’d enjoy it much more today.

  10. Watched it yesterday, I had never seen it before.

    It was pretty weird. But I did enjoy the performances and the makeup work by Winston and team. I felt like the last 15 minutes was typical 90s “hey, let’s throw in some explosions and gunfire”

    I had no issues with Brando’s. performance. The part of a mad scientist should be weird and creepy.

  11. I can’t believe Slam Evil is over for the second time in my life. At least next year is the 35th anniversary of Weird Summer.

  12. I liked this both in the 90s and now. Missed the “He who breaks the law, goes back to the house of pain” from the 1977 version (and House of Pains Jump), though. Interestingly, all interviews I’ve seen with Frankenheimer and Thewlis point to the fact that it was Kilmer who made the set a living hell. And who made the director scream the famous words “Now get that f***** off my set!” when the last scene was shot.

  13. I know there’s still Aug 30 but it’s still bittersweet.

  14. Everything Vern says here about Richard Stanley and docs like Lost Soul is 100% spot-on and I don’t think I’ve read it worded so well before. The special effects were the highlight of Richard Stanley’s first two movies, and he was capable of writing and directing those things (though he was later sued for plagiarizing Hardware), but other people made them interesting. That isn’t me trying to diminish his art/his role in it because he’s an abuser or anything, I’m just saying everybody’s got ideas, and Stanley wasn’t necessarily the one who seemed to come up with the ones I cared about when I watched Hardware and Dust Devil in high school.

    I finally watched the Superman Lives doc last year, and it was well made, but when the director goes to see Tim Burton in his gothic castle home, Burton’s about as smarmy as Stanley is in Lost Soul. Unlike Stanley with Moreau, Burton’s career stayed healthy when Superman fell apart. It’s interesting to look at where it would have fallen in his filmography, chronologically– his next two projects were Sleepy Hollow and Planet of the Apes. Seeing Burton kind of shocks you into remembering, oh right, a grisly take on The Legend of Sleepy Hollow probably sounded cool, too. The Planet of the Apes makeup is incredible, and if it hadn’t ever come out but I’d seen concept art of the characters, their armor, their tree city, I’d probably think we’d missed out on something special. Stanley’s able to talk about all of his ideas, but Frankenheimer has to come to the comparison with a finished film, and there’s no way to judge them against each other.

    If Stanley’d never been fired, they wouldn’t have made Lost Soul, but he might have got his own Overnight. Or somebody’d make his Megadoc, a film where a person insists he’s got revolutionary ideas and then fumbles nearly every chance to make them a reality.

    Sometimes, self-important artists get mad at critics and say something like “Who are YOU to judge my art when YOU have never made art.” That’s obviously very dumb and misses the point of criticism. The only way that argument would make sense is if it was applied to people who have tried to make the art the artist has actually made, if Frankenheimer said to Stanley “Who are YOU to judge my art when YOU wandered mumbling into the jungle when you attempted the same thing.”

  15. Well said, Alex. I also say I don’t need to go to medical school to know when I’m sick. If a doctor doesn’t make me better I can say so even though I don’t have the medical training.

  16. Fred— For sure, and it’s hard to directly compare subjective art to medical fact, I trust doctors and scientists to know more about vaccines and whatnot than Wikipedia would be able to teach me, etc., I guess the analogy here is that a doctor/Richard Stanley could tell me they were going to give me fish lungs/make a good Dr. Moreau movie, but I’m allowed to not buy that shit until I’m breathing underwater/watching a good Dr. Moreau movie directed by Richard Stanley. Yeah, sure, that checks out. Send comment.

  17. I’ve kind of taken to heart the great novelist John LeCarre’s views on art and criticism. LeCarre considered it the height of foolishness to rate ‘art,’ for instance adjudicating that every year one movie was the ‘best’ movie or that one book deserved an award as the ‘best’ book. There’s just no way that such a determination can be made. Art is ultimately both to expansive and to individualistic to truly to ‘ranked.’ LeCarre would consider it the height of arrogance and foolishness. It was, on a personal level, the reason that (except for his early novel The Spy that Came in From the Cold, which won some major awards,) he always refused any nominations his works received. This stance probably cost him such prestigious awards as a Booker prize. More directly, when it comes to criticism, I’ve always felt that the value of good criticism is first and foremost to encourage the person reading/watching the criticism that consider the art being ‘criticized’ in new ways, from new angles etc. If all that a work of ‘criticism’ does is reinforce your opinion, that’s pretty much intellectually useless, and not what I want. Of course criticism can be read for its own intellectual and literary (and enjoyment) value as well. I’ve frequently mentioned that I really love some of Vern’s writing/criticism pretty much for the sheer quality of the writing and the conviction and originality of his thoughts. I read all his reviews, but I’m not particularly ever going to watch most of the films, it’s his writing that rewards me. It’s almost secondary that we happen to share a love of a lot of the same films. I read a number of literary critics (my major area of interest is literature) not because I necessary agree with some of their opinions, but because it encourages me to re-evalaute and recontextualize the book in question and thus expand me understanding of it. It does go without saying however that another excellent side effect of good criticism is when the critical opinion does drive me to watch the film/read the book etc. That’s the best type of criticism. That’s why I read movie review and book review sources as well, to be driven to experience works I would normally not experience.

    When it comes to medical science I trust doctors (the experts) over non experts in the same way I trust my car mechanic (the expert) and the pilot (the expert) flying my plane. An art/film critic who has a substantial body of work is going to rate a lot higher with me that an anonymous quote on a film trailer. Again to use Vern as an example – Vern has a 20+ year history of film criticism archived on his website that allows a reader to follow a very interesting, strongly argued and consistently reasoned critical opinion about films from the last 3+ decades. That’s pretty f****** amazing and valuable.

    Truthfully, the last people I want to hear discussing art are the creators of the work. There is no criticism there (although there might be important things to be learned from some of that.)

  18. I saw this in theaters and liked it a lot; the dynamic between Brando and Kilmer struck me as a pretty good parody of the dynamic between Brando and Dennis Hopper in APOCALYPSE NOW. I watched LOST SOUL on Tubi a while ago without knowing about the allegations against Stanley and still came away from it not liking the guy (despite having liked HARDWARE and DUST DEVIL); he seems like one of those guys who’ll start talking to you about “sex magick” in such a way that you can absolutely hear the “k” at the end, and find yourself backing slowly away with a conciliatory smile on your face. I should re-watch this movie one of these days. Say what you want about Frankenheimer, he’s as far from a hack as you can get.

  19. Saw this in the theater when it was released, having heard the advance word on what a disaster this was supposed to be.

    It’s not a disaster. It’s not a great film, but it’s pretty good & entertaining for a contemporary (1990s) update of the Welles story and a good late-period John Frankenheimer film. The history of the production just gets in the way of any honest & objective examination of it.
    LOST SOUL does a pretty good job of deep diving into the origin & early production and while it does lean heavily towards “Stanley Got Screwed” territory, it has enough sense to not paint Stanley/MOREAU as a ‘thwarted genius/masterwork’. It’s sympathetic – in hindsight, it’s pretty obvious that while they were interested in the script, they were not interested in him directing. Once Brando got involved, it attracted a lot of heat; the budget got higher and New Line got more hands on. IMO, Stanley was capable of working with higher budget and disciplined workflow, but that just wasn’t his experience and New Line were looking for a reason to dump him (Zinneman seems to have been actively sabotaging) and got it. What’s somewhat wild is that the craziest stuff took place after they were rid of him.

    Everyone in this is underrated, especially Brando. He’s directly responsible for the two things people remember – his appearance all in white and Mini-Moreau, which went mainstream culture after AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME as ‘Mini-Me’.

  20. When this came out, I remember from the shots of him in the trailer, thinking that David Thewlis was David Schwimmer. I’m glad it wasn’t.

    I did see this in the theater and liked it fine at the time and didn’t understand the vitriol, but I’ve grown to appreciate it more over the years for all of the reasons everyone else has mentioned. I did watch the doc when it first hit streaming, but my only memory of that was thinking Stanley came of as a kook. I was probably drunk when I watched it. I just hit a year sober a few days ago… there are too many movies that alcohol clouded my viewings on.

    I rewatched this recently (sober) and I have to say as amazing as some of the animal people designs are, some of them remain really goofy and I don’t like looking at them (I believe Vern has used that phrasing about some other creature or character designs in some other movie). Regardless of that and the weaknesses in the very ending, I still think it’s an entertaining, fascinating movie- even without its production story.

  21. Frankenheimer’s follow-up to this was the incredible RONIN, which was also widely disliked by critics on release, but thankfully got re-evaluated since then. I still wonder if the bad reception at the time came from everybody still writing him off as “The director of THE ISLAND OF DR MOREAU”.

  22. Frankenheimer’s follow-up to this was the incredible RONIN, which was also widely disliked by critics on release

    Several of these critical takedowns stated something to the effect of “Frankenheimer still makes movies like it’s 1973”, which regardless of intention, was one of the things that got my ass in a seat on opening weekend.

  23. Chris, congrats on your sobriety.

  24. RONIN is a masterpiece within the thriller genre. But yeah, it could have been made i 1973. That’s why we love it. And speaking of the 70s. I recommend watching the version with Frankenheimer’s old working buddy Burt Lancaster. It’s really something!

    And congratulations, Chris.

  25. “Ugh! Frankenheimer RUINED Richard Stanley’s MASTERPIECE!!”

    ‘Hope we can read the script and what we were robbed of one day….’

    “Oh. No, the movie uses the same exact script so the majority of things of we hate and make fun of would have still been there.”

    ‘…’

  26. I agree with the sentiment, geoffreyjar, but to be fair Frankenheimer did bring in screenwriter Ron Hutchinson to rewrite as they were filming.

  27. I finally managed to rewatch it today and the IMO biggest problem is that after they got rid of the weirdo, they hired a normie to direct the movie. The last act feels like it was written to convey an apocalyptic feeling and pure hopelessness mostly trough fever dream-like images, something that Stanley was extremely good at. It’s basically most of HARDWARE’s runtime! But the way it plays out, it’s just a long string of people, both human and animal people, acting random with explosions and gunfire inbetween.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>