Insel der verlorenen Seelen

Universal dominated the horror market of the 1930s, but every once in a while the other studios would produce a classic of their own. `Island of Lost Souls,' produced by Paramount, is one such film. It's tight, fast, and haunting.

The most striking thing about `Island' is its claustrophobic, nightmarish atmosphere. Some people criticize the hero, Edward Parker (Richard Arlen), as bland and colorless, but I think this works in the film's favor. Since he has no personality of his own, he can be more of an Everyman; he also has no strength to draw upon and is therefore powerless against the horrors around him. He sees the perverse monstrosities Moreau has created on his island, finds himself attracted to and then repulsed by the cat-woman Lota, and then struggles to free himself from Moreau's manipulative control. It's like those nightmares where you try to run away from something terrible but your feet won't move.

Charles Laughton steals the show as Dr. Moreau; his disarming, cherubic exterior somehow enhances his aura of menace. He may not look as blatantly evil as Bela Lugosi, but after a few minutes you just know there's something terribly wrong with this man. The irony is, the creatures Moreau creates are far more humane than he is. The creatures themselves live in a tight society, bound by the laws Moreau has given them; instead of dwelling on their physical awfulness, the film imparts them with a curious dignity and innocence. When the inevitable rebellion comes, I found myself cheering the creatures on, much like I felt my heart go out to the Frankenstein Monster or King Kong.

`Island' is one of those movies you need to watch on a humid summer night, when your clothes cling to your skin and every breath feels like it's coming through a wet towel. Feel the suspense and the terror seep into you, and then try to tell me the old horror movies weren't infinitely better than what passes for horror nowadays.

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.

The 1930s was a great decade for horror with classic titles like 'Dracula', 'Frankenstein', 'Bride Of Frankenstein', 'Freaks', 'King Kong', 'The Invisible Man' and 'White Zombie'. I always thought 'Bride Of Frankenstein' was the best of the lot, but a VERY close second would have to be 'Island Of Lost Souls'. It truly is an extraordinary movie and still able to chill the blood and fire the imagination! It's easily the best version of H.G. Wells' 'The Island Of Dr Moreau' to date, and literally years ahead of its time. Many of the 1930s films made before the self imposed censorship of the Hays Code are quite startling and really pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable on screen. This movie is seventy years old but it still pretty disturbing even now. At the time it must have been something else! Especially the super sexy Lota The Panther Woman (Kathleen Burke). Charles Laughton plays Moreau and he is one of the greatest of screen villains. The quintessential megalomaniac mad scientist figure. Richard Arlen is pretty good as the hero, Edward Parker, who finds himself trapped on Moreau's island, and horror legend Bela Lugosi is unforgettable as the Sayer of the Law. I watched an old video copy of this movie with a lousy transfer and was still utterly transfixed. If this is available on DVD with the care and attention given to it that Universal have taken on their classic horror titles I will add it straight to the top of my (ever expanding!) "must buy" list. 'Island Of Lost Souls' is one of the greatest horror movies I've ever seen, and one that I can't recommend highly enough to any horror buff whatever your age or taste.

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.