Island of Lost Souls

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.

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.

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!

I have noticed some commenters found the movie boring or slow. You have to remember that it was made in 1933! The pacing and suspense probably felt very quick to an audience that had never seen TV, and whose primary source of entertainment was radio (for drama, suspense, horror and comedy).

The aspect I find most interesting about this definite classic of the horror genre -- aside from the excellent acting, atmosphere, script (the only adaptation of "Island of Dr. Moreau" that is faithful and the only one that's good) and makeup -- is the way it chronicles the development of film, from silent movies to talkies. Perhaps the reason some viewers find it boring is that one thing the film lacks is any musical soundtrack. I noticed this quite strikingly in some of the long pans that take place, and also in the chase scenes. I may be wrong, but I think this is a holdover from silent movies, when the music was supplied by a live musician playing piano in the movie theater. Certainly some of the emotional reaction shots, and in particular the shots of the group of half-men approaching the camera near the end, which are repeated several times, have the feel of silent movie technique. In fact, the overall feeling I get when watching this movie is that of a silent movie, with talking added in. This movie just seems to me to have been made exactly on the cusp of a time when filmmakers were adjusting their techniques to the use of sound, but hadn't fully arrived there yet.

Of course the movie is also excellent as pure entertainment. Charles Laughton was the perfect Dr. Moreau, and all the other players were well done too. And we all remember the quotes of the Sayer of the Law. I remember another one, though, by the Captain that brings the girl to the island. "No long pig?" he asks, grinning. We are chilled to learn that long pig refers to consumption of human flesh. And the final line, "Don't look back." Overall, this is a frightening look at the way science can be perverted by people with no conscience.

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.