Also see APOCALYSE NOW MEETS PLANET OF THE APES by Kelvin Ha, and THE CLASSIC STORY & THE PRODUCTION WHICH RUINED IT by Jack Choo.

ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS

Let's face it. Few movies based on novels have ever been better than their literary predecessors. This is especially so when the novel is a classic. This movie is a loose adaptation of the novel by HG Wells. It begins when a plane-wrecked lone survivor, Douglas, is saved by a mysterious stranger, Montgomery, Moreau's assistant who brings him back to the island. We discover through Douglas's eyes that Monreau was once an eminent, Nobel prize winner/ scientist who was exiled for his experimentation with animals.

The tension builds as Douglas finds strange inhabitants roaming this lonely island. Through his eyes, we are horrified by the grotesque and misshapen creatures that serve Moreau. Moreau had, for the last 17 years, become obsessed with creating the perfect human being by fusing human DNA with animal DNA. These near-humans/animals are the result of Moreau's struggle to isolate and destroy the beast genes in animals by replacing them with human ones.

These "manimals" can talk, walk and have very human gestures. It is a strong reminder of how close humans are to the animals on the evolutionary scale. They also worship their Father--Moreau in this case-- who whips them into submission by placing electrical implants in them that shocks them whenever Moreau feels like it. He forces them into obedience--Pavlovian style. The physical pain is accompanied with psychological brainwashing as they repeatedly listen to the "Law"-"To walk on all Fours is bad, to walk on Twos is good." These are Moreau's vigorous attempts to control and keep the bestiality of these animals in check.

Brando's character is portrayed whimsically as a fat old scientist, resplendent in white robes complete with white make up. This exaggeration of make up and costumes is also reflected on the roles of the animals. They are so badly distorted that these creatures become comical, rather than sad sociological messages of the relationship between man and animal.

This is a sad distortion of Well's original characters and his message. The scientist in Wells novel epitomises the constraint between science and his own morality and mortality, rather than mere comic relief, as portrayed in the film.

As the movie unfolds further, we find these creatures slowly regressing into their own animalism. Accidentally, one of these creatures--Hyena Swine--tumbles upon the electrical implant and makes the correct guess that "Father" is behind all the "Pain" that goes with keeping with the "Law". Enraged, he and a few others kills and eats Moreau. Montgomery, his insane assistant destroys all his work and the precious serum that is meant to stop the regression. Instead, he encourages and joins in the orgy of unbridled bestiality. He himself then becomes a beast. During the confrontation between him and Douglas, we are faced with the disturbing question of, "What is the line between man and animal?"

The supposed protaganist, Douglas is actually played by a very weak actor whose only significance is to fall in love with one of Moreau's creatures-a beautiful pussy cat woman. The betrayal of human kind by Moreau becomes complete when Douglas discovers that Moreau never meant to save him but rather "use" him and ultimately kill him for his human DNA. The movie comes to a violent finish as animals totally regress into their full animalism. The movie ends with a socio-biological question of "Are man really animals as well?" as actual footage of today's mass and personal violence are screened.

Wells' novel was originally written in the wake of Darwin's evolutionary theory. I feel that Wells' novel is trying to show the possibilities of the misapplications and misunderstandings of Darwin's revolutionary theory. This movie was misplaced both in time and in history as one beomes confused by its context. It is an anachronism in today's thoughts and time as Wells wrote before the arrival of Genetics and the computer. The movie was unconvincing because the director was himself unsure as to how to place the movie- in the old past (Old Javanese boats, isolated islands, old styles and traditions) or modern times (silver-coloured lab, computers..) This mixture creates further confusion and lessens the coherence of the plot. The movie makes light of Wells' important sociological message of the Darwinian Revolution:

"Are we part of the Animal Kingdom?" "If we are not, then are we sanctioned to act like Gods to create because we are not animals?" "What really separates man from animal?"

The Flying Inkpot Rating System:
* Wait for the TV2 broadcast.
** A little creaky, but still better than staying at home with Gotcha!
*** Pretty good, bring a friend.
**** Amazing, potent stuff.
***** Perfection. See it twice.