Michael York IS this movie, first off. The atmosphere is competently generated and the story runs at a good pace. The makeup effects were adequate for the age, and the screenplay is superior. So what went wrong? Barbara Carrera's part was, for the most part, wasted. As Moreau's most successful work, she should have enjoyed more character development and less "doe caught in the headlights" moments.
Michael York was, at the time, vastly underrated as a leading man, although he carries it off brilliantly here. And finally, the color was a mistake. Like Mel Brooks's Dracula: Dead and Loving It, it would have played far better in black and white. Frankly, if you turn your color down and the contrast up a notch or two and watch either of these works in black and white mode, the enjoyment factor is greatly elevated.
What went right? Lancaster played his Moreau more casually, calmly. Instead of attempting to copy Laughton's over-the-top mad scientist routine, he did well as the good man gone awry. He proceeds with his experiments seemingly out of a genuine caring for understanding, rather than the old "because I can" or "ruling the world" ploys.
The first half of this work is strong, atmospheric, and well done. The last half is more mechanical and plodding, though the first half does a long way towards carrying it all through to the conclusion.
Frankly, this isn't as well done, or enjoyable, as the 1930's original, but it's light years above the 1990's remake. Oy Vey.
It rates a 6.4/10 from...
the Fiend :.
Michael York was, at the time, vastly underrated as a leading man, although he carries it off brilliantly here. And finally, the color was a mistake. Like Mel Brooks's Dracula: Dead and Loving It, it would have played far better in black and white. Frankly, if you turn your color down and the contrast up a notch or two and watch either of these works in black and white mode, the enjoyment factor is greatly elevated.
What went right? Lancaster played his Moreau more casually, calmly. Instead of attempting to copy Laughton's over-the-top mad scientist routine, he did well as the good man gone awry. He proceeds with his experiments seemingly out of a genuine caring for understanding, rather than the old "because I can" or "ruling the world" ploys.
The first half of this work is strong, atmospheric, and well done. The last half is more mechanical and plodding, though the first half does a long way towards carrying it all through to the conclusion.
Frankly, this isn't as well done, or enjoyable, as the 1930's original, but it's light years above the 1990's remake. Oy Vey.
It rates a 6.4/10 from...
the Fiend :.