Much more forgettable than the 1996 version (which is...truly a remarkable artifact). I think it asks the philosophical questions Wells was trying to ask, about the distinctions between animals and man and how scientific that divide can actually be, but it doesn't ask them in a way that compels the audience much. Story was much more prominent than spectacle in this version, which cannot be said for the later version (sorry, I'm more familiar with that one), but it's slightly incomprehensible how the wild and wooly Moreau story can have made such a placid film.
This movie felt mostly like a costume drama, with the animals the most elaborate costumes of all. It so adequately did a period piece that it doesn't feel much like it fits the patterns of the year. Maybe there's a connection between the chaos that ensues when Moreau's laws dissolve and the way things were generally going in the 70s, but that feels forced to me. Much more likely is that executives believed makeup and special effects had progressed to the level that they could try making a decent Moreau (the previous version was 1932). This isn't quite wrong - these elements are respectable enough, especially given AIP's normal production values - but that means there's no thematic urgency I can discern. It's not an eco-monster movie like so many others of the time.
Last thing: Wikipedia says this is part of AIP's three-film cycle of HG Wells properties: Food of the Gods (1976), Empire of the Ants, and this. That feels more like a copyright-driven endeavor than an artistic one. "Cycle"?
Comments
Post a Comment