Conference bookie::movies

    
    It must be starting soon because I saw the ad's for it in the
    paper recently.
    
    
    CF

From the IMDb ---

			Release Dates for
		Island of Dr. Moreau, The (1996)

USA 
       23 August 1996 

Canada 
       23 August 1996 

Australia 
       3 October 1996 



Simes %^)

    At least two earlier films versions of this H.G. Wells novel have been
    made:
    
    "Island of Lost Souls" (1933, d: Erle C. Kenton) with Charles Laughton,
    Bela Lugosi, Richard Arlen, Stanley Fields, Kathleen Burke, Leila
    Hyams.
    
    "Island of Dr. Moreau" (1977, d: Charles Barton) with Burt Lancaster,
    Michael York, Nigel Davenport, Barbara Carrera, Richard Basehart.  (No,
    Marlon Brando was not in this.)
    
    I never saw the 1977 film, but the 1933 one is quite good.  The Wells
    story and the first film revolve around a vivisectionist who performs
    surgical experiments on animals to make them humanoid.  The story is
    the origin of the phrase, popularized by the band Devo, "Are we not
    men?"
    
    The 1933 film shows up periodically on the cable channel AMC (American
    Movie Classics), where I finally saw it after searching for it for
    about twenty years.
    
    - Dave  

    RE: .4
    
    Isn't Ron Perlman in danger of being typecast, given his previous fame
    as one of the stars of "Beauty and the Beast" (or whatever that TV show
    was with Linda Hamilton and Ron Perlman)?  ;^)
    
    - Dave

    On Entertainment Tonite  lastnite, they showed somemore previews
    and how they are doing the computer graphics....you should
    get a load of the "Mice Men"..amd Leopard Man"....it truly 
    is amazing what those computer wizards can do with special 
    effects these days.....
    
    I still thought from the 1970's version (that I loved cause
    Michael York was in it)  that Dr. Moreau  made Animals
    into half humans  and they tend to revert back to animal
    if not given a certain substance.....I've seen this a
    hundred times...but..not recently so I could be mistaken..
    Anybody know for sure which way it  goes  ???
    

    ..well, I just read two reviews for this one (Boston Globe, Boston
    Herald), and both rags gave it a definite "Thumbs DOWN".....
    
    now I *know* how fickle some movie reviewers can be, but this
    one sounded sooooooo promising, but, apparently, to no avail.....
    
    One reviewer said that the movie was sooooo bad, even Brandos' 
    "self-immolating" (sp?) acting couldn't make it sink any more than
    it already did.......
    
    UGGGGGHH!!!
    
    
    oh well.....think I'll wait for "Mars Attacks".........
    
    :^(
    
    macky

    Re .7:
    
    When I saw the Micemen, all I could think of was "Topo Giggio with an
    attitude".
    
    And while I was impressed by the method used to transfer the motions of
    actual animals to the Moreau creations, they did fail to take into
    consideration the difference in hind leg lengths in the scene where the
    creature crosses the river by leaping from boulder to boulder.
    
    Picky, I know, but that's not why I won't be going to the theater to
    see it; its because it looks like just another remake. 
    
    							Don 

    I *loved* Topo Gigio!
    
    
    E

    RE: .10
    I *hated* Topo Gigo   but that IS funny :^)

    .9
    Were the hind legs too short? was that your point....I was
    really looking at him when they showed him  going over the rocks
    wow your observation is sharp...I missed it...
    I initially thought  it was just another remake ..but..the previews
    looked promising (as they ALL do) so i got interested in seeing this
    as I was going to see it tommorrow but now I have doubts...
    

    RE: 1154.0
    
    yup  right on the advertisement....
    	"By turning animals into humans,
    	he's turned heaven into hell."
    
    
    

    Well, as usual, I completely disagree with most reviewers.  I was
    enthralled.  Maybe because I never saw the other version.  Maybe
    because I never even read the book.  And maybe if I went back I'd not
    be so impressed.  Or maybe I would.
    
    I thought the story was wonderfully told.  Full of suspense, full of
    angst.  The moral comes through without being moralizing.  The
    graphics, special effects and make-up artistry were mezmerising. If
    there is any criticism in that vein it's that leopard man looked a lot
    like something off the "Cats" stage.
    
    I can't criticize the performances, I loved them all.  I haven't said
    that about Brando in over a decade.  Val Kilmer is perfect as the evil-
    but-who-knows-it accomplice.
    
    I'd really like to see what others (who have actually seen the movie)
    think about it.
    
    
    rick

    re: short legs.
    
    What I meant to say was they didn't take into account the longer legs
    on the "creation" as it lept from rock to rock; the gait was for the
    "standard" animal leg length.                        
    
    I probably read too much SF.
    
    							Don

    
      I saw this movie this past sunday afternoon and thought it stunk! 
    Don't waste your money, I won't even suggest seeing it on video.
    

    
    Nice review....Why don't you tell us why you think it "stunk"?
    
    

    I saw it this weekend and was much impressed by Brando's acting (and I
    am no fan of MB). He played the eccentric (mad?) scientist God-wannabe
    to perfection. Likewise Val Kilmer played his part well, too, though we
    never quite understand what drives him to do the things he does later on.
    
    The movie featured a bit more pyrotechnics than it really needed, and
    despite the opportunity for cinematography (shot in Queensland) chose
    to confine its big-screen usage to violence. Even that doesn't work well.
    
    The story has been told better other times, but I don't think Moreau
    has ever been played better.
    
      John

    I saw Siskel & Ebert's review of this on the weekend.  One odd piece of
    info that came out:  apparently Brando wears a "hearing aid" to get his
    lines (read to him by someone?,) and this is visible in at least one
    scene.
    
    Siskel & Ebert split on whether this was worth seeing.  I don't
    remember whose thumb was down and whose up.  
    
    -Stephen

    I saw that too and I think Siskel gave'r a thumbs up and Ebert gave it
    thumbs down.
    
    	Siskel is the skinny bald one right?  [^8=
    
    J

    >I saw it this weekend and was much impressed by Brando's acting (and I
    >am no fan of MB). He played the eccentric (mad?) scientist God-wannabe
    >to perfection. 
    
    In other words, it was no big stretch, right?
    
    
    Yes, Marlon Brando wears what is called in "the biz" an ear.  Acters
    who do trade shows and/or corporate videos often use  them.  Usually
    they are connected to a micro-cassette player into which they will have
    recorded their lines.  This is because at trade shows, scripts often
    get changed between shows, and for corporate videos it enables the
    talent to forgo the use of teleprompters and the appearance of reading.
    
    Marlon Brando's secretary feeds him his lines from off-camera because
    he can't or won't memorize.  
    
    
    E