This film sucks


This movie is terrible. It barely complies with the book. Especially absent are Braddock's gradual fall to insanity and his inability to live normally among people.

Recommendation: If you have not seen this movie yet, don't. Read the book instead. Or go outside and play a game.

reply

I agree within the first couple of minutes I picked out several differences. I guess some could be attributed to technical limitations, but it really is no match for the book.

reply

Only once have I ever been able to say the movie was better than the book. So the book was better than this movie, hands down, but keep in mind it was made in the 70's and many of the technological advances that tehre are today were not available.

reply

I don't think technical limitations kept the 1977 film adaptation from being a worthy companion to the Wells' novel, audience limitations, or at least perceived audience limitations had more to do with it. American audiences are so conditioned, so accustomed to seeing the same, well-worn (read: beaten to death) three-act morality play depicted in literature, television and film that any variance, any deviation from this formulaic pattern is rejected by the mainstream, largely "philistine" general public. I just finished watching the Director's cut and it does appear as though Maria was showing signs of evolutionary regression; her teeth were beginning to fang out. If I hadn't known to look for it however, I wouldn't have noticed. American audiences need happy endings (e.g. the large ship's arrival was emphasized, Maria's tragic fate was nearly edited out) and stark, Manichean representations of good and evil. Films that present morally complex or ambiguous stories can turn a profit but often they must be artistically sublime, virtuoso examples of filmmaking to do so whereas mediocre films which adhere to the formula can make money largely on that basis alone, if the marketing campaign generates enough pre-opening weekend buzz.

reply

Compared to the original 1932 film with Bela Lugosi and the 1996 film with Marlon Brando, it is easily the most faithful adaptation to date of the book. I wished they could've kept more from the book, but the production budget was quite narrow and they had to make a bunch of creatures with said budget and shoot on a tropical island. There isn't much making of documentation that I've been able to find, but the producer is none other than Samuel Arkoff, a B-movie producer and former colleague of Roger Corman, and while his films were infamous for taking heaps of liberties with adaptations, I would say they went to special lengths to get this one in particular right. The cast is excellent, and and who can't respect the makeup by "Planet of the Apes" wizard John Chambers, or a cast that includes Burt Lancaster and Michael York?! The beginning and closing scenes are the weakest moments, especially in the version that currently exists (an alternate ending was in the theatrical release but is "lost"), and they painfully crunch the book in said sections. But the rest is terrific.

reply

Actually, while it wasn't very good, the 90s version of the film, with Val Kilmer, actually was the closest adaptation to certain events of the film.

Moreau dies before everyone else, and quite a bit before the ending (Though the killers are changed. He's killed by a random animal in the novel.)

And Montgomery in the novel gets totally drunk, and essentially has a party with the beast men, before being killed. Kilmer's Montgomery followed a similar pattern, going crazy, joining the beast men, and getting killed.

I love to love my Lisa.

reply

[deleted]

OP, what are you talking about? There's no "Braddock" in the book.


I know what you're thinking: "Who cares?"

reply

Braddock is just a name change for the original Montgomery character in the original 1896 classic novel. Just try to accept the Braddock character as a slight alteration from Montgomery, the name H.G. Wells originated for basically, in most ways, the same character. No biggie. But even though Val Kilmer's role was in SOME aspects a little closer to the book's, Michael York provided a much better performance as the Montgomery character. And even although storywise the character is in some ways different from the one in H.G, Wells novel, York's performance of the man who turned into an animal, was far more competent and beneficial to the movie's value than was poor Val Kilmer's, since he was subjected to such an absurd co-performance by Marlon Brando, who made it difficult for Kilmer to improve the credibility of the story. Although Kilmer wasn't that credible as Montgomery, anyway. York was far better in the role.

Anyhow, don't blame the movie just because they changed the name Montfomery to Braddock in this, the best version of the story, despite it's variations from the Wells 1896 classic, which by the way, was written almost an entire century (81 years) earlier (1896 and 1977). It's called artistic license (which in this case is acceptable due to the 81 year lapse) when the film version is allowed some polite forgiveness for varying from its original source. In this case his name change was probably altered since the script's changes make it easier to accept variations in (merely) the names of the copied counterparts to the original characters of the book. That way less criticism is warranted for the script's discrepancies, since no xerox copy of the role was intended, proven by their changing the character's name from the one (Montgomery) that H.G. Wells invented in his fertile imagination.

But I love to watch Nick Cravat (M'Ling, Montgomery's bear/human servant who, in this case was given the same name as the original H.G. Wells character from the book) act alongside his old circus partner, Burt Lancaster (they went by the names of Lang & Cravat in their old days in New York City before they left for Hollywood to achieve stardom). They've been in so many enjyable films together and they were the greatest of friends, despite Nick's explosive temper, and Burt's egomaniacal vanity. It was fun once again watching them act together, two of Hollywood's GREAT cinematic stars and also great friends that passed the test of time, both cinematically and longevity-wise (They were born 2 years apart and both died in their 80's in 1994, coincidentally, the same year, although Nick died about 10 or 11 months earlier than Burt, despite outliving Lancaster by 2 years - Nick was 82 and Burt was 80 when they passed).

reply

Montgomery was a different character altogether. The main character was called Edward Prendick in the novel. York played that character, only they changed the name to Andrew Braddock for the 1977 movie.

reply