Quetzl

There are certain movies that provide you with quality entertainment for a couple of hours which allow you to leave the world behind and become wrapped up in their artistry. These are called good movies. There are movies which are completely ridiculous travesties which still provide a couple hours of entertainment (for the right or wrong reasons). These are called cult movies. Then there are movies like Battlefield:Earth, where time seems to slow to a crawl as you count the seconds for the idiocy to end. These are called garbage, trash, etc. These films are not even fun to mock, they can only be endured, or abandoned. No amount of wit or alcohol can make this an enjoyable experience. I went to see this movie to have a good laugh. I didn't even get that. Stay away from this film. If you have a hankering for a Travolta movie, I would recommend any of the "Look Who's Talking" movies before this. They are better written, better acted, better directed, and actually look like they have a higher budget (the effects of this movie look shockingly similar to Babylon 5 or that Hercules TV show). If you can find any joy out of this mess, you are a better person than me.

One of the things which has always puzzled me is how a film with such a plethora of talent as the Island of Doctor Moreau turned out so badly. Here we have a top notch director (Frankenheimer), Brando ('nuff said), Val Kilmer (who has his moments, and is anything but wooden in this), Thewlis (underrated actor), Balk (underrated actress), a good score, good effects. Sure, most of the actors chew the scenery with glee, but that comes with the cinematic territory. Somehow, this all adds up to a really bad movie. How?

I blame the screenwriter(s). For those of you who have seen the definitive Dr. Moreau movie, Island of Lost Souls, (which Wells hated, I might add), you will see how well this works. OK, question 1: Who is the antagonist? Dr. Moreau, right? Well, in the 1996 version, he dies about 30 minutes in. So the "bad guys" become the Dr's creations, who in every other version of the story are innocent victims of the antagonist (the Dr.) just like every one else. The message of this is that we should fear the animal people because they are different, not a particularly enlightened view. Question 2: Who is the hero? In the 1996 version its Edward Douglas. Makes sense, right? Except for one small detail: Douglas in every version of the story is a closed minded, moralizing holier-than-thou prick. There is just no way to get around it. If you think about the 1933 version, the real protagonists are the animal people, especially the Sayer of the Law and Aissa (she is called something else in that version), who GIVES HER LIFE to rescue the others as the other creation's desire for revenge on the doctor accidentally destroys the island. THEY are the moral compass of the movie, and they are more kind hearted and human than the human characters, who all in all are a pretty rotten bunch. Their only crimes are their ignorance and their circumstances. By contrast, the humans are actually evil: Moreau is a self centered psychopath, Montgomery has sold his soul, Edwards is an ungrateful pontificating ass. By contrast, Aissa and the Sayer of the law (in both versions) are polite, respectful of their creator and each other, brave, and helpful to those in need. Can that be said about any of the human characters? By making a person like Edwards the protagonist and moral compass of the 1996 version, the film essentially endorses his rather nasty attitudes and ideas. Also, by portraying the creatures as motivated by a lust for destruction and power AFTER the Dr's death, it kills the sympathy the audience should feel for such tormented and abused beings.

While the trendy thing to say is about the Silence of the Lambs is that Manhunter is a better film, as is often the case I believe that this trend is dead wrong. Manhunter is a very good film, and I personally recommend it to anyone who is a fan of Harris, crime movies, or movies in general. But it has strayed from the novel in many points in favor of telling a more traditional crime story, leaving out much of the personal anguish and spiritual torture which was the soul of the book. However there is this pervasive ideas that large budget, famous, "Hollywood" movies cannot possibly be great cinema, an idea which is both narrow-minded and hopelessly ignorant of the filmmaking process. Surely there is someone out there who can make a good film with a seemingly unlimited budget, the best available talent, and still render something an audience would like. (Of course, since part of the audience is American, I guess they would say an ignorent audience) The Silence of the Lambs is proof positive that this marvel of a feat can be accomplished. As all of the positives of the film have previously been accounted, I will take this opportunity to refute some of the criticisms of the antagonist.

My personal favorites are the criticisms of the character of Hannibal Lector and his portrayer, Anthony Hopkins. The oft voiced gripes about his "overacting" are silly, as are the criticisms of the unreality of the character, at least to those who have read the novels. Hannibal Lector is presented within as a modern Mephistopheles, an incarnation of pure evil. He is smarter than you, stronger than you, more cultured than you, wiser than you. Worst of all, the character knows you better than you could ever conceive, your lies, your weaknesses, and your failings. He is just as interested in destroying your soul as well as your life. That is what Hopkins conveys in his Lector, an all knowing, all seeing being (NOT person, as noted in Red Dragon) who doesn't give a damn about anyone or anything but himself. The only flaw that the character possesses (again, as noted in Red Dragon and Manhunter) is that he is insane, just like the Devil in Western folklore. Keep this in mind when you see Hopkins in Hannibal.

Incidentally, I loved the critic who pointed out that they had never heard violins chime in during a dramatic scene in their life. Not only is that the most asinine argument I have ever heard for deriding a film (have you ever heard of suspension of disbelief?), but it is an argument which calls into question the validity the very foundations of all art. (What do you mean that's a woman? It's just paint on a canvas!) Good stuff.