Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

"Island of Lost Souls" is a wheezy antique, but so well done I couldn't turn it off (or since I DVD'd it, pause it). Don't know how I missed it since it's been around for ages, but it held my interest from start to finish. It is an example of old Hollywood's reversal of the clichéd 'form over substance', as now movies are overpowered by special effects and digital styling. This one is a fascinating story brought to the screen by professionalism in all phases of production as it existed in the 1930's.It is a riveting performance by Charles Laughton that gives the picture currency, and he is ably supported by a youthful-looking Richard Arlen and by Kathleen Burke as Lota the Panther woman, "My best creation", according to Laughton. Long story short, it is an interesting and absorbing screen adaptation of a novel as has ever been produced by Hollywood - before or since.

This is worth watching for many reasons. First, who doesn't like anything the author H.G. Wells does? After that, I find Charles Laughton fascinating and finally watching a movie from the thirties is interesting of itself. The story given is that a scientist who was not appreciated in the city and supported by the medical profession refuses to give-in or give-up and moves his experiments to an island where he won't bothered. There, he can work things out and when done, go back to civilization with the results. Sounds like a plan to me and that is what we watch develop and unfold but with a few twists here and there. It is also interesting to behold the different animals and try to guess their original form. I have watched the different versions of this story over the years some better than others as it has been remade at least twice with such stars as Burt Lancaster, Michael York and Marlon Brando no less. I usually recommend a meal, sandwich, snack or goody with a tasty drink while watching movies. It just makes it more enjoyable as movie fans can attest. However, I had trouble eating with this film and I wont explain why. Perhaps you can have your snack and then have a different experience? Enjoy this classic for its time

You can't go wrong with Charles Laughton playing the heavy. Here is is cast as Dr. Moreau, the evil vivisectionist from the famous H. G. Wells novel. He has created an island filled with animal-men who walk on two legs but maintain the features of their various animal counterparts. A man finds himself washed ashore on this island and he becomes privy to Laughton's experiments. He is helpless to do anything. He involves himself with one of Laughton's "people" for a while. This is mostly about the sickness of the island itself and Moreau's obsessions. One thing he doesn't count on is that wild animals have a sense of self preservation and potential violence. I love that cry in the jungle: "What is the Law? Are we not men?" An excellent retelling of a terrific story.

This movie has great casting: Charles Laughton, playing the cruel genius Dr. Moreau who has been experimenting on animals to create a hairy group of man-beasts, Kathleen Burke as the cat-woman Lota, his only beautiful (and only female) creation, and Bela Lugosi as the 'Sayer of the Law', who intones among other things, "Are we not men?" (the line Devo would use in the title of their first album). The aura of the film is chilling as well, set on a tiny tropical island where Moreau carries out vivisections in the 'House of Pain', and eagerly tries to mate Lota with Edward Parker, a newcomer to the island who has been stranded there. Those scenes aren't incredibly erotic, but add some spice and were scandalous for the time. The special effects in 1932 were somewhat limited, but director Erle Kenton's use of shadows, tight shots on the faces of the troglodytes, and scenes were Moreau uses his whip to enforce his will on his creations create an eerie, claustrophobic effect. It's a little slow in getting started but at 71 minutes is otherwise well-paced. Definitely a classic horror film worth watching, if for nothing else, Laughton's brilliant performance.