Instinct is OK as a film, despite a go-nowhere non-romance, unresolved conflicts, boring and unimaginative settings, abuse of the mentally ill through portrayal of them as objects of comic relief, sappily emotional music, and unlayered drama. Anyone that has read Tarzan, or seen Greystoke will find this film to be familiar. And I believe the mourning over the deaths of "family" is handled more convincingly in that Best-of-the-Tarzan-films and ERB's books.

     To jump right in, there is nothing wrong with Hopkins’ performance as Ethan Powell that a different script could not have cured. With what he has to work with, he is on point.

     Cuba Gooding, Jr. is not right for the part of Theo, a success-oriented psychologist. Through no fault of his own, he comes across as nice and hopeful when he needs to project smart, aggressive and opportunistic. A Cruise-type would have been more interesting in the role, albeit the risk of cliche' is greater. Then again, Gooding is so much better than a Brad Pitt type for the role, and he has an academy award, blah blah blah. And he is so likeable! His character is a student, with a snappy mentor (Donald Sutherland), so there is some compensation for his not being the most believable psychiatrist.

     As nice as Cuba's Theo is though, there is no compensation for the film’s treatment of the mentally ill and criminally insane. The trend in Holly wood seems to be these days that it is OK to poke fun at the mentally disturbed, that somehow their infirmity is endearing, or just a cute affectation, rather than a serious, disheartening and draining condition. That there is little hope for cure, or that it is a depressing situation, do not seem to be things they noticed.

     But somehow it is presumed uplifting for the audience for the inmates to plot to help one of their own escape. It is important to recognize that these individuals do not have "normal" reasoning capabilities. Their selfless complicity requires us to believe a level of sophistication, cooperation and intent that the criminally insane just might not evince. That he helped them would not matter. They are insane. More likely, they would turn in the escaper to curry favor.

      Among regular, mostly sane inmates, or prison camp internees a la Stalag 17, such antics are requisite. But these people are supposedly seriously mentally ill.

     One poor man walked around wetting himself, but he was handled in such a way that it came out funny to the audience. As did the big bully, whimpering on the floor after a trouncing. His whimpering, like his bullying, was a sign of his illness, not to be made the subject of derision. It was not played off Theo’s compassion or concern. Instead it was presented full frame, and, the audience found it outright funny. Believe me, it was not the audience’s fault, it was the insensitivity of the producers.

     Later, when they got around to Theo being compassionate, trying to redefine the exercise regimen, all I could think of while watching him run around the gymnasium screaming "No more cards!" was Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon screaming "Attica! Attica!". I swear to God, what is with these people?

     One big problem with the film is that it takes place in the confines of a prison mental ward. Instead of taking us into the jungle for the balance of the film, or structuring a fantasy world where the two men interact, we are supposed to just hold that thought, and use it sparingly. I guess we should contrast and compare his caging with the zoo's caging of gorillas, but exploration of symbl and symmetry in the screenplay is really is not worth the effort for this film.

     Second, Ethan never came across as an insane man, just one that is stubborn. Instead of this being a story about a mind twisted by the events of his life, we get a mind that is just pissed off.

     Were he incapable of talking, instead of choosing not to, it would have given Theo something to do. But this is about posture, not predicament. And the posture is almost unbearably correct.

      If you identify with the characters, you are going to have to swallow the premise that for 2 million years, man coexisted peacefully with nature, but somehow in just the last ten thousand years, we went from a "happy one-world" to a "taker" society. And the upshot is, we must cede dominion. That’s it. We do that, and everything will be set right.

     Wait! what crime was just committed by this film? The crime of intellectual condescension.

     They come from a high handed moral position that says "nature good, man bad", and we are too stupid to understand that. We are supposed to believe that our "artificial" world is not as real as the jungle, and show fealty to Mother Nature, or the appropriate Earth goddess.

      On top of that, they lead Theo around by the nose preaching to him, and to us by extension, that civilization is far more dangerous than the jungle. That is a grade school fantasy. The phrase "It’s a jungle out there" is not meant to inculcate coziness. What about snakes, poisonous spiders, insects, parasites, deadly plants and berries, the elements and lions and tigers and rouge frickin’ elephants? A savage existence does not have "peace and harmony" as a tagline.

     This could have been a whopper of a film, if they had bothered to explore the prejudicial beliefs of the man, and return him to sanity by making him face an accurate portrait of the jungle and his existence there. Instead, we learn that all is at peace with the great gorillas, and they are so kind and gentle that they would never hurt anyone. And if by the end he can somehow just get back to basics, all will be well. What power it would have had to show his saccharine view of the jungle contrasted with reality.

     So, in their version, when the bad black men (in this case) come in to shoot "Old Silverback", and others, the gentle man-gone-ape is forced to club them long after they are down and out, long after the threat has passed. Putting Them To Death. Had he learned nothing from the gentle gorillas? He is really venting rage…but is that just man as a species, no? No, ungentle reader, the gorillas are like most species - capable of rage, war, and in higher animals, spite. If you don't believe it, try watching 20 minutes of the Discovery Channel.

     Case in point, and it is so simple; The film contradicts itself, in all its fuzzy warmness.

     When asked if there were no danger, Ethan intones somberly, "There were warnings". Flash back to jungle, and he reaches out to touch a baby gorilla. The mother descends on him like hell’s furies. But stops short when he withdraws his hand and plays a submissive role, head and eyes downcast. Momma backs off.

     Now, if there is no danger in the jungle, and species are in peaceful harmony, why did the momma rush to protect her youngster? How would she know what danger was, if she had never seen it? And if Ethan were not in danger, why act submissive, why withdraw? It is this crap that irritates me.

     How much better if the story called for the illusion of the "jungle of peace" to be ripped from him like a veil of insanity. That it is possible that a savage existence carries its own mental protections, and from there re-integrating him into the society of man might be or might not be a desirable option. But at least restoring his perspective, his free will, his chance for a family that he blew so badly once, even if just to say that’s not what he wants.

     By the end, Cuba's character has unlearned enough to not come in out of the rain. And we are left to believe that a man with a Ph.D., a scientist, as sane as he is supposed to be, would find enough in the company of gorillas to keep his mind occupied and his soul satisfied?

     That is why we deserted the damn jungle in the first place. It was no longer fulfilling...