Futureworld (1976) User Reviews

"Welcome to the World of the Future!"

[trouserpress · 7/10 · 22 July 2005]

Westworld was the film that put Michael Crichton well and truly on the map as a writer and sometime director to watch out for. His story of an amazing theme park gone wrong was revisited twenty years later, only with raptors in the place of cowboys. It could have been revisited a lot earlier, had Futureworld been a lazy, hurried sequel to it's successful predecessor. Instead the filmmakers produced something entirely original that stands on its own with no prior knowledge of the first film necessary to the average viewer.

The film begins two years after the disaster at Westworld, with the newly improved theme park Delos ready to open its doors again to the rich and influential public. Peter Fonda however smells a rat, and following a tip-off that all is not well he takes a holiday there himself, with his ex-girlfriend and fellow journalist in tow. Of course it would be a short and uneventful film if he turned out to be wrong, so he doesn't. He's right. In fact, things there are worse than he thought, but I won't give it away here. Suffice it to say that it's not only the robot technology that has improved at Delos.

Futureworld plays on the question that audiences raised following the release of Westworld - can you have sex with these robots? The answer is yes, and whilst we're not shown any (this is a family film after all) both the robots and some of the guests discuss it openly. One even quips "Once you've had sex with a robot, you'll never go back!" If Futureworld was a real place, the implications would be scary indeed.

This film seems to have attracted a lot of negative reviews which surprises me, as I felt it was a well paced science fiction thriller. It was produced by American International Pictures, with Samuel Z. Arkoff at the helm, and as such it is a very slick looking film on a very low budget. It never looks cheap, despite some of the costumes looking a little too theatrical. And why shouldn't they? After all, it's a holiday camp, not a re-enactment society.

I would recommend Futureworld to anyone who is a fan of Westworld, or of seventies science fiction in general. I would imagine if you're reading this you probably fit into the latter category!

Less is more

[The_Movie_Cat · 5/10 · 6 October 2000]

WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS - ONLY READ IF YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM

Futureworld is the weak follow-up to the superb Westworld (7). While points can be awarded for the fact that it tries to do something new with the format, it ultimately proves the adage that less is more.

Whereas Westworld had a childishly simple - yet devilishly effective - plot, Futureworld's plot is muddled and lacks focus. The start of the film is a mock quiz show, reminiscent of the later Running Man which, unlike the original's news report, doesn't make things abundantly clear for the audience. This gives us Jim Antonio as "Ron", the quiz winner who receives a free trip to Delos. While his introduction pre-credits would lead you to believe that Ron would be a major character, he's quickly fazed out about halfway into the film, his blatantly unamusing "southern hick" act not achieving any of the laughs required. I wonder what happened to Ron? Did they bother to duplicate him? Did he become head of the project? Was he killed off? Who cares?

We are then introduced to Peter Fonda, star of Cheesy Rider, sporting a haystack on his head courtesy of the stylish seventies. He's paired with Blythe Danner as "Socks" Ballard, a nickname given to pretend that she has a character or is in any way interesting.

Ultimately, Westworld, for it's "robot-goes-mad-and-kills-people-in-theme-park" is good science fiction. Futureworld is bad science fiction. Robot doubles taking over the Earth. Samurai warrior robots that teleport into a rocket. A device that records dreams. A holographic chess set, which involves Fonda and Danner looking at a board then cutting to a close-up of some blokes dressed up as knights and painted bright red. All it needs is for some nude female aliens to land and say "show us this Earth custom you have called love."

For the majority of the film every time we see something good, it's followed by something lame. We see an impressive rocket set, with a huge, awesome circular doorway. We then see a "Martian ski" setting, which are basically shots of skiing in normal snow, the film print rather obviously tainted red. And like Mars has snow and all...

The initial dream sequence isn't that bad as it features random, spooky images like the girl and her dog. But then it cuts to a protracted chase sequence, which pays lip service to Yul Brynner. You know, the scary guy from the first film? Well, it turns out "socks" has the hots for this brooding slaphead and his element of danger and so fantasises about him. That's right. Bring him back to miscast him. Imagine if Terminator II had a completely different cast of characters and they brought back Arnhuld to do a cameo song and dance routine in a dream. That's what this is like. The scenes of Brynner dancing with Danner are so embarrassing I couldn't actually bear to watch the screen.

Some characters are okay. Stuart Margolin as Harry, and his oddly poignant scenes with his robot friend Clark do carry some weight, though his odd way of telling Danner that he and a pal once slept with some robots and that they "blew some fuses that night" are unsettling. Believe me, this is not a conversation that would appeal to a lady. I should know, I've tried it. On several occasions.

But it's the end where it all comes down. After the main protagonist has been reduced to a laughing stock, we find the real villains this time are robot doubles of the two leads. The fact that you've been watching a film that has such a small budget that Delos is controlled by 1960s oscillators unconsciously tells you that they won't have the budget to do a convincing split screen. So the wooden Fonda tries to shoot himself from long distance, and my God, he's not scary at all - just a rather silly old man in huge glasses and a suit with flared trousers.

The film is 16 minutes longer than the snappy Westworld, and its runtime is built up by dull chases, which are padded with even duller incidental music. But the major, desperate flaw with this just-about-adequate sequel is that there is absolutely no suspense or tension. We know that there's probably something going on, because Fonda tells us at regular intervals. ("There's probably something going on", he says). But the fact that we are not shown this until the final quarter of the movie, and that nothing but his suspicions have alerted us to this fact, mean that a catatonic state is inevitable before the big climax. After the wonderful original, this dated pap comes as a crashing disappointment. 5/10.

sci-fi meets paranoid thriller in this mildly interesting sequel to Westworld

[OldAle1 · 6/10 · 20 February 2009]

I re-watched "Westworld" a few weeks ago, and shortly afterwards got around to re-watching this sequel from three years later as part of a long-term 70s science fiction project. It's rather surprising that "Westworld" got a sequel - these days we're used to thinking of the late Michael Crichton (the director/writer of the original) as a name that guarantees gold but such wasn't always the case and the first film didn't exactly set the box office on fire. Plus it had a rather apocalyptic and cynical ending - the high priced adult amusement park run by the DELOS corporation is effectively destroyed by humanoid robots run amok - not exactly fodder for sequels back at a time when they were a little less common, especially for genre fare like this.

But a sequel was made anyway, and "Futureworld" though no really great shakes is better than it could have been. For one thing it substitutes the western backdrop and fear of science themes for something new - corporate conspiracy - and as a result fits more neatly in with 70s paranoid thrillers like "The Parallax View" than anything else. For another it's got a lot of goofy, fun stuff like robot-boxing and holographic chess (a year before "Star Wars" mind you), and for a third it's got terrific character actor Stuart Margolin as the geeky tech guy who leads our intrepid reporter-heroes (Peter Fonda and Blythe Danner) towards the terrifying discovery that the robots of DELOS are not all just playthings.

The reporters, you see, have been invited by the board of DELOS to get a backstage view of the revamped and re-opened theme park, with the "world of the future" segment that gives the film its title replacing the abandoned WesternWorld. There are some decent action scenes, a weird fantasy sequence that is notable only as an excuse to have a few moments of Yul Brynner returning as the Gunslinger, and the effects seem a step up from the original; and I for one always like chase sequences set in steam tunnels and big underground piles of machinery, which are pretty much the last third of the film, so I was kept going and could overall recommend this.

The biggest problem for me was Peter Fonda, an actor who has developed somewhat interestingly over the years but who sometimes seems like little more than a dull pretty-boy in his early films - a less-talented Robert Redford perhaps. He just never seems to have enough energy or drive or to believe in what he's doing in this role. Two names kept coming to mind watching this - Dustin Hoffman would have brought more energy and an angry intensity to the role of the crusading reporter - or Clint Eastwood could have provided a physical presence and an equally powerful if quieter intensity. Alas I had to make do with Mr. Fonda; I'm sure either of the other two, or most other star actors in their 30s or 40s that would have done better, would have been too expensive. Oh well. Still worth a look for fans of the paranoid thriller genre or the original film - just don't expect anything beyond a couple of hours of vague amusement.

Okay, But The First Movie Was Better

[StuOz · 19 June 2020]

Sci-fi thriller set in a park filled with robots.

The problem this movie faces is that Westworld (1973) was just so good and, a bit like Planet Of The Apes (1968), the story begins and ends in one film. Making a sequel to this sort of material is a struggle. Perhaps they should have stopped after one movie?

The other reviewers have pointed out what is wrong with Future World so I will point out what is right with it. There is an oddly touching goodbye scene between a less important park worker and his defective faceless robot pal. This scene and a few other moments make Future World worth watching.

A worthy follow up to Westworld.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 2 August 2023]

Two Journalists learn of strange goings on at Futureworld, they go undercover to explore, and discover that Delos is once again having problems.

I have to be honest, I only recently watched Westworld for the first time, and had no idea that this follow up existed, I'm glad I got to see it.

I don't think it's a patch on Westworld, but then that really did take me by surprise, the sheer originality and horror element of it were excellent. Futureworld doesn't quite have the same intensity or creative prowess, but it's still a pretty good watch.

I liked the story itself, it worked well, with the robots put to great use, with a few interesting twists thrown in for food measure. The sets look generally very good, as do some of the effects.

Some nice touches of humour, I liked the boxers, loved Clarke and absolutely loved the chess game.

If you're like me, you're here for the sci fi, but primarily for the presence of Yul Brynner, it's just a shame you have to wait almost an hour for him to make an appearance. I was sad to learn that this was his final film.

Better than expected, I think this film will definitely be a grower.

7/10.

Following to ¨Michael Chricton's Westworld¨ with intrigue , tension , suspense and fun

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 2 March 2006]

An inferior sequel to ¨Michael Chricton's Westworld¨ sci-fi starred by Richard Benjamin and James Brolin , here two reporters (Peter Fonda and Blythe Danner) enter to the new ¨Futureworld¨ theme park (like a futuristic Disneyland) for adult vacation , a pleasure palace resort called ¨Delos¨ which offers the opportunity to live in several fantasy worlds . It's run by powerful people (Arthur Hill and John P.Ryan) and serviced by lifelike robots that are turning against their creators and planning to take over the world .

The film gets stimulating in parts , action , chilling twists , thriller , suspense and results to be quite entertaining . It's made big scale and lavish budget but in a serial style of the thirties or forties . Climatic pursuit throughout the corridors of Delos is chillingly mounted and the starring is suddenly confronted samurais and robots , including footage shot at a spacial plant where is displayed dazzling and impressive scenarios . Peter Fonda is perfect as an intelligent and dashing journalist who does jokes with his partner Blythe Danner . Special cameo by Yul Brynner in his final film , he is frightening as the cold android gunfighter who inexorably pursues to Blythe Danner although in dreams but he was killed in the previous film . Director Richard T. Heffron has made an entirely believable scenario which creates the whole images seem admirably exciting , being first live-action movie to use computer-generated 3D imagery . A television series followed in 1980 titled ¨Beyond Westworld¨. Rating : 6 . Acceptable and passable .

No Crichton, No Imagination, No Purpose... a Lesser Act in Every Sense

[drqshadow-reviews · 3/10 · 1 April 2021]

The sequel to Westworld, 1973's high-concept / low-budget android disaster movie, Futureworld is thematically similar, but less ambitiously entertaining. It still features a crew of convincing mechanical doppelgängers who march around a handful of themed amusement parks, mindlessly carrying out a variety of functions for delighted visitors, but their movements are less proactive. These bots act more like a servant class than the walking, talking theatrical props they played in the first film. They'll serve your drinks, maintain the park's infrastructure, even screw you if they happen to be the right model, but lack the implicit menace of their forebearers, and that makes them less essential.

This time around, the big trouble involves the capture and synthetic cloning of various world leaders, to advance a vague, corporate-friendly political agenda. Not quite as viscerally entertaining as maniac machines with a spontaneous thirst for human blood. Our male / female leads, a dull-as-doorknob pair of chummy reporters in the midst of a casual fling, basically trip over the bigwigs' evil scheme in-between trips to the bar and the dirty dream machine. The latter provides our only non-flashback glimpse of cowboy Yul Brynner, the headline star (misleadingly promoted as a major player) reduced to a pointless role in a weird, three-minute-long montage.

Dreary, pointless and overlong, the whole mess often feels like it's stuck in a holding pattern while more interesting developments find their positions. Imagine my surprise when those never arrived. At least the parting shot is abruptly hilarious.

A respectable sequel to "Westworld".

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 18 January 2013]

As "Futureworld" opens, the Delos Corporation is determined to make up for all of the bad publicity they received when the robots of their Westworld environment malfunctioned. They invite several dignitaries, as well as reporters Chuck (Peter Fonda) and Tracy (Blythe Danner), convinced that they've eliminated the bugs in their program. Well, Chuck is suspicious from the start, even more so when he makes contact with a former Delos employee who wanted to spill some vital information. So when he arrives at Delos's vacation resort, he does a lot of snooping around before finding out that there's a nefarious plan being hatched by resort employees. As one can see from this synopsis, this sequel is more in the conspiracy thriller vein than the action movie vein. The summary in the Leonard Maltin paperback is quite accurate when it says "short on action, but intelligently done". It's an interesting plot, to be sure, not developing in the way one might expect it to. The pacing is deliberate, and things never really build to a fever pitch, which could disappoint those viewers hoping for a more exciting experience. It also reduces the memorable character of the robot Gunslinger (Yul Brynner briefly reprises the role) to an afterthought; it's truly disappointing to see it reduced to starring in a dream sequence. Still, this is pretty entertaining stuff that benefits from very good performances. Fonda and Danner are both appealing as always, generating some good chemistry. (One amusing touch is having Chuck always address Tracy as "Socks"!) The excellent supporting cast includes Arthur Hill as Delos employee Duffy, John P. Ryan as stiff and humourless scientist Dr. Schneider, Jim Antonio as upbeat guest Ron Thurlow, and the highly engaging Stuart Margolin as blue collar worker Harry, with bit parts played by the likes of Robert Cornthwaite, Darrell Larson, John Fujioka, and 'Password' host Allen Ludden. The film also has a good look going for it thanks to art director Trevor Williams and cinematographers Gene Polito and Howard Schwartz; the rousing music is courtesy of Fred Karlin. All in all, "Futureworld" isn't going to appeal to people who love a fast pace and major set pieces, but those looking for a more low key sci-fi flick just might want to give it a look. Seven out of 10.

Sad Sequel...

[JoeB131 · 4/10 · 30 January 2012]

This sequel was kind of pointless and defied logic and reason.

The movie picks up where the film "Westworld" left off. The Davos corporation has reopened the park, or at least the sections with Roman World and Miedeval World, along with a cool new place called "Futureworld". Despite the robots going crazy and killing the guests last time, and apparently every trial lawyer in the world drinking Roofies, this apparently doesn't bug anyone.

We find out the robots have taken over, and are cleverly replacing real people with robots.

There are a few scenes that defy logic, like the magically generated samurai and the dream sequence to get Yul Brenner (who played the killer robot in the last film that made sense) into the film.

You have Peter Fonda, who obviously didn't get the thespian gene in his family, trying to stretch out 30 minutes of plot into a 90 minute feature.

A mystery-driven sequel to Westworld

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 16 August 2015]

Futureworld is the follow up to the innovative sci-fi hit Westworld (1973). In it, two investigative reporters are sent to the Delos resort where the robots went berserk in the previous film. While there they slowly uncover an alarming secret. With this plot-line, this sequel has changed its emphasis and moved from an action-oriented thriller to a mystery-driven one. It's not a bad move really, as sequels tend to just be poor re-treads of what has gone before, whereas this one does actually have a quite different feel and the amateur sleuthing plot thread was a pretty good idea. Although, it does have to be admitted that this is still a clearly inferior film to the original though. It makes a mistake of not really putting enough focus on Futureworld itself and too much of the action seems to occur in the machine rooms and inner workings of the complex itself. What we do see of Futureworld certainly suggests that they missed a bit of a trick not integrating it more into the fabric of the plot. It was a colourful world full of the types of plastic décor that movies from the 70's all seemed to think would be the look of the future. Of course, nowadays this looks fantastic, if a thoroughly inaccurate prediction. I also liked the robot boxers and the idea of Martian skiing. So the ideas are all here but not much is really made of them, as the focus is ultimately on the two journalists trying to get to the bottom of what bad things are going on behind the scenes.

Peter Fonda plays the main character here, yet the film's original posters seemed to have promoted the idea that the most iconic character from the first film, Yul Brynner's gunslinger, was a significant presence here. In actual fact he only appears briefly in a dream sequence that seems to only exist as a means of having him appear in this sequel at all. Despite my earlier criticisms, I still think this is a pretty good bit of sci-fi. It's a sequel that isn't afraid to take the story in a slightly different direction and the revelation that world leaders who have visited the high-tech resort have been killed off and replaced by android clones is a pretty decent idea on the whole. So, this still amounts to a pretty imaginative bit of sci-fi which is sure to appeal in particular to those who like the 70's strand of the genre.

Westworld sequel veers off in an interesting direction - but the execution's poor

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 20 July 2016]

FUTUREWORLD is a bland, uninteresting sequel to one of my favourite science fiction films of all time – Michael Crichton's WESTWORLD, a movie I can watch over and over again without ever getting bored. This sequel has only one thing going for it, and that's that it doesn't simply repeat the robots-run-amok storyline of the first film. Many sequels rehash the plots of the original movies, but this one evades that in favour of a more complex and layered storyline about an evil corporation's plan to replace the world's leaders with robot versions of themselves.

Unfortunately, the execution of this film is diabolical, making it near unwatchable. The script is boring, focus on long, talky dialogue sequences and almost totally omitting any action or interest altogether. The story seems muddled and never really goes anywhere, with the focus being on two of the dullest leads I've seen in a film, a pair of reporters played by Peter Fonda and Blythe Danner. Danner is pretty irritating as the 'sassy' TV host, but Fonda's simply awful – wooden doesn't do justice to just how bland his performance here. The robots express more emotion and acting ability than he does!

The story goes from one non-event to the next, never succeeding in engaging the audience's interest. The highlight of the film is a cameo from the original's Yul Brynner, who pops up in a dream sequence. He's quite brilliant, and by far the best thing in the movie, reminding us of the classic scenes he had in the first film, but he's gone before you know it and the film lapses into boredom once more. Other, brief elements include the (very) early use of some computer effects, a brief and tacky action sequence in which our heroes are attacked by a trio of Japanese robots (I don't know what's worse, the appalling fight choreography or the fact that the Japanese are played by western actors with rubbish 'slant-eyed' makeup), a supposedly exciting climax in which the leads come up against robot versions of themselves, and a surprisingly brutal stabbing in a film that's otherwise been made for kids.

B-movie stalwart John P. Ryan (IT'S ALIVE) plays the role of the evil scientist behind the project, but he seems wasted in the part and doesn't even get his comeuppance in the climax. Instead, this seems to try and be a conspiracy type thriller in the style of something like COMA, where the hero is the only person who believes that something sinister is going on and nobody else ever believes him. Unfortunately, unlike that film, it falls flat.

A fine sequel to Westworld

[BrandtSponseller · 8/10 · 22 March 2005]

Series note: As Futureworld is a "later chapter" to the story begun in Michael Crichton's Westworld, it is imperative that you watch Westworld before this film.

Set a number of years after the events of Westworld (1973), Futureworld concerns two competitive reporters, Chuck Browning (Peter Fonda) and Tracy Ballard (Blythe Danner), who have been invited to cover the reopening of Delos, the "virtual reality" amusement park that went haywire in Westworld. Browning broke the story about the previous mishap, and he's particularly skeptical about the revamped park. Of course, being a sci-fi/thriller film, much of his skepticism is justified.

Director Richard T. Heffron did a lot of work for television both before and after he directed Futureworld, so it is not surprising that the film often has more of a made-for-television "atmosphere" than its predecessor. Delos has been revamped so that there are new lands--including Spa World (similar to today's actual "destination spas") and of course, Future World, where guests take a simulated rocket flight to a simulated space station where they engage in recreational activities such as simulated space walks and non-simulated hobnobbing at the bar. Westworld has become a ghost town (and it seemed to me that this dilapidated state should have been capitalized on as "Ghost World"--that's where I would have chosen to spend my high-priced vacation--but Heffron and his scripters didn't bother). The production design is a bit slicker than it was in Westworld, even if the locations aren't as pleasant (there is no desert--I'm a big fan of deserts). It also looks a bit higher budget, but the impact isn't greater because of the made-for-television feel.

Still, Heffron often transcends that limitation, and there are occasional sequences, such as Ballard's dream, which Browning and a handful of technicians vicariously enjoy (it partially involves a nudity-free sex fantasy) from a remote monitor, that are unusual in their surrealism. Much of the dream is as a silent film, and it features a nice cameo from Yul Brynner, who was the chief villain in Westworld. There are also a number of impressive "industrial" sets--full of piping, cables, large machinery and such, in which Heffron sets a number of exciting action sequences, one remarkably prescient of the climax chase in Total Recall (1990).

Because of the film's intimate connection with Westworld, it's helpful to make a number of comparisons between the two that help explain how Futureworld holds its own (almost, I only rated it a point lower) to its infamous brother.

Both films are largely satirical (in a more formal, less humor-oriented sense of that term), a caricature of many different facets of society, from amusement/recreation to folly, and in the case of Futureworld, more ominous machinations. Delos is a satire of Disney World and similar theme parks, where we can spend leisure time playing roles, fantasizing that we're someone else, in some other time.

Whereas Westworld presented its satire of Disney-like escapism on a more surface level, Futureworld is concerned with the reality under the public façade. Westworld presented a few moments of the behind the scenes reality--technicians attending to computers, maintaining robots, fretting about anomalies--but the bulk of Futureworld consists of Browning and Ballard on a figurative journey to the bowels of Hades, where they'll eventually attempt to "unmask" the devil and destroy his perpetration of hedonistic illusion.

As it should sound, Futureworld is much more sinister in some ways. Not that Westworld wasn't wonderfully disturbing, but the dilemma in that film arose through relative innocence, with man attempting to better himself and his environment, only discovering too late that his manipulations were backfiring. In Futureworld, the innocence is gone. The Frankenstein-like, God-emulating manipulation of the world has been realized, and through conceit, the powers that be behind Delos figure they can improve not only upon nature, but the artificial control of nature that failed in Westworld, especially utilizing the services of behind the scenes technicians who are now almost exclusively robots.

The villainous motivation behind of all this, which extends far beyond Delos, has an attractive grayness. The aim is still to improve the world, but at a cost of human life. But is it? Supposedly, human life is being replaced at the same rate, the replacements ostensibly being identical biologically, except that they have a different set of beliefs. Although the exact mechanism of all of this is a bit vague (as it needs to be--any attempt at a scientific explanation would probably be less plausible then just saying " . . . and then a miracle occurs"), the plot points fueled by the idea broach a number of very interesting philosophical questions.

If you haven't seen the film yet, some of what I'm saying will seem itself a bit vague, but I'm purposefully presenting it that way to avoid "giving the film away", while still enabling comments on it. Rest assured that the plot is fairly transparent and easy to follow --this is a good script, and Heffron did a fine job directing it so that it brings up serious issues at the same time it provides more than a fair amount of suspense and touches of humor.

A lot of the film succeeds because of good performances from Fonda, Danner and a few others. Fonda and Danner have to effectively play a couple different roles, sometimes making a clear distinction, sometimes purposefully blurring the same, which they accomplish with skill. They also have to undergo a couple somewhat bizarre transformations that aren't explained very well, such as one from rivals to lovers, but somehow they manage to make even that convincing.

This is a fine sequel to Westworld. It isn't essential viewing, but Westworld certainly is, and if you've experienced that film, you may as well see what happens next.

An okay but flawed sequel

[breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com · 6/10 · 16 May 2020]

Usually when a sequel is made without the inclusion of the creator of the original, is where things go downhill. Michael Crichton's film debut with Westworld (1973) was a unique sci-fi / horror film that made its viewers think about what if technology goes awry. Strangely enough, a sequel was made to that, but Crichton wasn't even involved. He wasn't even credited for any of the characters used in his original film! However for this followup, things seemed to stay intact, which is surprising. The more interesting thing about this, is how the story played out here compared to the other. The problem is, it's kind of expected, especially after seeing the trailer to this. But does that make it bad? Well,...it depends on what makes the bigger point.

Worked on by a totally different crew, the story continues from the events of Westworld (1973) as the new and improved Delos. This time Delos is being claimed as "Fail Safe" from its new head of the company Duffy (Arthur Hill). But someone is not convinced and that person is Chuck Browning (Peter Fonda) a news reporter who covered the disastrous nightmare that Delos had from the original film. Joining him is Tracy Ballard (Blythe Danner), another reporter who was looking to take point on the story Browning was given. Together they are invited by Duffy to tour the new Delos system and see all that has been changed. While being there and with Browning's suspicions, they begin digging deeper to find if the company is doing something they shouldn't.

Written by Mayo Simon and George Schenck who had worked on separate projects before this actually manage to maintain fairly good continuity with the original Westworld (1973). While Peter Fonda's character was not in the first film, he is properly introduced and given a history as to how he's connected to the past plot. Yet there are two aspects of the film that don't make a whole lot of sense. The first one being the return of the infamous gunslinger played by Yul Brynner. The reason why he appears is not clear as to why and he has no dialog, which comes off feeling more like a gimmick. The other error in writing belongs to the antagonist of the plot. It's an interesting direction to take, but the motivation doesn't exactly explain itself in detail.

It's strange how the thing that attracted people to Delos were the worlds they could visit. Wasn't it just amazing alone they could build robots? It seems like director Richard T. Heffron who mainly worked on made for TV movies didn't have a strong vision on the story's direction. There's also a subplot about the robots maybe having the possibility to develop feelings but it doesn't go beyond speculation. The example used in this story is about Harry (Stuart Margolin), a veteran worker from the original Delos who befriends an out of service robot named Clark (James M. Connor). The acting in general is acceptable. All the cast members who participate are as believable as they can be. Action is one of the things that didn't turn out okay,...it's just very lame. Nothing out of the ordinary.

As for visuals, the set design looked great. Throughout the film, it is a definite that all the props and sets used were physically there. And for some of them, credit is due as to how creative some of the futuristic things are, like boxing and chess. They even revisit the old abandoned Westworld set of Delos, which is pretty eerie. Cinematography was handled by returning cameraman Gene Polito and also Howard Schwartz. Both do a decent job keeping the look of the film similar to that of Westworld (1973). Then there's the music from returning composer Fred Karlin. What made Karlin's music memorable from the original was his use of prepared piano. That's not here but he does rely on deep pulsing synthesizers and has a main theme for the sequel which is nice. It's a fair match.

This sequel misses the mark when it comes to making the antagonist one that makes sense. The use of Yul Brynner is wasted and the action is rather dull compared to the first. However, the actors still perform well, the set design is still appreciated along good continuity and appropriate music.

Pyoo-ee! This was a stinker!

[majorsky · 3/10 · 10 August 2005]

I loved Westworld, so I was excited to find out Futureworld was being aired on a local UPN station. I'd read reviews that Futureworld was disappointing, but sometimes futuristic '70s movies are a blast to watch regardless of their flaws. :-) Well, Futureworld was a real stinkeroo. I actually had fun laughing at many parts that weren't meant to be funny. I could go on for days about the ridiculous plot holes and unanswered questions, but here are just a few of my favorites:

Why did they lead us to believe that Clark, the faceless robot "friend" of Harry the mechanic, *could be* The Gunslinger? Clark seemed pretty harmless, but I was waiting for an exciting moment at the end of the movie when he revealed his true, merciless character (The Gunslinger)! Instead, Clark was more of a paperweight in his scenes.

What the heck is with the dream sequence between The Gunslinger (Yul Brynner) and Blythe Danner's character? That was so ridiculously bad that I had to turn away during parts of it. I understand it was a dream and dreams can be really weird, but that doesn't mean filmmakers have to put all our bizarre dreams on film! Before I saw the dream sequence, I was hoping so much that Brynner's cameo would add something to the movie. Instead, I was embarrassed for him. They could have cut the entire dream sequence and it never would have affected the film.

Fonda's and Danner's characters started punching buttons on the white chamber and suddenly three ninjas materialize out of nothing! First of all, that occurred before we knew the Delos scientists were engineering human clones of the world leaders. So when I saw the ninjas magically appear fully clothed and with weapons, I was thinking, "Since when do mechanical robots and their trappings materialize from nothing?" Then, when we find out that these new insidious creations are flesh-and-blood, that still left me thinking, "How on earth would you create a human clone from thin air?"

Why did Fonda's and Danner's characters agree to run to Westworld to hide? Did they think they could start a new life in the abandoned Westworld? We learned in the first movie that Westworld was surrounded by the Mojave desert, so there wasn't an escape route in that world. If they hoped to escape Delos, Westworld was certainly not the way out.

Oh yes, if Delos spent millions fixing up and expanding all the worlds, even adding more worlds, why did they leave Westworld untouched? That would still be a world that people would want to enjoy, and the tragedies at Delos weren't any worse at Westworld than they were at the other worlds (in the original film). It seemed to be a strange oversight in the film.

The big finale. I have to say I was a bit disappointed that the movie ended with Peter Fonda flipping off the evil and conniving Dr. Schneider, with Dr. Schneider responding with a melodramatic slamming of his hands on the railing of the platform he was standing on. Maybe it would be have been good for a laugh if Schneider had held his fists in the air and yelled, "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" a la Darth Vader at the end of Episode 3. ;-)

I do want to note that the computer-generated 3-D faces and hands were pretty advanced for 1976. I also enjoyed the '70s decor and architecture -- one of my favorite parts of '70s TV shows and movies. :-)

A fairly uninteresting sequel with a very poor first half and a second half that is badly delivered

[bob the moo · 23 August 2004]

Years after the failure of Westworld, the same company have regrouped and are planning to open the same theme park again but improved and totally safe. Chuck Browning, the journalist who originally broke the Westworld story, is approached by a mysterious man who has information on this new park – but he is killed before he can tell his story. Looking for dirt under the surface, Browning and colleague Ballard join the elite group selected for the opening few days at the park and begin to investigate a world where nothing is what it seems – nothing.

Having enjoyed the Jurassic Park rehearsal that was Westworld, I tuned in to this sequel hoping for, at very least, more of same stuff with a clever new slant on it. In defence of the film it does try to do something with the plot and widens it out into a bigger, potentially better conspiracy story but for some reason it fails to really engage. The first half of the film drags like a chain smoker and it seems happy to just bang out sequences that we are supposed to go 'wow' at simply because they involve special effects or robots. This is a terrible first hour because the special effects at best are superimposed men painted red and green to look like holographic chess pieces and, at worst a laughable moment where people sky down the red dust on Mars – on rather, they ski down a normal mountain but the whole scene is shot through a red filter! That is not a special effect and even in 1976 I doubt that these 'effects' were enough to stop audiences from getting bored in the first half of the movie.

The second half is a marked improvement but, by then, a lot of damage had been done and a flurry of action and conspiracy was not quite enough to make it a good film. It does have some good scenes but, ironically enough, these feature between the duplicated characters rather than being the effect shots that the producers were clearly banking on being the business side of the film. However, the extent of the threat is never translated to the film and the ending is terrible – far too muted to have even the faintest relation to the plot we were being sold just a few minutes before. The film only once or twice has even vague tension and certainly nowhere near the degree that the plot demanded.

The cast are also hamstrung by the material. Fonda looks bemused the whole time and it looks likely that nobody told him what was happening in the film – he certainly doesn't look like a man who has just uncovered an evil conspiracy! Danner is also as shapeless and dipsy and she didn't make me care one bit about her. The support cast try hard to look 'evil' and 'conspiratorial' but really they are not given the tools to do the job and just end up scowling! A cameo from Yul Brynner just seems to be totally pointless and resulting in his entire scene just being stupid.

Overall this is a very poor sequel. It tries to repeat the formula from the first film while opening it out into its own plot but it fails in a big way.

The first hour is empty, unspectacular that was meant to be spectacle but wasn't and a second half that has a potentially good plot which is just wasted by a delivery that is so lacking in excitement and tension that you'd think there was no conspiracy or danger whatsoever! Stick to the original.

The ultra-paranoid sequel to "Westworld"

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 6 November 2019]

"Westworld" was a very good adventure film...and I was very impressed when I re-watched it recently. However, I never got around to watching its sequel until now...and it's very good but also very different in tone from the original. Also, oddly, the sequel was released by American International and the original was from MGM.

When this story begins, you learn that after the Westworld disaster, instead of closing down the park for good, it was re-opened---and now it's much larger and with many new lands. However, when reporter Chuck Browning (Peter Fonda) talks to an insider about the park, he's told there is a big story....and the insider will tell Browning when they meet. Naturally, this means that by the time they meet, someone has attacked the whistleblower....and he dies in Browning's arms. Now Browning is determined to get to Delos and investigate...and he and his partner (Blythe Danner) enjoy Futureworld and its space theme. But it's not all fun and games....and soon Chuck's prying result in their learning the evil truth about the Delos Corporation.

So is it any good? Yes...just very different...which is a good thing. The story is creative, the acting quite nice and I enjoyed it. My only complaints are minor--such as some very broad stereotypes on the plane ride to Delos. It's embarrassing seeing a Japanese businessman holding a katana (WHO brings a Samurai-style sword with them when they travel) and his partner constantly snapping photos. And, a bit of the dialog is a cheesy. Still, overall an enjoyable and worthy follow-up film.

By the way, while you might not think it, the CGI in the film was pretty amazing for 1976.

Underrated

[csakell1 · 7/10 · 12 April 2019]

Let's not forget, this was produced in 1976. Elaborate sets and respectable special effects! I urge anyone to take another look. Some of the earliest 3D computer generated renderings I've seen in film. Story wasn't bad and neither was the acting. Decent action and I appreciated the musical scoring as well. Forgotten gem from my humble perspective.

Future Shock

[SteveResin · 3/10 · 24 November 2016]

It's predecessor Westworld is a bona fide classic. One of those stand alone masterpieces that doesn't warrant or need a sequel. Nothing could compare to it and whatever was served up would only be disappointing.

Disappointing is exactly what you get with Futureworld. To be frank it's awful. The story itself has promise, this time the company that create the fantasy theme park and its lifelike robots hatch a cunning plan to clone world leaders and high profile media personalities, bump them off then replace them in the real world with their doppelgangers and RULE THE WORLD! HAHAHAHAHA! (Evil Chuckle). Sounds good right? Wrong.

Peter Fonda plays a journalist chosen for "replacement" alongside plucky TV host and love interest Blythe Danner, who are drugged in their sleep on a PR visit to the theme park and cloned. Now this is the worst part of the story. Instead of just killing them while under anaesthetic and leaving their clones go about their business they decide for some ridiculous reason to have the clones kill their own counterparts. So we're treated to the worst shoot-out scene in history when Danner fights it out with her double in the ruins of Westworld and Fonda is chased all around the complex by his double in the most tedious and unexciting sequence I've ever seen in a big budget action movie. Beating their clones our plucky heroes escape the park and the film actually ends on a shot of Fonda flipping the evil Futureworld boss the bird. Yes, really.

Everything else about the movie is poor, it absolutely reeks of the 1970's, with terrible clothes and colours, the script is weak, the acting sub standard and the fantastic Yul Brynner only appears in a dreadful dream sequence where he dances with Danner while twirling around a red silk ribbon. In full "gunslinger" costume. Yes, this really does happen.

Avoid this at all costs, it's rusty as hell and beyond repair!

Futureworld

[Scarecrow-88 · 7/10 · 13 May 2007]

A newspaper writer, Chuck(Peter Fonda)uncovers a possible secret plot by the diabolical Dr. Schneider(John P. Ryan)when an employee within the Delos corporation(which has now created another paradise such as the Westworld of the first film except this time it's almost completely operated by androids)has evidence of a corrupt nature. Assigned to partake in a trip to Delos, along with famous television reporter, Tracy Ballard(Blythe Danner)who deems him a relic saying the television medium is the better way to produce news to the community at large, Chuck notices how most on the guest list are high-ranking political members from various countries which seems rather fishy. Thanks to an employee, Harry(Stuart Margolin) who works most of the water systems of Delos(the androids have the weakness of not being able to withstand liquid for it fries their electrodes and inside circuitry) Chuck and Tracy find that Schneider is creating duplicates from the cells of those who make their way to Delos, tapping each's drink with sleeping medication while they are being probed and scanned of what makes them human while immersed in a deep sleep. It's the perfect plan to rule the world really..by killing the humans and replacing them with duplicate androids, who can be controlled by Schneider, the world is his oyster. So the film shows how Chuck and Tracy try to find a way off of Delos, while on the run from their duplicates ordered by Schneider to kill them.

Exciting, popcorn thriller lifts elements from INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS very effectively. While Fonda might be very bland in the lead, his situation is what grips you. The fetching Blythe Danner is quite game, though, and is fun to watch. Yul Brynner has a cameo in a dream sequence of Tracy's. Chuck and Tracy once had a sexual relationship for which spurned the nickname of "Socks" for her. Chuck pretty much calls Tracy that throughout the film. Arthur Hill has the role of Dr. Duffy, who seems quite the diplomatic sort, but is overshadowed by the villainous John P Ryan as Schneider. The special effects are quite good as we see faces removed when certain androids are killed with the electrical work on the inside of the head. The sets are amazing as well. Just a fun sci-fi sequel to a great original film. The ending is quite satisfying.

"Once you make it with a robot chick, you don't ever want nothing' else!"

[utgard14 · 4/10 · 24 January 2017]

Overlong, unimaginative, boring sequel to Westworld has reporters Peter Fonda and Blythe Danner visiting the re-opened Delos amusement park to see if the new management has gotten all the murder out of its androids. Turns out they haven't. A sequel that didn't need to be made with an embarrassing role for Blythe Danner. Despite this being made in the 1970s, feminist revolution and all that, she spends the entirety of the movie imitating Noel Neill. Only there's no Superman to save her, just 'king of the wimps' Peter Fonda. She also has a bizarre sex dream about Yul Brynner. Because why not, I guess? That's his sole contribution to this movie, by the way. So if you're a fan of Westworld, don't be fooled into trying this one out thinking at least it's got Brynner going for it. Because he's in it for maybe three minutes.

two reporters investigate the theme park Futureworld, make ominous discoveries

[jefffisher65-708-541158 · 7/10 · 29 June 2013]

Futureworld is the sequel to Michael Crichton's 1973 Westworld, which is the better of the two film by a considerable degree. That said, Futureworld is a good film in itself, if the first half is a little slow(especially for modern viewers, I'm sure). Chuck Browning(Peter Fonda), and Tracey Ballard(Blythe Danner) are investigative reporters who get a tip that something seriously amiss at Futureworld, their source being killed before he can fully deliver his goods to them.

Taking a "vacation" there themselves, the two enjoy some of the park's attractions while investigating, including holographic chess, as well as a device Danner uses which is able to record one's dream. This is where Yul Brynner's Gunfighter from the Westworld shows up in Tracey's dream in a silent cameo although he is given some top billing.

In time, the duo learns that the DELOS Corporation is replacing various important figures with duplicates, and eliminating the human originals, not overly original even in 1976. Star Trek had used the plot some years before for example, but the idea is well-handled. These duplicates would appear to be closer to genuine androids than more-simple robots with biological elements in their design.

I did find the handguns used unusual, as they seem to fire something closer to an "energy bullet) than normal bullets.

Of course, our pair finally escapes, and reveals this plot at the end.

I wouldn't call Futureworld one of the best 1970s science fiction films, but it is certainly a good one which raises some other points I haven't mentioned here, and issues as well. Anybody who enjoys sci-fi films form the 1970s will like this one, although I agree that Peter Fonda was often rather bland in his earlier films.

Ugh. Horrendous. Almost unwatchable.

[jbar19 · 3/10 · 7 July 2015]

Take all of the bad cinematography of Made for TV movies, add some 1970s corporate paranoia, throw in some unrelated techno babble,add an evil scientist and cram in as many bad sound effects from Star Trek, Willy Wonka, Lost in Space and every bad scifi movie from the 1960s and viola, you have Futureworld.

Im not even mentioning the silly special effects because Im sure they were pretty whiz-bang back in 1976. But the truth is you can have great Scifi without dating yourself with special effects. 1951's The Day The Earth Stood Still is a perfect example.

Horribly predictable. Tortuously slow, has almost no relation to Westworld other than they both take place in the future and have pleasure robots.

I love a bad movie, but this goes beyond bad.

Some of the dialog is so bad you will laugh out loud.

The Evil Corporate Executive with a gun discovers Peter Fonda on the phone. Evil Corporate Executive: "Put the phone down". Peter Fonda to Evil Corporate Executive: "You're a part of it?" Evil Corporate Executive: (LAUGHING) "Yes, of course I am!"

Someone on IMDb gave this movie a glowing review so I watched it. Ugh.

Logan's Run, made at the same time, has many flaws and has not aged very well, but it is still much better than this flick.

The Robots Are Back!

[ShadeGrenade · 8/10 · 23 August 2009]

Until 'Star Wars' came along, 70's science fiction movies tended to be heavy and preachy, such as 'Zardoz' ( 1974 ), 'Soylent Green', and 'The Final Programme' ( both 1973 ) predicted dire futures for Mankind. Another was 'Westworld', written and directed by Michael Crichton. 'Delos' is a futuristic Disneyland where people act out their wildest fantasies with the aid of robots. The robots go berserk, and start killing guests.

In 1976, a sequel appeared. Neither Crichton nor M.G.M. had anything to do with it. American International's 'Futureworld' is set two years after the events of the first movie. Delos has reopened following an extensive make-over, now incorporating 'Futureworld' in which people can play act at being astronauts. Public response is good but not enthusiastic, hence the company arranges for V.I.P.'s from all over the world to enjoy Delos for free. Among them are journalists Chuck Browning ( Peter Fonda ) and Tracy 'Socks' Ballard ( the gorgeous Blythe Danner ). Browning thinks something nasty is going on behind the scenes. He had earlier met a Delos employee who was murdered before he could spill the beans. Duffy, the company's chairman ( Arthur Hill ) is intent on saving the environment ( how ahead of his time was he? ) by replacing the V.I.P.'s with robot doubles under his control...

Rather than regurgitate the plot of 'Westworld', Mayo Simon and George Schenck opted instead for an 'Invasion Of The Body Snatchers'-style story with characters never being sure who is real or fake. Even the control centre technicians are themselves robots.

It is entertainingly done for the most part, though hard to shake off the feeling that one is watching an above average made-for-television movie rather rather than a cinema product. The robots ( the ones without faces that is ) look like left-overs from 'The Six Million Dollar Man'. The resort itself is not really all that impressive.

Fonda gives more or less the same performance he gave in Jack Starrett's 'Race With The Devil', while Yul Brynner's 'Gunslinger' appears only in a pointless virtual reality sequence. Arthur Hill ( who also appeared in 'The Andromeda Strain' ) though is great as 'Duffy'.

Shame about the tacked-on happy ending. Delos has already shown itself to be capable of resorting to murder to protect its secrets, so what's the big deal about Chuck and Tracy getting away from the resort?

Worth seeing though, and considerably better than 'Logan's Run' which also came out that year.

Three years later, the television series 'Beyond Westworld' recast Delos in the role of the good guys, attributing the robot breakdowns to megalomaniac 'Dr.Simon Quaid' ( James Wainwright ). Only five episodes were made.

It can't happen again... could it?

[lost-in-limbo · 7/10 · 6 March 2010]

Coming a couple years after its predecessor "Westworld", the rebooted sequel "Futureworld" is a grade up with a better budget and larger scale production that's just as inventive, if not as clunky as the original. Still I prefer the first a film a little more, as it seemed a bit more enjoyable in its escapism and idea but this one remains a diverting fantasy. The difference here is that the concept is virtually the same, but the angle focuses basically on the things going on behind the scenes at the Delos Corporation, than that of the experiences of their themed vacations. Newspaper reporter Chuck Browning and TV presenter Tracy Ballard, along with some other important guests are invited by the Delos' corporation to attend their re-opening of their theme parks, which is larger and better run to hopefully rid the air of the disaster that occurred years ago at Westworld. However Chuck questions what's really going on and decides to nose around digging up anything that doesn't seem quite right.

Quite a solid, if mechanical follow up, which has a committed cast (Peter Fonda, Blyth Danner, Arthur Hill, Stuart Margolin and a glassy John Ryan in a villain role) and very well executed special effects and implemented set-designs. The story isn't as gimmicky and less than casual, by intertwining between mystery, sci-fi and thriller elements with a strong satirical, if paranoid vibe building upon its suspenseful groundwork. Surprisingly it holds a dark edge, as there's more lurking underneath, but the script can take time out for some agreeable wit. Too bad I think that the ending is quite unfulfilled. When you see Yul Brynner's name tagged to the project, you might just be disappointed… as the gunslinger appears in one sequence involving quite an odd dream inclusion which in the end is rather pointless, but a neat credit for the original film. Richard T. Heffron's direction is tidy with his cruise-like pacing and interesting visuals to match. While Fred Karlin's grandiose music score simply soars.

You want the good news or the bad news?

[Tiberius27-1 · 4/10 · 16 May 2013]

THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN DREADED SPOILERS! Having just watched this on Amazon Instant Video (And no they didn't pay me for that free advertisement but I'll sell out cheap! :D ) my perspective is as fresh as my frustration that what turned out to be the last film in the franchise (Funny how a bad entry can do that) didn't end things on a satisfactory note.

Since I don't know which you'd prefer first between the good & bad news in my review title anymore than the filmmakers apparently knew how to make a good sequel, I'll arbitrarily choose the good. (I'm an optimist, what can I say?) The music is quite good. Blythe Danner is quite good here as is instantly recognizable baddie John Ryan (Ever notice how most bad guys aren't the most handsome devils in the world of movies? And good guys are always handsome? But I digress.). Also I give them points for recognizing that they NEEDED to bring back Yul Brynner for the sequel.

To start off with the bad though whatever points I give for them realizing that they needed Yul Brynner are COMPLETELY negated by the fact they waste him utterly in this made for TV movie looking follow up. He was a virtually unstoppable killing machine in "Westworld", the inspiration for Michael Meyers (John Carpenter has admitted this) & The Terminator as well! Brynner was as The Gunslinger a complete & total BAD ASS! And how do they use him here in his last film? (Tragic when a great actor goes out on a stinker. Reminds me of Raul Julia's last movie being "Streetfighter".) They make him some kind of a Harlequin romance novel fantasy for Blythe Danner's character to get all hot & bothered about!!! I kept WAITING for them to introduce him into the movie thinking "When he shows up it's finally gonna get good!" only to see the aforementioned hippie dippy dream-time sex fantasy sequence! Their misuse of the STAR of this franchise, made all the more sad by it being his last film, was an EPIC FAILURE. I'm not saying that to satisfy me they needed to have him doing exactly what he did in the first one, running & gunning down good guys left & right, but why couldn't they have turned it around & had the good guys use him as their secret weapon when all seemed lost? If you've already seen this imagine how cool it would have been if The Gunslinger showed up at a "We're screwed now!"" moment blowing away his fellow robots with reckless abandon! THAT was what this film needed!

But I digress again.

Back to what's wrong with "Futureworld".

In a word. Fonda. In two words. Peter Fonda.

To say that the acting of Peter Fonda in this film was lifeless would be an insult to the dead. It would have been much more believable if they would have revealed that the character that we thought that we knew him as had in fact been a robot throughout the entire film and at least THEN we could have an excuse other than Fonda taking too many drugs in his life or just never bothering to hone his craft because with his name he didn't need to. He's a blight on this movie. Not that it'd be winning any Oscars without him mind you but he didn't do it any favors starring in it either. Makes you appreciate Blythe Danner's talent that much more though.

Ultimately what we have here is a sequel that failed for the same reason that most sequels fail.

They just didn't try hard enough to make a good film.