Iceman (1984) Poster

(1984)

User Reviews

Review this title
33 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
All but a case of massive generation gap
Koustubh Bhattacharya22 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Man has always been curious about his origins and since the days of Darwin much effort have been done in tracing back the evolution of mankind to the final link where we as animals became self conscious and began advancing rapidly in terms of how much we have modified our macro biosphere in such short span of our existence.

This movie is definitive in putting the viewers in a situation where we find that we have made it extremely difficult to see things in its simple state and rather complicate it with all our cynicism and rationality. Being modern humans we like to believe that as we have gained more cranial volumes, have become more intelligent but fail miserably in explaining and bridging the differences of a few thousand years. The sense that Shepherd starts to develop in spite of all his efforts that Charlie the caveman would never actually be able to adapt to this world is the realization that the film portrays.

We find that with all our modern methods and abilities Shepherd does starts communicating to Charlie though in a vague way but still the actual situation could never be properly conveyed to Charlie. It's a classic example of generation gap where the newer generation wants to learn but fails to explain itself to older generation and the older generation is just afraid of the change. Moreover the surgical team is so mechanical that they just want to cut him up for analysis. They don't even consider Charlie a human but a relic, a living fossil.

This film has taken much care in addressing the topic as it is quite believable movie for such an impossible plot. It could have turned out as a jerky and plastic movie if it was not treated well on scientific and performance aspects. I don't know how many people have watched this movie but I must say it is pretty engrossing. The portrayal of a confused, depressed and angry caveman in modern world by John lone is very convincing and touching as well. This can rank among some of the best sci-fi movies of its era.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
a drastically underrated movie
Mutakk20 November 2007
People think Timothy Hutton didn't do any good movies after winning the Oscar for Ordinary People, but that's not true. Among other really good movies he's done are Q&A, Taps, Falcon & The Snowman, French Kiss, and Iceman, which is way better than you'd think it would be, considering the plot is so much like Encino Man. Scintists dig up a Neanderthal and thaw him out. Some want to study him, and one (Hutton, in a good performance) just wants to communicate with him. Most of the actors are good (Danny Glover has a small role) and the script isn't stupid. The Iceman comes off as a real person, not just a furry guy with a club. Like Quest For Fire, the guy is played as a primitive person, not just an ape.

The Iceman is played by John Lone (the bad guy in Year of the Dragon and the star of The Last Emperor), He almost unrecognizable under all the makeup, but his performance is right on the money, A lot of his acting is through body language, and its really good. He conveys many emotions with subtle and unsubtle movements. Again, this is underrated movie, and Mr. Lone should have gotten an Oscar of his own for his performance.
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Warming sci-fi
paul2001sw-111 May 2003
Unusually intelligent sci-fi, about a group of polar researchers who discover a hibernating (and slightly too human-looking) Neanderthal. The scientists (predictably) just want to cut him up, but Tim Hutton plays the lone anthropologist who befriends him and teaches him how to sing along to Neil Young. At times the film (pre-CGI) seems dated in appearance, but its strength is not to underestimate the difference between the Neanderthal's world and our own, nor his capacity to deal with it. Good to see a sci-fi film that for once is more interested in substance than surface.
26 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
An unforgettable journey of humanity
Dana Wang4 November 1999
While a group of scientists were working in the Arctic they found a man frozen in the ice. Dr. Stanley Shephard (Timothy Hutton) identified the primitive as a Neanderthal who was probably 40000 years old.

Neanderthals were supposed to be located in Europe. So how could one be found in North America? However, despite all the possible scientific errors, "Iceman" is still a masterpiece. This film is about the issue of immortality- we could deal with the same problems that the iceman did - if freezing sick people and unfreezing them when there are new ways to cure become possible in the future. Is everybody supposed to live forever? Or if some of us, the ill ones, would be healed decades or even centuries later, we may not be used to the new world, new things around us, and our loved ones may already died. It may cause psychological trauma and...the shock would be unimaginable. I think Shephard was right, death is natural and we should face it.

In the movie, only Shephard was willing to treat the iceman (John Lone) as a human, not as an object to be used in some scientific experiment. Shephard tried very hard to communicate with the iceman and getting to know him as a person. This became a touching and educational journey for everyone involved.

John Lone's mesmorizing performance as "Charlie" the iceman who intended to sacrifice himself in order to save his family, has profoundly moved me. He's really a splendid actor. And I must say this film is definitely worth seeing more than once.
21 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
One of the great "science fiction" movies of the 1980s.
rayb61017 November 2009
It's sad to read some of the "summaries" and comments here about "Iceman." Some people dismiss 1980s movies outright, and think the usually overblown, CGI dominated "science fiction" movies of the 21st century are better!?! That makes me laugh. "Iceman" is a fine, understated, thought-provoking (ooh, that might injure some viewers) movie of the first order, no matter the genre.

I like the previous comment about John Lone being unjustifiably denied an Oscar nomination for that year (1983) -- he should have not only been nominated as best supporting actor, he should have won. And I thought so at the time. (The winner was Jack Nicholson for his supporting role in "Terms of Endearment," a pleasant if lightweight performance for him.) The original screenplay; the excellent, evocative soundtrack by Bruce Smeaton, and perhaps even director Fred Schepisi should also have been nominated, though I can understand the votes for the winners in those categories.

Those who think this character is a "Neanderthal" have a problem with anthropological/archaeological logic. He is a migrating human ancestor from 40,000 years ago, primitive but quick to learn and ingenious -- yet very different from those who would be his modern descendants (though with traditional links), let alone those of us whose ancestors MUCH later migrated to North America. He led a very hard life before he was frozen and has a much different belief system.

As for the ending: Those who don't get it seem to lack a true sense of wonder and mystery ... or are more than a little dense.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
A One Lone Show
dallasryan3 November 2012
This is what I love about Movies back in the 80's and 90's, and really just older movies in general, you can see the difference. The difference is they didn't have the technology to make what they do today, which in actuality is usually too much! Therefore though, that's what people like, so that's what you get nowadays, tons of special effects with the same type of action, CGI, with little or no story. The older movies had better stories and were more clever about their action and special effects, and actually I preferred the not so fancy special effects, in my opinion, it kind of ruins a movie nowadays it seems because it's just too much CGI and too much action.

So with Iceman, this is a very thought driven movie. Lot's of crazy ideas/concepts being thrown out there. I'm not sure how John Lone didn't get nominated for any kind of awards here(I mean he's even academy award nomination worthy here as his portrayal as the Neandrathal Man).

It's truly a brilliant performance by Lone, and probably one of the best portrayals I've ever watched in a film of an actor playing a Neandrathal Man. Iceman is really worth a look just for John Lone's performance, it's a brilliant performance to watch. John Lone is an excellent actor, you won't even be able to believe that this is the same guy/actor from The Last Emperor.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Endearing film but frustrating
Lucian Wischik11 February 2011
A prehistoric man from 20 to 40 thousand years ago is found frozen in a block of arctic ice. A research team find him, manage to bring him back to life, and try to figure out how to interact with him.

The performances feel genuine. The first dynamic is between the scientists who want to chop up his body and learn its biochemistry to better humankind vs those who want to study his habits and interact with him. The second dynamic is between the iceman and the ethnographer who gains his trust and friendship.

All the time I was watching it, I was angry at the ham-fisted incompetence of the researchers. Sure, I know, this is a movie and so the scriptwriters put in bumbling incompetence to push the plot forward. But just imagine if it a prehistoric man really were brought to life. It would be such a marvellous opportunity for interaction and learning, and even a halfway competent research team would make something better of it.

So, all the time, I was angry at the scriptwriters for cheating humanity and the iceman of this chance, and this didn't leave space to enjoy the film. 5/10.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
"I who have died shall live..."
drmality-18 October 2007
What you think of "Iceman" depends on your general nature. If you are sentimental and deeply moved by stories of great emotion, you'll love it. If you are hard-edged, cynical and opposed to the least bit of softening in life, you'll think it crass. I know what side of the fence I'm on. I loved the movie and was moved to tears the first time I saw it. It still moves me all these years later.

In the high arctic, the remains of a Neanderthal hunter are found perfectly preserved in ice. To the astonishment of the scientists who handle the remains, the capacity for life still lingers in the body. They return the frozen primitive to life in the 20th century...at least 20,000 years after his "death". The revival of "Charlie" sparks a multitude of moral dilemmas for the scientists. Earnest young anthropologist Shepherd wants to know Charlie as a man and bonds with the primitive. Other scientists want to use the special properties of Charlie's blood to preserve human life...a good goal, but they look at him as a specimen.

When Charlie escapes from the special environment prepared for him, havoc ensues, leading to a powerful ending where he tries to complete the quest he started tens of thousands of years ago.

The tale is simple and heartfelt. John Lone gives an astonishing performance as Charlie. His physical movements and primitive vocalizations completely bring to life a man from the dawn of time. Yet we also sense moments of sadness, anger, humor and family pride from him. Thanks to the Academy's snubbing of fantasy/SF films, which would not be erased until the massive success of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy years later, Lone's Oscar-worthy performance was ignored. You will be amazed by the humanity he brings to the role. Timothy Hutton is earnest and sincere as the moral but naive scientist who tries his best to help his Neanderthal friend.

The movie is not perfect...some of the scientific jargon is overdone and I was incredibly annoyed by James Tolkan's constant gum-chewing...but it succeeds in matters of the heart. The ending is sad yet triumphant. If you think about the situation, it was the best possible ending for Charlie given the circumstances.

Anyone with a heart and a sense of wonder should enjoy "Iceman".
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Cult Movies 8
Carlos Xavier6 November 1998
8. ICEMAN (drama, 1984): A team of arctic-research scientists uncover the body of a Neanderthal man frozen in a slab of ice. He is brought to life by Dr. Brady (Lindsay Crouse). The Iceman (John Lone) is placed in an enclosed artificial wilderness housing. Dr. Shepard (Timothy Hutton) is brought in to study the man. However, he goes one stop further by making face to face contact. With the help of Diane, their struggle to identify with the Iceman becomes a personal, and moving experience.

Critique: A visual as well as a 'sound' delight, Iceman is a touching film that brings the 'environmentalist' in all of us. It is that rare film lore which feeds our emotions and our intellectual curiosity.

Australian director Fred Schepsi provides the lush, snow-covered landscapes with a rich musical tapestry to reside on. Schepsi makes us feel close to the Iceman by placing him in the position of stranger (which is where we, as audience, also are), and surveyor of truth. Although it has the same plot overtones of a Frankenstein's monster(should a creation be exploited), it does sway from this by giving us an insight into the Iceman's past.

Actor John Lone's debut as the Iceman is wholly potent, as a rendition of our 'shadow side'. While Lindsay Crouse for once plays a sensitive scientist. The best moment of the film comes when the Iceman, at last happy, plummets through the Arctic air and comes full circle in his quest. With the film's beautiful soundtrack guiding him.

Quotes: Iceman: "Pita!"
18 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Masterful film making.
Blueghost8 December 2016
If you want to know how to shoot a masterpiece, then watch this film. Not only is it well shot, but it's also has a lot of integrity for the material being shot.

As other reviews have mentioned this is a film about bringing a species of man from our past, into the present day world. How much animal is in us, as homo sapien sapiens, and how much humanity is in our distant cousins the Neanderthals. And if you watch this film, and watch the interests of each party, you will truly begin to wonder who has more humanity within themselves.

The film making style takes some liberties with presentation, and we get a sense that the editing glosses over some of the obvious clues that one of the main characters should pick up on in terms of his circumstances. But, if you can over look that, and accept the fact that the subject of the film is perhaps a bit dim witted in addition to being from a more primitive era in Earth's history, then you should be able to appreciate the "plausibility" of the film's premise.

There were arguable two great eras in film making. The 30s and 40s as one era, and the 80s, with spikes of greatness sprinkled in the 60s and 70s. And "Iceman" comes from that era in the 1980s when Hollywood was rediscovering itself after Lucas and Spielberg had reminded the dream factory of what films were supposed to be about. "Iceman" is a creation of that re-genesis, and in terms of a style and presentation of story, it truly shines.

If I had a complaint, and I'm not sure that I do, it's that I'm curious why the story necessitated a predominantly interior motif, as opposed to letting the story take place on location in a non-arctic environment. The film is rich as it is, but letting it take place elsewhere might have added a dimension to the film by allowing story possibilities. One wonders about these things.

The cast is perfect along with their performances, the location has a kind of stark magnificence (as a lot of sculptured ice and snow fields tend to have), and the lensing and lighting are both without flaw. My only regret is for the ending of the story itself. It is a tear-jerker.

The subject may not interest a lot of people, so buyer beware, but if you like excellent films, then do give Iceman a chance. At the time of this writing it is only currently available on regular 4:3 DVD format. Hopefully it'll see a bluray release someday.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Don't listen to some of these people
ghostofmrpalmer15 October 2007
The comments made by thesnowleopard from Scotland are absolutely ignorant. Don't listen to his claims of knowledge of science and anthropology. He knows nothing about these fields, and even less about film. The film is great, and the science used in the film is well informed. Of course they take liberties, but then again it's a film, a story. Not to mention that in 1991 an Iceman was discovered, of course it wasn't alive and this plot point is dubious but again it's a movie, and similar events unfolded as in the film. I think if you suspend your disbelief for a moment you will see the strong points of the film. Enjoy the film, it's well done, and the acting is superb.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
What the hell happened in the 1980's?
capescrod14 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
After explaining to my wife the silliness of this movie, she asked "why after 40000 years would he want to live just a little longer" That's the real funny thing about this movie, is you can't ask why - just roll with it, and grunt as much as possible. Seriously, why was there a bubble - what did the world do without biosphere nonsense - Why was the blonde doctor lady such a scaredy after leading the charge with all the cutting and the medicine - I also think that they could have given Danny Glover a better roll other than the tranquilizer happy security guard. Where did the helicopter come from, and what exactly were they going to do with the pilot while they were coming out of the aircraft? Again, just grunt and smile your terrible teeth smile.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better than you might expect
utgard1414 February 2017
A surprisingly moving film about a 40,000 year-old prehistoric man being found frozen in ice and somehow revived. This may have a plot that sounds like something out of a cheesy B sci-fi horror flick from the '50s but it's actually a very engaging, human story. An incredible acting job from John Lone is the main selling point. The rest of the cast is also really good, with even Timothy Hutton rising above being Timothy Hutton and turning in a relatable and authentic performance. It's a slow-moving film at times, but never dull unless you're the kind of viewer who needs an action scene every ten minutes. I was pretty impressed by the whole thing, going into it not expecting much given the premise. It's definitely worth a look for those who can put most of their cynicism aside and lose yourself in a movie for a little while.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Really? People liked this?
patty-lamberti29 December 2010
The screenwriter really got off easy writing this one - all the Iceman does is moan "Ugh...ahh,...oooh..." and inexplicably "Peter..." throughout the movie.

Some things to watch for (and watch it you should just for hilarity's sake...

The security system they have to contain the iceman is hilarious, even by 1980s standards.

And how exactly does Timothy Hutton figure out what the Iceman's major malfunction is after exchanging a few brief words with local Eskimos? If the helicopter annoys the Iceman so much, why do they keep flying it around him? Just use your snowmobiles, dudes.

And it's most shocking the Iceman doesn't drop dead considering all the stress he's under. Wouldn't his recently dethawed heart just kinda pitter patter out? I do wonder if Timothy Hutton got to keep that fur coat. It would really dazzle on the red carpet.
6 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Interesting film, but the ending should have been different
Agent1010 April 2005
It's hard to judge some of these old 1980s movies due to the fact they tend to age badly. But then again, Iceman is still pretty decent after all of these years. While the story isn't terribly exciting, it is more or less a morality tale, a movie that more or less tells us to stay the heck out of nature's business.

Timothy Hutton had a pretty good little streak with this movie and Turk 182!, but like all movies from the 1980s, you either still enjoy them or you're completely embarrassed you ever watched them. I did like parts of he ending, but the last five minutes of the movie was the only reason why this movie didn't get a higher grade. When you think about it, this film also had a pretty solid cast.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A lovely and poignant 80's science fiction gem
Woodyanders11 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
A team of Artic researchers discover a caveman (beautifully played with touching depth, grace, and humanity by John Lone) who has been frozen in a glacier for 40,000 years and manage to revive him. Anthropologist Stanley Shepherd (an excellent and engaging performance by Timothy Hutton) befriends the caveman so he can learn all about his past while Dr. Diane Brady (a superb portrayal by Lindsay Crouse) and her surgical group want to figure out precisely how the caveman managed to survive for so long frozen in the ice. Director Fred Schepisi and screenwriters Chip Poser and John Drimmer treat the fascinating premise with refreshing and commendable restraint, compassion, and intelligence: This film thankfully eschews cheap thrills and fancy special effects to instead place a welcome and provocative emphasis on heartfelt and thoughtful drama as it explores the caveman's impossible predicament and desire to finish a spiritual quest he started thousands of years ago. Moreover, the characters of the researchers are especially well drawn as smart and capable professionals saddled with a daunting and unusual situation that they have no formal training on how to properly handle. But it's Lone's exceptionally expressive and convincing work as Charlie the caveman that makes this picture so special and captivating; Lone effortlessly pulls off the amazing feat of portraying this primitive man as a deeply sympathetic figure and even gives the Neanderthal a winning sense of gentle humor, as evidenced in the marvelously warm scene in which Charlie grunts along to Shepherd's a capella rendition of Neil Young's "Heart of Gold." Most importantly, Charlie is presented as a pitiable human being rather than a savage brute, which in turn gives this movie extra poignancy and resonance. The across the board fine acting by the top-rate cast helps a whole lot, with especially stand-out supporting contributions from Josef Sommer, David Straithairn, Danny Glover, and James Tolkan. Kudos are also in order for Ian Baker's gorgeous widescreen cinematography, Bruce Seaton's haunting score, and Michael Westmore's subtle make-up. Great touching ending, too. Highly recommended.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
There's A Strange Relevance To This Movie
sddavis6329 January 2018
If you can set aside the scientific implausibilities (or impossibilities) that abound in this movie, you can appreciate it from a number of angles. I first saw it many years ago and just watched it again - and still found it touching and relevant. Timothy Hutton starred as Sheppard - part of a scientific team in the Arctic who discover something frozen in the Arctic ice, and eventually discover that it's a Neanderthal who was somehow trapped there perhaps 40000 years ago. Intending to thaw him out and cut him up and ship various parts of his body around the world for study, the team is shocked when the Iceman comes to life. Played superbly by John Lone, the Iceman is alone, afraid and bewildered by the strange surroundings in which he finds himself, and the team basically continues to see him as a science project for lack of a better way to describe it - a specimen to be studied. But Sheppard sees him as a man and tries to understand him, communicate with him and befriend him. The interaction between the two came across as authentic, and the bond between them was believable. The viewer bonds with the Iceman too - or, if you don't, there's something wrong with you. The viewer starts to see him as a person; starts to sympathize with his plight. This is definitely a movie that pulls you in successfully.

It's also a movie that - while dated in many ways - does have a strange relevance to today's world. We're not likely to ever find a frozen Neanderthal and bring him back to life. Even Otzi the Iceman (who was frozen in ice only 5000 years ago is most definitely dead and not coming back.) But there are scientists who think they can bring back extinct species like mammoths, and some speculation that eventually someone might try to bring back a Neanderthal (notwithstanding that most of us aside from Africans already have Neanderthal DNA in our bodies.) Watching this movie and thinking about that possibility - I started to wonder. Should we? Even if we could? What sort of life would we give to the poor creature? Would we treat it as a human, or would we treat it as a lab rat, subjecting it to never ending experiments and tests and studies? Would we be Sheppard - or would we be everybody else? I suspect I know the answer to that.

Maybe it's best to leave the Neanderthals where they are - buried deep in our own DNA. (7/10)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
After 34 years, I'm glad to have finally seen Iceman!
tavm26 January 2018
After the last 34 years of only knowing about this movie and its premise, I finally watched this on YouTube just now. Timothy Hutton is among a group of scientists who discover a man from thousands of years ago being preserved in ice. Once he is thawed, Hutton argues with his teammates over the best course of action: should they experiment on him or try to get to know him socially. Hutton chooses the latter and he and John Lone as this Neanderthal man have quite a humorous and touching give-and-take in communicating with each other, Lone by mainly dong many grunts and hand gestures. I was pleasantly surprised one of the scientists was played by the same person who was Principal Strickland in the Back to the Future movies! I really enjoyed this film including the way it ended. So on that note, I highly recommend Iceman.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Underrated SF movie that stands the test of time
karinrjeffrey19 August 2017
I saw this again after many years, and was not disappointed. It's a well written, thoughtful SF film that doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence. John Lone is very moving as the bewildered hunter who is discovered by scientists. Timothy Hutton is credible as Shepherd, the compassionate scientist who connects with the Neanderthal, who he calls "Charlie". The film's portrayal of Charlie as a human being with a deeply spiritual side is strangely prescient, especially in light of recent discoveries about our own Neanderthal DNA. The scene where Shepherd and Charlie try to sing Neil Young's "Heart of Gold" is memorable and fun. This is a quietly effective film with a subtle message that doesn't beat you over the head with it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
A pity this one was forgotten
ThatMOVIENut3 January 2015
A group of scientists stumble upon a fully frozen Neanderthal, whose cells seem to have miraculous not been ravaged by the subzero temperatures and long term prison. It is these cells the scientists wish to harvest and study as a means of advancing cryogenics. Little do they know that their attempts revitalize the Neanderthal and in turn lead to an even bigger scientific, and personal, feat.

While it doesn't drastically stray from the 'fish out of water/unlikely friends' tropes, the usually comic Fred Schepsi actually pulls in a fairly decent sci-fi drama. Sure, some of the science here is a fairly sizeable stretch, but John Lone's outstanding and sympathetic performance as Charlie the Neanderthal easily carries to film. His simian movements, expressionistic grunting and the incredible make up utterly sell him in the role, and he completely vanishes into it. The rest of the cast include the likes of Timothy Bottoms, Lindsay Crouse, David Strathairn and Danny Glover as the various scientists, though Bottoms plays the main one who bonds with Charlie, and he does fine, being the typical 'nerd with a good heart' but Lone eclipses him.

The film also does a good job capturing the frigid and lonely landscapes of the Arctic region, with plenty of snow covered vistas, wide chasms and pastel blue skies, very much contrasting an ancient natural world with the tech of the science base. The score by Bruce Smeaton also captures a similar vibe, going for a very ethnic/tribal sound with plenty of woodwind, and comes off as both touching yet also complementary, and never too obnoxious or grand to upstage the story or the actual emotions. In fact, it actually reminded me a lot of Jerry Goldsmith's work.

Honestly, this is a pretty cut and dry affair; if you're looking for a moving little drama of clashing worlds with an incredible title performance, 'Iceman' is an easy recommend. However, suspension of disbelief may have to be pushed further to swallow its somewhat goofy premise and science.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Magnificent Human Story
SnoopyStyle10 October 2014
Anthropologist Stanley Shephard (Timothy Hutton) is part of an arctic exploration team which discovers a frozen prehistoric man from 40,000 years ago. When they thaw out the Iceman (John Lone), they discover that they can revive him. It's a shock when he starts to wake and Stanley takes his surgical mask off to calm him down. They place him in the artificial enclosure which he finds out. Stanley tries to befriend and study the Iceman giving him the name of Charlie. Other scientists want to use him as a specimen to study how he is able to be revived after so many years. Stanley struggles to defend Charlie's rights and understand his world.

The science is suspect. Sure it's sci-fi but it's important if the movie wants to revive a Neanderthal man. Once the audience gets pass this, the movie is not really about the science but about humanity. It's about the struggle for Charlie's rights. It's about the connection between Stanley and Charlie. This is a magnificent human story and a poetic ending.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Crass, predictable and cheesy
collywobble16 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers ahead....

This film was on TV last night, so I thought I'd watch it as the blurb in the guide sounded interesting. I knew within minutes though that it was a terrible film. Hokey science theories, implausible plot, insulting dialogue and downright poor acting from Hutton. The makeup of the iceman was unconvincing and the pseudo-mystical ending jarred with the rest of the film.

It tried to be sincere and tackle wider issues (mortality, human spirit, sacrifice), but it was crass, overblown and cheesy to the extreme, everything that exemplifies a bad '80's movie. I can't figure out how there are no other negative reviews...
6 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Boring, dull, unnecessary
Scott Marcus20 October 2003
I went to see this film based on the review by Siskel and Ebert; not only did I get duped, but I took some friends along, and had to spend the rest of the day profusely apologizing for making them sit through this pointless crap. After this, I never went to see a movie based solely on Siskel & Ebert's advice.
10 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Slow, but with beauty.
NickSavage23 July 2003
I remember seeing this movie in the theater in 1984, and, though I don't agree with the evolution aspect of the film, I found it quite a beautifully told story.

Tim Hutton and the actor who played the caveman both did very convincing jobs with the rolls.

It does move a little slow at times, but if you stay with it, the bitter-sweet ending will really choke you up.

The sound track fits in perfectly. Seven out of ten stars.
5 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews