Sadly Over-hyped

Fantastic!

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

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)

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.

The opening credits are as boring as any I can ever remember seeing...ever. Flying the block of ice from the place of its discovery to the lab, which seemed to be taking place in real time, was....how can I say this and be reasonably nice about it....it was BORING!!The story concept is, by far, not new. The acting is, at best, horrible. There seems to be almost no continuity to the story line.The musical soundtrack...well...let's say this movie might have done better as a silent film.Please don't waste your time viewing this. Timothy Hutton is pathetic, as is Danny Glover. The, "Iceman" himself would, hopefully, today be done with CGI.This film might have a place in a course in film school where it could be used as a wonderful example of how NOT to make a movie.At least with, "Plan Nine From Outer Space" it was so bad that it was at least funny. "Iceman" offers no socially redeeming values, let alone any value as a film.

Maybe it's unfair to pick at a movie made in the '80s but they did make some good ones back then, didn't they? The sound track is muddy, the visuals are gunky (except for the outdoor snow shots), and the acting is uninspiring. The philosophical ideas are old hat and predictable.And the story? I admit I gave up after about 45 minutes. During the be-yuh -- bird! scene that went on forever. I truly am amazed that so many people have raved about this movie. I love Neanderthals and the snow and science/fiction, so why don't I love this movie? It's just not very good.I kinda knew I was in trouble when they had that chunk of ice traveling cross country dangling from a helicopter a la Felini. Felini had a stature -- of David, I believe. This was a block of ice. So, a great movie is to this movie like Michaelangelo's David is to a giant block of ice. I hope that is not a spoiler.