In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

If you examine the opening credits of the movie "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", you'll see that there is no mention of Richard Bach, who wrote the book that the movie is based on. Bach actually sued screenwriter/producer/director Hall Bartlett for (among other things) supposedly distorting his story, so Bach probably demanded his name be taken off the project. Seeing the movie, I can understand Bach's reaction. To be fair, the photography and camera-work in the movie are first rate, and the locations are well chosen as well. But despite its good look, the movie is a bore, a chore to sit through. There are long stretches of the movie when the movie comes to a standstill, with endless shots of seagulls flying around and around. The character of Jonathan is thin - we learn little about him, and he has less dialogue than you may think, despite being the central character. And all the dialogue the characters has feels random, like it's being made up as the movie is going along. The movie's "messages" feel heavy handed. As for Neil Diamond's score, while I have enjoyed a number of his songs in his past, the songs and background music here are far from his best work. Stick with the book.

This painfully boring movie was the worst movie i had ever saw until UFO-Target Earth came out in 1974, i actually fell asleep in my chair at the movie house while trying to watch this..It was cheap made, and really had no kind of plot or storyline whatsoever!! I don't usually walk out of a movie i had paid to see, but this sorry thing was just too much for me...I never read the book this was supposed to be about, but it had to have been better than the movie, in the 33 years since it was made, i have never heard anyone mention it again... so that must very indicitive of just how bad this movie was.

This review is based on the first 45 minutes of the film - it is the only film I have ever walked out of. The single worst film I have ever seen. Pretentious drivel masquerading as some sort of art. Not even watchable in a "so bad its good" way. It is way, way below that standard. A seagull who wants to "fly" - not fly, "fly" (possibly with 2 y's). It is every bit as bad as the plot synopsis (and that is the entire plot) sounds. I thought that the book had had some interesting ideas, even if it was a bit on the twee side, but the film removed any vestige of charm from the book in favour of a literal interpretation of the book's message. All we have is a seagull who wants to "fly".(Please note that this review was not written by SoylentGreenIsPeople91, who has actually never seen this film)

Great soundtrack, great visuals, somewhat confusing and disappointing storyline.I always thought this was Neil Diamond's best work. He sang the soundtrack, and it's filled with great songs that he did exceptionally well.The photography is beautiful and the scenes as mellow as you can find: a seagull gracefully gliding through the air surrounded by beautiful seascapes, sunsets, billowy clouds.....just magnificent scenery.On the negative side is the usual New Age "look within yourself" theology. This is pure Secular Humanism. I say this because some people thought this was a Christian film and it is not. It only confuses people because there are analogies that could easily apply to Jesus, to the Pharisees and to Heaven itself. It was a bunch of mixed messages but author Richard Bach, from whose book this movie is based on, leaves no doubt near the end of the movie - or the screenwriters did, if they changed his book.Still, a peaceful, calming movie that is unique.