IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,7/10
2433
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Ein erfahrener Flieger, aber sehr rebellische junge Möwe wird aus seinem Clan geworfen. Anstatt jedoch traurig oder einsam zu sein, beschließt er, seine neu gewonnene Freiheit zu genießen un... Alles lesenEin erfahrener Flieger, aber sehr rebellische junge Möwe wird aus seinem Clan geworfen. Anstatt jedoch traurig oder einsam zu sein, beschließt er, seine neu gewonnene Freiheit zu genießen und zu erkunden.Ein erfahrener Flieger, aber sehr rebellische junge Möwe wird aus seinem Clan geworfen. Anstatt jedoch traurig oder einsam zu sein, beschließt er, seine neu gewonnene Freiheit zu genießen und zu erkunden.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Für 2 Oscars nominiert
- 2 Gewinne & 6 Nominierungen insgesamt
James Franciscus
- Jonathan Livingston Seagull
- (Synchronisation)
Juliet Mills
- Marina
- (Synchronisation)
Philip Ahn
- Chang
- (Synchronisation)
David Ladd
- Fletcher Lynd Seagull
- (Synchronisation)
Kelly Harmon
- Kimmy
- (Synchronisation)
Dorothy McGuire
- Mother
- (Synchronisation)
Richard Crenna
- Father
- (Synchronisation)
Hal Holbrook
- The Elder
- (Synchronisation)
- (Nicht genannt)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Not everyone may know the story of 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull'. But, if nothing else, at least many people certainly heard of it.
I like seagulls very much. They're such beautiful, elegant birds with a confident, even noble appearance. And they fly beautifully. A seagull's flight is one of the most graceful and fascinating things to see. As beautiful as they are, they're equally well known for their foul temperament...
One of the most different things about this movie is the fact that it has only birds (seagulls) on screen and no human characters at all. Plus, this is an animal movie different from the others. Instead of home pets, this one is about seagulls.
The story is about the title character, who is different from all the seagulls of his flock. Flying is his favorite thing. He flies with art and passion, but he dares to do things that other seagulls don't do, such as flying as high as possible (the more, the merrier - for him, sky is the limit) and flying in unusual speeds, as well as doing other "tricks" that other seagulls don't attempt. Of course that by being overambitious he's taking great risks...
Jonathan faces the reality of being different: his flock doesn't accept him and actually outcast him. However, that doesn't stop him from keep trying to learn and improve his flight skills so that he reaches what he is desperately trying to. And even though he later finds another flock which accepts him the way he is, he still loves his previous flock and wants to show them his talents.
This movie is certainly artistic when it comes to film-making. Besides the unique story (even if a bit lame), it has rich and gorgeous settings and landscapes, as well as a beautiful and relaxing musical score by Neil Diamond.
I like seagulls very much. They're such beautiful, elegant birds with a confident, even noble appearance. And they fly beautifully. A seagull's flight is one of the most graceful and fascinating things to see. As beautiful as they are, they're equally well known for their foul temperament...
One of the most different things about this movie is the fact that it has only birds (seagulls) on screen and no human characters at all. Plus, this is an animal movie different from the others. Instead of home pets, this one is about seagulls.
The story is about the title character, who is different from all the seagulls of his flock. Flying is his favorite thing. He flies with art and passion, but he dares to do things that other seagulls don't do, such as flying as high as possible (the more, the merrier - for him, sky is the limit) and flying in unusual speeds, as well as doing other "tricks" that other seagulls don't attempt. Of course that by being overambitious he's taking great risks...
Jonathan faces the reality of being different: his flock doesn't accept him and actually outcast him. However, that doesn't stop him from keep trying to learn and improve his flight skills so that he reaches what he is desperately trying to. And even though he later finds another flock which accepts him the way he is, he still loves his previous flock and wants to show them his talents.
This movie is certainly artistic when it comes to film-making. Besides the unique story (even if a bit lame), it has rich and gorgeous settings and landscapes, as well as a beautiful and relaxing musical score by Neil Diamond.
If I was rating this movie back in 1973 when I saw the film in the theater on opening day, then it would have been a 10. Age does take it's toll on our opinions and we're 32 years down the line, hence my rating's decline from perfection.
One must keep in mind when viewing this film that if you expect it to be a Disney story about seagulls, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. In fact, Richard Bach, the writer, fought tooth and nail to prevent exactly that Disney influence in the face of a studio that wanted to add animated fake mouth movements over the photography of the seagulls.
The story is presented through the persona of seagulls, but it is NOT about seagulls. Like the book of the same name, the movie is actually a metaphor about people and life and the pursuit of learning and something better than "pack mentality". Those viewers who keep an eye toward those subtle metaphysical principles will recognize the jewel at the heart of the movie. Those viewers with no thought of higher principles or those looking for an animal movie may conversely wish they had never heard of it.
Alas, the movie studio seemed to be populated by the latter group. Ultimately infighting between Bach and the pro-mouth-movement studio honchos who wanted to retrofit the movie after its release resulted in the demise of the theatrical release within a few weeks of opening. Granted, there was a limited audience for the movie, but Bach didn't care since those who needed the message would find it and I personally think it would have lasted longer if left alone.
The photography is stunning and the soundtrack by Neil Diamond is stellar. Granted, by today's standards, both the movie and soundtrack are dated, but then so is anything made in the 70's.
When it came out originally I took everyone I knew to see it who was even slightly interested in such metaphors and all of them loved it. It remains to be one of my favorite movies in principle even today despite the dating.
If you are going to watch it today, just allocate two hours of your life that are free of constraints in which to relax and learn one small simple quiet lesson and then enjoy the spectacular scenery while you are doing it. If you can do that, you will love it.
One must keep in mind when viewing this film that if you expect it to be a Disney story about seagulls, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. In fact, Richard Bach, the writer, fought tooth and nail to prevent exactly that Disney influence in the face of a studio that wanted to add animated fake mouth movements over the photography of the seagulls.
The story is presented through the persona of seagulls, but it is NOT about seagulls. Like the book of the same name, the movie is actually a metaphor about people and life and the pursuit of learning and something better than "pack mentality". Those viewers who keep an eye toward those subtle metaphysical principles will recognize the jewel at the heart of the movie. Those viewers with no thought of higher principles or those looking for an animal movie may conversely wish they had never heard of it.
Alas, the movie studio seemed to be populated by the latter group. Ultimately infighting between Bach and the pro-mouth-movement studio honchos who wanted to retrofit the movie after its release resulted in the demise of the theatrical release within a few weeks of opening. Granted, there was a limited audience for the movie, but Bach didn't care since those who needed the message would find it and I personally think it would have lasted longer if left alone.
The photography is stunning and the soundtrack by Neil Diamond is stellar. Granted, by today's standards, both the movie and soundtrack are dated, but then so is anything made in the 70's.
When it came out originally I took everyone I knew to see it who was even slightly interested in such metaphors and all of them loved it. It remains to be one of my favorite movies in principle even today despite the dating.
If you are going to watch it today, just allocate two hours of your life that are free of constraints in which to relax and learn one small simple quiet lesson and then enjoy the spectacular scenery while you are doing it. If you can do that, you will love it.
OK, so it's not a masterpiece, but it has its moments. At least it's quite original, which is a quality most people don't have... The shots with the seagulls are well achieved, as well the the natural landscapes. The dialogues are a bit basic and one can sense the difficulty of selecting passages from the book (which is magnificent) to put in the movie. It tends to be a little boring towards the end, but it's a one-of. I think everyone who likes movies should see it. As for the music... I think it's suited and powerful enough. BE is a very nice piece. See the movie. (6,5 / 10)
This film´s photography puts any other film´s to shame. How they managed to catch footage of the seagull at those altitudes is amazing. However, photography alone does not make a great movie. The novel is great and the film is almost a page for page filmatization of the book. However it is a tad long and one´s interest in the philosophical bird diminishes near the end. Younger viewers which perhaps are not as blasé as I may find it more enjoyable. For those of you who have not read the book; this is a must-see.
Here in England, the nearest we get to seagulls (we are an island) are ones who steal our fish and chips from our hands at the seaside, squawk and squall loudly and generally seen as a bit of a seaside urban nuisance.
We had the paperback novel in our household when I was young - I never read it but did dip into it every now and then and enjoyed the black & white photographs. So, a few decades on, the film.
I did wonder how it was going to be portrayed, how the birds would talk etc and am glad that it wasn't Disneyfied or animatronics grafted on (a bit before that development, I know). Used to some quite excellent wildlife programmes on TV these days, I was often aghast at the beauty of the imagery, that didn't try to be too close up and perfect but convey space, wonderment and awe.
Being British I did find the American voice artists not quite to my taste - somehow voices added to seagulls are different to ones added to Pixar cartoons, but I suppose that's because while Pixar is decidedly American, Jonathan Livingston Seagull is nation-less and international at the same time. Like the birds themselves; free to fly anywhere.
The story did make some sense but alas, did not grip me. Therefore I was glad that my DVD version didn't go beyond 90 mins or so, rather than the 120mins on some versions. The Neil Diamond soundtrack, alas was mono - how much better if it had been in stereo - was beautiful too, though not quite being able to pick out all the lyrics due to the not brilliant sound quality lessened its impact and enjoyment.
There are those that love and swear by their Jonathan Seagull, whatever format it's in. I'm less enamoured by the project but am glad that I watched and enjoyed this film.
We had the paperback novel in our household when I was young - I never read it but did dip into it every now and then and enjoyed the black & white photographs. So, a few decades on, the film.
I did wonder how it was going to be portrayed, how the birds would talk etc and am glad that it wasn't Disneyfied or animatronics grafted on (a bit before that development, I know). Used to some quite excellent wildlife programmes on TV these days, I was often aghast at the beauty of the imagery, that didn't try to be too close up and perfect but convey space, wonderment and awe.
Being British I did find the American voice artists not quite to my taste - somehow voices added to seagulls are different to ones added to Pixar cartoons, but I suppose that's because while Pixar is decidedly American, Jonathan Livingston Seagull is nation-less and international at the same time. Like the birds themselves; free to fly anywhere.
The story did make some sense but alas, did not grip me. Therefore I was glad that my DVD version didn't go beyond 90 mins or so, rather than the 120mins on some versions. The Neil Diamond soundtrack, alas was mono - how much better if it had been in stereo - was beautiful too, though not quite being able to pick out all the lyrics due to the not brilliant sound quality lessened its impact and enjoyment.
There are those that love and swear by their Jonathan Seagull, whatever format it's in. I'm less enamoured by the project but am glad that I watched and enjoyed this film.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesIn order to make seagulls act on cue and perform aerobatics, model aviation pioneer Mark Smith built radio-controlled gliders that looked like real seagulls from a few feet away. This footage was not used in the final cut of the film.
- Crazy CreditsOpening dedication: To the real Jonathan Livingston Seagull, who lives within us all.
- VerbindungenReferenced in Here's Lucy: Lucy Is a Bird-Sitter (1974)
- SoundtracksPrologue
Music by Neil Diamond
© 1973 Stonebridge Music (ASCAP) Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Jonathan Livingston Seagull?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Jonathan Livingston Seagull
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirma
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 1.500.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 39 Min.(99 min)
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.35 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen