Futureworld

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.

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!

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.

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.

Futureworld is the sequel to 1973's Westworld. It differed from the first movie in that while Westworld could be genuinely scary, with the gunslinger marching down on everyone, (Almost like an early seventies Terminator) this movie is more like a detetctive story, as Peter Fonda and Blythe Danner try to figure out what sinister things are going on in Futureworld.

Peter Fonda was acceptable, but Blythe Danner's scratchy voice begins to grate on your nerves after a while. Yul Brynner does show up briefly, but in a contrived appearance.

This movies is mainly notable as one of the very first to use computer animation, albeit on a scale that seems laughable compared to today's movies. Worthwhile to see on cable, but don't go out of your way.