IMDb रेटिंग
5.7/10
2.4 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
एक कुशल उड़नेवाला लेकिन बहुत विद्रोही युवा सीगल को उसके कबीले से बाहर निकाल दिया जाता है. हालाँकि, दुखी या अकेले होने के बजाय, वह अपनी नई मिली आज़ादी का आनंद लेने और उसका पता लगाने का फैसला ... सभी पढ़ेंएक कुशल उड़नेवाला लेकिन बहुत विद्रोही युवा सीगल को उसके कबीले से बाहर निकाल दिया जाता है. हालाँकि, दुखी या अकेले होने के बजाय, वह अपनी नई मिली आज़ादी का आनंद लेने और उसका पता लगाने का फैसला करता है.एक कुशल उड़नेवाला लेकिन बहुत विद्रोही युवा सीगल को उसके कबीले से बाहर निकाल दिया जाता है. हालाँकि, दुखी या अकेले होने के बजाय, वह अपनी नई मिली आज़ादी का आनंद लेने और उसका पता लगाने का फैसला करता है.
- 2 ऑस्कर के लिए नामांकित
- 2 जीत और कुल 6 नामांकन
Juliet Mills
- Marina
- (वॉइस)
Philip Ahn
- Chang
- (वॉइस)
Kelly Harmon
- Kimmy
- (वॉइस)
Dorothy McGuire
- Mother
- (वॉइस)
Richard Crenna
- Father
- (वॉइस)
Hal Holbrook
- The Elder
- (वॉइस)
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
When I read the book I could not put it down until I finished it. So I thought that the movie would be just as good. I was wrong. Although not awful, it was no were near as good as the book. If you can rent the movie version and have totally nothing to do for two hours, go ahead and watch it. If not, get the book and you won't be sorry.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाIn 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.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटOpening dedication: To the real Jonathan Livingston Seagull, who lives within us all.
- कनेक्शनReferenced in Here's Lucy: Lucy Is a Bird-Sitter (1974)
- साउंडट्रैकPrologue
Music by Neil Diamond
© 1973 Stonebridge Music (ASCAP) Used by permission. All rights reserved.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Jonathan Livingston Seagull?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Jonathan Livingston Seagull
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $15,00,000(अनुमानित)
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 39 मि(99 min)
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.35 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें