जोनाथन लिविंगस्टन सीगल

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.

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.

First off if you are reading this you will most definitely read the book of the same title.

The book doesn't translate well into film due to it's short length so there is a lot of padding out of Jonathon just flying around visiting different places but the visuals on show are very good. The animatronics (rememeber they didn't have CGI back in the 70's) are first class and it really does look like live seagulls.

The movie is probably about the right length though at 95 mins perhaps trimming by 10 mins would not have harmed it.

As you'll know it's a feelgood story about the quest to be a better gull and the importance of tolerance and forgiveness.

I was a bit disappointed that one of the KEY SPOKEN LINES in the book was omitted from the script. When the young Jonathon is asked by his mother why he doesn't eat and is all bone and feathers he replies "I don't mind being bone and feathers, Mum. I just want to know what i can do in the air and what i can't, that's all. I just want to know" Considering the key part of the book is that Jonathon forsakes the squabbles and feeding frenzy to learn how to fly properly i would say that line is a pretty important one.

Still it's a decent movie which is pleasant to watch.

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.

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.