Iceman

If you want to know how to shoot a masterpiece, then watch this film. Not only is it well shot, but it's also has a lot of integrity for the material being shot.

As other reviews have mentioned this is a film about bringing a species of man from our past, into the present day world. How much animal is in us, as homo sapien sapiens, and how much humanity is in our distant cousins the Neanderthals. And if you watch this film, and watch the interests of each party, you will truly begin to wonder who has more humanity within themselves.

The film making style takes some liberties with presentation, and we get a sense that the editing glosses over some of the obvious clues that one of the main characters should pick up on in terms of his circumstances. But, if you can over look that, and accept the fact that the subject of the film is perhaps a bit dim witted in addition to being from a more primitive era in Earth's history, then you should be able to appreciate the "plausibility" of the film's premise.

There were arguable two great eras in film making. The 30s and 40s as one era, and the 80s, with spikes of greatness sprinkled in the 60s and 70s. And "Iceman" comes from that era in the 1980s when Hollywood was rediscovering itself after Lucas and Spielberg had reminded the dream factory of what films were supposed to be about. "Iceman" is a creation of that re-genesis, and in terms of a style and presentation of story, it truly shines.

If I had a complaint, and I'm not sure that I do, it's that I'm curious why the story necessitated a predominantly interior motif, as opposed to letting the story take place on location in a non-arctic environment. The film is rich as it is, but letting it take place elsewhere might have added a dimension to the film by allowing story possibilities. One wonders about these things.

The cast is perfect along with their performances, the location has a kind of stark magnificence (as a lot of sculptured ice and snow fields tend to have), and the lensing and lighting are both without flaw. My only regret is for the ending of the story itself. It is a tear-jerker.

The subject may not interest a lot of people, so buyer beware, but if you like excellent films, then do give Iceman a chance. At the time of this writing it is only currently available on regular 4:3 DVD format. Hopefully it'll see a bluray release someday.

Anthropologist Stanley Shephard (Timothy Hutton) is part of an arctic exploration team which discovers a frozen prehistoric man from 40,000 years ago. When they thaw out the Iceman (John Lone), they discover that they can revive him. It's a shock when he starts to wake and Stanley takes his surgical mask off to calm him down. They place him in the artificial enclosure which he finds out. Stanley tries to befriend and study the Iceman giving him the name of Charlie. Other scientists want to use him as a specimen to study how he is able to be revived after so many years. Stanley struggles to defend Charlie's rights and understand his world.

The science is suspect. Sure it's sci-fi but it's important if the movie wants to revive a Neanderthal man. Once the audience gets pass this, the movie is not really about the science but about humanity. It's about the struggle for Charlie's rights. It's about the connection between Stanley and Charlie. This is a magnificent human story and a poetic ending.

If you can set aside the scientific implausibilities (or impossibilities) that abound in this movie, you can appreciate it from a number of angles. I first saw it many years ago and just watched it again - and still found it touching and relevant. Timothy Hutton starred as Sheppard - part of a scientific team in the Arctic who discover something frozen in the Arctic ice, and eventually discover that it's a Neanderthal who was somehow trapped there perhaps 40000 years ago. Intending to thaw him out and cut him up and ship various parts of his body around the world for study, the team is shocked when the Iceman comes to life. Played superbly by John Lone, the Iceman is alone, afraid and bewildered by the strange surroundings in which he finds himself, and the team basically continues to see him as a science project for lack of a better way to describe it - a specimen to be studied. But Sheppard sees him as a man and tries to understand him, communicate with him and befriend him. The interaction between the two came across as authentic, and the bond between them was believable. The viewer bonds with the Iceman too - or, if you don't, there's something wrong with you. The viewer starts to see him as a person; starts to sympathize with his plight. This is definitely a movie that pulls you in successfully.

It's also a movie that - while dated in many ways - does have a strange relevance to today's world. We're not likely to ever find a frozen Neanderthal and bring him back to life. Even Otzi the Iceman (who was frozen in ice only 5000 years ago is most definitely dead and not coming back.) But there are scientists who think they can bring back extinct species like mammoths, and some speculation that eventually someone might try to bring back a Neanderthal (notwithstanding that most of us aside from Africans already have Neanderthal DNA in our bodies.) Watching this movie and thinking about that possibility - I started to wonder. Should we? Even if we could? What sort of life would we give to the poor creature? Would we treat it as a human, or would we treat it as a lab rat, subjecting it to never ending experiments and tests and studies? Would we be Sheppard - or would we be everybody else? I suspect I know the answer to that.

Maybe it's best to leave the Neanderthals where they are - buried deep in our own DNA. (7/10)

What you think of "Iceman" depends on your general nature. If you are sentimental and deeply moved by stories of great emotion, you'll love it. If you are hard-edged, cynical and opposed to the least bit of softening in life, you'll think it crass. I know what side of the fence I'm on. I loved the movie and was moved to tears the first time I saw it. It still moves me all these years later.

In the high arctic, the remains of a Neanderthal hunter are found perfectly preserved in ice. To the astonishment of the scientists who handle the remains, the capacity for life still lingers in the body. They return the frozen primitive to life in the 20th century...at least 20,000 years after his "death". The revival of "Charlie" sparks a multitude of moral dilemmas for the scientists. Earnest young anthropologist Shepherd wants to know Charlie as a man and bonds with the primitive. Other scientists want to use the special properties of Charlie's blood to preserve human life...a good goal, but they look at him as a specimen.

When Charlie escapes from the special environment prepared for him, havoc ensues, leading to a powerful ending where he tries to complete the quest he started tens of thousands of years ago.

The tale is simple and heartfelt. John Lone gives an astonishing performance as Charlie. His physical movements and primitive vocalizations completely bring to life a man from the dawn of time. Yet we also sense moments of sadness, anger, humor and family pride from him. Thanks to the Academy's snubbing of fantasy/SF films, which would not be erased until the massive success of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy years later, Lone's Oscar-worthy performance was ignored. You will be amazed by the humanity he brings to the role. Timothy Hutton is earnest and sincere as the moral but naive scientist who tries his best to help his Neanderthal friend.

The movie is not perfect...some of the scientific jargon is overdone and I was incredibly annoyed by James Tolkan's constant gum-chewing...but it succeeds in matters of the heart. The ending is sad yet triumphant. If you think about the situation, it was the best possible ending for Charlie given the circumstances.

Anyone with a heart and a sense of wonder should enjoy "Iceman".

This is what I love about Movies back in the 80's and 90's, and really just older movies in general, you can see the difference. The difference is they didn't have the technology to make what they do today, which in actuality is usually too much! Therefore though, that's what people like, so that's what you get nowadays, tons of special effects with the same type of action, CGI, with little or no story. The older movies had better stories and were more clever about their action and special effects, and actually I preferred the not so fancy special effects, in my opinion, it kind of ruins a movie nowadays it seems because it's just too much CGI and too much action.

So with Iceman, this is a very thought driven movie. Lot's of crazy ideas/concepts being thrown out there. I'm not sure how John Lone didn't get nominated for any kind of awards here(I mean he's even academy award nomination worthy here as his portrayal as the Neandrathal Man).

It's truly a brilliant performance by Lone, and probably one of the best portrayals I've ever watched in a film of an actor playing a Neandrathal Man. Iceman is really worth a look just for John Lone's performance, it's a brilliant performance to watch. John Lone is an excellent actor, you won't even be able to believe that this is the same guy/actor from The Last Emperor.