Iceman

People think Timothy Hutton didn't do any good movies after winning the Oscar for Ordinary People, but that's not true. Among other really good movies he's done are Q&A, Taps, Falcon & The Snowman, French Kiss, and Iceman, which is way better than you'd think it would be, considering the plot is so much like Encino Man. Scintists dig up a Neanderthal and thaw him out. Some want to study him, and one (Hutton, in a good performance) just wants to communicate with him. Most of the actors are good (Danny Glover has a small role) and the script isn't stupid. The Iceman comes off as a real person, not just a furry guy with a club. Like Quest For Fire, the guy is played as a primitive person, not just an ape.

The Iceman is played by John Lone (the bad guy in Year of the Dragon and the star of The Last Emperor), He almost unrecognizable under all the makeup, but his performance is right on the money, A lot of his acting is through body language, and its really good. He conveys many emotions with subtle and unsubtle movements. Again, this is underrated movie, and Mr. Lone should have gotten an Oscar of his own for his performance.

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 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.

It's sad to read some of the "summaries" and comments here about "Iceman." Some people dismiss 1980s movies outright, and think the usually overblown, CGI dominated "science fiction" movies of the 21st century are better!?! That makes me laugh. "Iceman" is a fine, understated, thought-provoking (ooh, that might injure some viewers) movie of the first order, no matter the genre.

I like the previous comment about John Lone being unjustifiably denied an Oscar nomination for that year (1983) -- he should have not only been nominated as best supporting actor, he should have won. And I thought so at the time. (The winner was Jack Nicholson for his supporting role in "Terms of Endearment," a pleasant if lightweight performance for him.) The original screenplay; the excellent, evocative soundtrack by Bruce Smeaton, and perhaps even director Fred Schepisi should also have been nominated, though I can understand the votes for the winners in those categories.

Those who think this character is a "Neanderthal" have a problem with anthropological/archaeological logic. He is a migrating human ancestor from 40,000 years ago, primitive but quick to learn and ingenious -- yet very different from those who would be his modern descendants (though with traditional links), let alone those of us whose ancestors MUCH later migrated to North America. He led a very hard life before he was frozen and has a much different belief system.

As for the ending: Those who don't get it seem to lack a true sense of wonder and mystery ... or are more than a little dense.

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".