L'uomo illustrato

Even though both Rod Serling and Ray Bradbury hated this film I did not and I always appreciate thought provoking science fiction. Todays shallow and unimaginative audiences seem to hate a film that makes you think but thats what good sci-fi does. Rod Steiger has his usual commanding performance and he is a bit much at times. Hostile and violent, its hard to feel sympathy for him. Robert Drivas is very good and at times the film belongs to him but these are fleeting moments as its always impossible to upstage Steiger. Claire Bloom is enchanting but I never really bought into her "Siren" character. I did enjoy the 3 stories even though number three was a little weak. I like the fact that this film is trying to be different. Watching Drivas stare at the illustrations (Don't call them tattoo's!) and then having the film drift into the story that each design is about to tell him I found very interesting. Its not great narrative but I appreciate the effort to be original. Steiger and Bloom were married at the time and it was the last year of their ten year union. Could they're problems have spilled out on screen during they're scenes? Maybe. Not a great film and certainly it wasn't told in a great way but I do appreciate a film that is thought provoking. Something that todays science fiction films lack completely!

Rod Steiger is 'Carl', the titular character whose dermal illustrations come to life and tell three of Ray Bradbury's fanciful science-fiction short stories ('The Veldt', 'The Long Rain', 'The Last Night of the World'). Between the stories, Carl recounts to Willie, another drifter (Robert Drivas) how he came to be illustrated and why he wants to kill the artist (Claire Bloom). The vignettes (which also star Steiger and Bloom) are typical Bradbury: poetic fantasy with a thin veneer of science. The 'look' of the future in the first somewhat cryptic story is very dated and there isn't really much to the third story. The second tale, in which stranded astronauts try to survive on a planet of incessant, torrential rain is one of my favorites of Bradbury's short stories and (IMO) by far best of the three presented in this film. Bradbury is one of my favourite science fiction writers, but much of the appeal of his stories comes from his poetically descriptive and evocative style, which does not translate well to film ('The Martian Chronicles" (1980) being another example of a failed attempt to render his vision). The interludes with overbearing Carl bullying Willie, his captive audience, are not particularly interesting and Steiger especially is given to overacting. The cryptic backstory about the mysterious illustrator from the future goes nowhere, again reflecting the difficulty in translating Bradbury's fanciful prose to film, a more explicit medium.

Since most of this film consists of three independent tales it is not unlike watching The Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits on television, except that the source material is the very best possible, and Rod Steiger and Claire Bloom are two of the finest actors conceivable. And although this fragmentation causes the movie to lose the impact that a single feature length story might have had, all the tales, including the connecting story of the illustrated man himself, are bleak, despairing tales that have a cumulative quality. And that's what makes this movie so appealing and unusual. It has depth in directions that aren't often explored anymore and it does it with a simple elegance that you can't achieve with over-saturated special effects. "The Illustrated Man" isn't a masterpiece, or even great, but it is a film that is worth seeing. And in one instance it manages to improve on Bradbury. In his book he creates, then tosses away, the phrase "skin illustrations" with little effect. But a moment of Rod Steiger's rage found only in the movie will have you forever respecting those two words.

Perhaps I was just expecting too much a different movie. I simply expected a good old fashioned, straight-forward, science-fiction thriller and not a 'talking', art-house like movie with deeper meanings and metaphors to it all.

What I simply did not liked about the movie was the fact that it explains far too little. It would had been nice if the focused more on the audience as well that didn't read the book by Ray Bradbury, which this movie got based on. Guess that everything in this movie makes sense to those that have read the entire novel but those who only have seen the movie are being left mostly in the dark. It's a very confusing movie, not just because of its strange and unique concept but also due to its very disjointed story-telling. Basically you have one main plot-line and then also some small stories in them as well, that get told in flashbacks. It just doesn't really make the movie feel as one whole and makes the whole narrative confusing to follow. Add to that the fact that this movie explains very little about what's going on and you have one confusing movie.

But I just couldn't hate this movie either. I'll admit that I didn't liked the movie much at first but in its last few minutes some of the puzzle pieces fell to its place and I could appreciate the entire movie better for its style and approach.

Yes, it's an unique movie for sure, that obviously isn't just for everybody. I was quite surprised that this was an American production, since normally these type of quirky and original movies come from Britain, around that time.

It has a good visual approach to it all, which makes this movie somewhat of a science-fiction period piece, that at times is being set far in the future. It's visual style and atmosphere seem appropriate for the movie and the story that it tried to tell. Yes, you can definitely describe its visual style and approach as art-house like. But it's still really foremost its story and the way that it gets told which makes this movie definitely not an accessible one to just everyone. It's definitely a movie you have to read into deeper and think about, long after a scene has ended. There are numerous moments that you just have no idea what is going but do make some more sense a couple of minutes later, as the story progresses more.

It doesn't make this movie a much pleasant or great one to watch, at least not for me. I didn't hate this movie and I don't mind these type of movies either but the entire way this movie got handled and told didn't wanted me to watch it again, anytime soon.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

OK, too wild..I was about 7 when I saw this movie in the UK. I have thought over the years it was just an odd dream I had but there it was, on t.v. late one night. Totally freaked me out. Steiger is a major under rated actor to this generation. (umm it was 30 years ago I first saw the movie. You do the math) No wonder I thought it was a dream...a veratiable kalidascope of images. the kids with the lion. That house. It is well worth watching if only to see why you shouldn't do drugs. The 60's LSD influence is very strong here i think. All these years I was fascinated by tattoos and now I know why. Its the sort of film you never forget but cant clearly recall. There's no telling what it did to my subconscious.