VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,7/10
2431
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Un abile volantino ma un giovane gabbiano molto ribelle viene cacciato dal suo clan. Tuttavia, invece di essere triste o solo, decide di divertirsi ed esplorare la sua ritrovata libertà.Un abile volantino ma un giovane gabbiano molto ribelle viene cacciato dal suo clan. Tuttavia, invece di essere triste o solo, decide di divertirsi ed esplorare la sua ritrovata libertà.Un abile volantino ma un giovane gabbiano molto ribelle viene cacciato dal suo clan. Tuttavia, invece di essere triste o solo, decide di divertirsi ed esplorare la sua ritrovata libertà.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Candidato a 2 Oscar
- 2 vittorie e 6 candidature totali
Juliet Mills
- Marina
- (voce)
Philip Ahn
- Chang
- (voce)
Kelly Harmon
- Kimmy
- (voce)
Dorothy McGuire
- Mother
- (voce)
Richard Crenna
- Father
- (voce)
Hal Holbrook
- The Elder
- (voce)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
I also read the book, saw the movie on the big screen, have the soundtrack and got the VHS tape, which I watched again today. So I like the movie. I'm visiting the web today looking for a dvd release. Watching the movie in post 9/11/01 days - it has a renewed interest for me, as our days here on earth are again in question with world activities growing graver. As a photographer I like big screen and small screen movies that are picturesque. So "Dances with Wolves" is another favorite. I also like movies that move me, even to tears (that doesn't bother me), which this movie does, so "Old Yeller" is another favorite and this database hit the mark on what else I might like. I play piano and trumpet in band and have an appreciation for the instrumentation this movie soundtrack offers. I am Christian and the vocal soundtrack gets you thinking of this life and the afterlife. I enjoy Neil Diamond as a vocalist. I give the movie a rating of 9 out of 10. Nothing is perfect. In closing I was hoping to see this movie re-released soon on the big screen - or at least dvd - but with the comments in this database - I don't see an executive taking an option on that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizIn 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.
- Curiosità sui creditiOpening dedication: To the real Jonathan Livingston Seagull, who lives within us all.
- ConnessioniReferenced in Here's Lucy: Lucy Is a Bird-Sitter (1974)
- Colonne sonorePrologue
Music by Neil Diamond
© 1973 Stonebridge Music (ASCAP) Used by permission. All rights reserved.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Jonathan Livingston Seagull?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Jonathan Livingston Seagull
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Azienda produttrice
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 1.500.000 USD (previsto)
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 39min(99 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti