L'uomo dei ghiacci

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.

Unusually intelligent sci-fi, about a group of polar researchers who discover a hibernating (and slightly too human-looking) Neanderthal. The scientists (predictably) just want to cut him up, but Tim Hutton plays the lone anthropologist who befriends him and teaches him how to sing along to Neil Young. At times the film (pre-CGI) seems dated in appearance, but its strength is not to underestimate the difference between the Neanderthal's world and our own, nor his capacity to deal with it. Good to see a sci-fi film that for once is more interested in substance than surface.

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.

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".

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.