Avaliações de usuários

Westworld was the film that put Michael Crichton well and truly on the map as a writer and sometime director to watch out for. His story of an amazing theme park gone wrong was revisited twenty years later, only with raptors in the place of cowboys. It could have been revisited a lot earlier, had Futureworld been a lazy, hurried sequel to it's successful predecessor. Instead the filmmakers produced something entirely original that stands on its own with no prior knowledge of the first film necessary to the average viewer.

The film begins two years after the disaster at Westworld, with the newly improved theme park Delos ready to open its doors again to the rich and influential public. Peter Fonda however smells a rat, and following a tip-off that all is not well he takes a holiday there himself, with his ex-girlfriend and fellow journalist in tow. Of course it would be a short and uneventful film if he turned out to be wrong, so he doesn't. He's right. In fact, things there are worse than he thought, but I won't give it away here. Suffice it to say that it's not only the robot technology that has improved at Delos.

Futureworld plays on the question that audiences raised following the release of Westworld - can you have sex with these robots? The answer is yes, and whilst we're not shown any (this is a family film after all) both the robots and some of the guests discuss it openly. One even quips "Once you've had sex with a robot, you'll never go back!" If Futureworld was a real place, the implications would be scary indeed.

This film seems to have attracted a lot of negative reviews which surprises me, as I felt it was a well paced science fiction thriller. It was produced by American International Pictures, with Samuel Z. Arkoff at the helm, and as such it is a very slick looking film on a very low budget. It never looks cheap, despite some of the costumes looking a little too theatrical. And why shouldn't they? After all, it's a holiday camp, not a re-enactment society.

I would recommend Futureworld to anyone who is a fan of Westworld, or of seventies science fiction in general. I would imagine if you're reading this you probably fit into the latter category!

An inferior sequel to ¨Michael Chricton's Westworld¨ sci-fi starred by Richard Benjamin and James Brolin , here two reporters (Peter Fonda and Blythe Danner) enter to the new ¨Futureworld¨ theme park (like a futuristic Disneyland) for adult vacation , a pleasure palace resort called ¨Delos¨ which offers the opportunity to live in several fantasy worlds . It's run by powerful people (Arthur Hill and John P.Ryan) and serviced by lifelike robots that are turning against their creators and planning to take over the world .

The film gets stimulating in parts , action , chilling twists , thriller , suspense and results to be quite entertaining . It's made big scale and lavish budget but in a serial style of the thirties or forties . Climatic pursuit throughout the corridors of Delos is chillingly mounted and the starring is suddenly confronted samurais and robots , including footage shot at a spacial plant where is displayed dazzling and impressive scenarios . Peter Fonda is perfect as an intelligent and dashing journalist who does jokes with his partner Blythe Danner . Special cameo by Yul Brynner in his final film , he is frightening as the cold android gunfighter who inexorably pursues to Blythe Danner although in dreams but he was killed in the previous film . Director Richard T. Heffron has made an entirely believable scenario which creates the whole images seem admirably exciting , being first live-action movie to use computer-generated 3D imagery . A television series followed in 1980 titled ¨Beyond Westworld¨. Rating : 6 . Acceptable and passable .

Sci-fi thriller set in a park filled with robots.

The problem this movie faces is that Westworld (1973) was just so good and, a bit like Planet Of The Apes (1968), the story begins and ends in one film. Making a sequel to this sort of material is a struggle. Perhaps they should have stopped after one movie?

The other reviewers have pointed out what is wrong with Future World so I will point out what is right with it. There is an oddly touching goodbye scene between a less important park worker and his defective faceless robot pal. This scene and a few other moments make Future World worth watching.

Let's not forget, this was produced in 1976. Elaborate sets and respectable special effects! I urge anyone to take another look. Some of the earliest 3D computer generated renderings I've seen in film. Story wasn't bad and neither was the acting. Decent action and I appreciated the musical scoring as well. Forgotten gem from my humble perspective.

As "Futureworld" opens, the Delos Corporation is determined to make up for all of the bad publicity they received when the robots of their Westworld environment malfunctioned. They invite several dignitaries, as well as reporters Chuck (Peter Fonda) and Tracy (Blythe Danner), convinced that they've eliminated the bugs in their program. Well, Chuck is suspicious from the start, even more so when he makes contact with a former Delos employee who wanted to spill some vital information. So when he arrives at Delos's vacation resort, he does a lot of snooping around before finding out that there's a nefarious plan being hatched by resort employees. As one can see from this synopsis, this sequel is more in the conspiracy thriller vein than the action movie vein. The summary in the Leonard Maltin paperback is quite accurate when it says "short on action, but intelligently done". It's an interesting plot, to be sure, not developing in the way one might expect it to. The pacing is deliberate, and things never really build to a fever pitch, which could disappoint those viewers hoping for a more exciting experience. It also reduces the memorable character of the robot Gunslinger (Yul Brynner briefly reprises the role) to an afterthought; it's truly disappointing to see it reduced to starring in a dream sequence. Still, this is pretty entertaining stuff that benefits from very good performances. Fonda and Danner are both appealing as always, generating some good chemistry. (One amusing touch is having Chuck always address Tracy as "Socks"!) The excellent supporting cast includes Arthur Hill as Delos employee Duffy, John P. Ryan as stiff and humourless scientist Dr. Schneider, Jim Antonio as upbeat guest Ron Thurlow, and the highly engaging Stuart Margolin as blue collar worker Harry, with bit parts played by the likes of Robert Cornthwaite, Darrell Larson, John Fujioka, and 'Password' host Allen Ludden. The film also has a good look going for it thanks to art director Trevor Williams and cinematographers Gene Polito and Howard Schwartz; the rousing music is courtesy of Fred Karlin. All in all, "Futureworld" isn't going to appeal to people who love a fast pace and major set pieces, but those looking for a more low key sci-fi flick just might want to give it a look. Seven out of 10.

The sequel to Westworld, 1973's high-concept / low-budget android disaster movie, Futureworld is thematically similar, but less ambitiously entertaining. It still features a crew of convincing mechanical doppelgängers who march around a handful of themed amusement parks, mindlessly carrying out a variety of functions for delighted visitors, but their movements are less proactive. These bots act more like a servant class than the walking, talking theatrical props they played in the first film. They'll serve your drinks, maintain the park's infrastructure, even screw you if they happen to be the right model, but lack the implicit menace of their forebearers, and that makes them less essential.

This time around, the big trouble involves the capture and synthetic cloning of various world leaders, to advance a vague, corporate-friendly political agenda. Not quite as viscerally entertaining as maniac machines with a spontaneous thirst for human blood. Our male / female leads, a dull-as-doorknob pair of chummy reporters in the midst of a casual fling, basically trip over the bigwigs' evil scheme in-between trips to the bar and the dirty dream machine. The latter provides our only non-flashback glimpse of cowboy Yul Brynner, the headline star (misleadingly promoted as a major player) reduced to a pointless role in a weird, three-minute-long montage.

Dreary, pointless and overlong, the whole mess often feels like it's stuck in a holding pattern while more interesting developments find their positions. Imagine my surprise when those never arrived. At least the parting shot is abruptly hilarious.

Series note: As Futureworld is a "later chapter" to the story begun in Michael Crichton's Westworld, it is imperative that you watch Westworld before this film.

Set a number of years after the events of Westworld (1973), Futureworld concerns two competitive reporters, Chuck Browning (Peter Fonda) and Tracy Ballard (Blythe Danner), who have been invited to cover the reopening of Delos, the "virtual reality" amusement park that went haywire in Westworld. Browning broke the story about the previous mishap, and he's particularly skeptical about the revamped park. Of course, being a sci-fi/thriller film, much of his skepticism is justified.

Director Richard T. Heffron did a lot of work for television both before and after he directed Futureworld, so it is not surprising that the film often has more of a made-for-television "atmosphere" than its predecessor. Delos has been revamped so that there are new lands--including Spa World (similar to today's actual "destination spas") and of course, Future World, where guests take a simulated rocket flight to a simulated space station where they engage in recreational activities such as simulated space walks and non-simulated hobnobbing at the bar. Westworld has become a ghost town (and it seemed to me that this dilapidated state should have been capitalized on as "Ghost World"--that's where I would have chosen to spend my high-priced vacation--but Heffron and his scripters didn't bother). The production design is a bit slicker than it was in Westworld, even if the locations aren't as pleasant (there is no desert--I'm a big fan of deserts). It also looks a bit higher budget, but the impact isn't greater because of the made-for-television feel.

Still, Heffron often transcends that limitation, and there are occasional sequences, such as Ballard's dream, which Browning and a handful of technicians vicariously enjoy (it partially involves a nudity-free sex fantasy) from a remote monitor, that are unusual in their surrealism. Much of the dream is as a silent film, and it features a nice cameo from Yul Brynner, who was the chief villain in Westworld. There are also a number of impressive "industrial" sets--full of piping, cables, large machinery and such, in which Heffron sets a number of exciting action sequences, one remarkably prescient of the climax chase in Total Recall (1990).

Because of the film's intimate connection with Westworld, it's helpful to make a number of comparisons between the two that help explain how Futureworld holds its own (almost, I only rated it a point lower) to its infamous brother.

Both films are largely satirical (in a more formal, less humor-oriented sense of that term), a caricature of many different facets of society, from amusement/recreation to folly, and in the case of Futureworld, more ominous machinations. Delos is a satire of Disney World and similar theme parks, where we can spend leisure time playing roles, fantasizing that we're someone else, in some other time.

Whereas Westworld presented its satire of Disney-like escapism on a more surface level, Futureworld is concerned with the reality under the public façade. Westworld presented a few moments of the behind the scenes reality--technicians attending to computers, maintaining robots, fretting about anomalies--but the bulk of Futureworld consists of Browning and Ballard on a figurative journey to the bowels of Hades, where they'll eventually attempt to "unmask" the devil and destroy his perpetration of hedonistic illusion.

As it should sound, Futureworld is much more sinister in some ways. Not that Westworld wasn't wonderfully disturbing, but the dilemma in that film arose through relative innocence, with man attempting to better himself and his environment, only discovering too late that his manipulations were backfiring. In Futureworld, the innocence is gone. The Frankenstein-like, God-emulating manipulation of the world has been realized, and through conceit, the powers that be behind Delos figure they can improve not only upon nature, but the artificial control of nature that failed in Westworld, especially utilizing the services of behind the scenes technicians who are now almost exclusively robots.

The villainous motivation behind of all this, which extends far beyond Delos, has an attractive grayness. The aim is still to improve the world, but at a cost of human life. But is it? Supposedly, human life is being replaced at the same rate, the replacements ostensibly being identical biologically, except that they have a different set of beliefs. Although the exact mechanism of all of this is a bit vague (as it needs to be--any attempt at a scientific explanation would probably be less plausible then just saying " . . . and then a miracle occurs"), the plot points fueled by the idea broach a number of very interesting philosophical questions.

If you haven't seen the film yet, some of what I'm saying will seem itself a bit vague, but I'm purposefully presenting it that way to avoid "giving the film away", while still enabling comments on it. Rest assured that the plot is fairly transparent and easy to follow --this is a good script, and Heffron did a fine job directing it so that it brings up serious issues at the same time it provides more than a fair amount of suspense and touches of humor.

A lot of the film succeeds because of good performances from Fonda, Danner and a few others. Fonda and Danner have to effectively play a couple different roles, sometimes making a clear distinction, sometimes purposefully blurring the same, which they accomplish with skill. They also have to undergo a couple somewhat bizarre transformations that aren't explained very well, such as one from rivals to lovers, but somehow they manage to make even that convincing.

This is a fine sequel to Westworld. It isn't essential viewing, but Westworld certainly is, and if you've experienced that film, you may as well see what happens next.

Yes, most sequels are obvious cash grabs. Most of them are still entertaining, at least in how bad they are. This one fails on a fundamental level by just being a crashing bore. Oh well. At least Blythe Danner was easy on the eyes. Not worth the time investment.

Years after the failure of Westworld, the same company have regrouped and are planning to open the same theme park again but improved and totally safe. Chuck Browning, the journalist who originally broke the Westworld story, is approached by a mysterious man who has information on this new park – but he is killed before he can tell his story. Looking for dirt under the surface, Browning and colleague Ballard join the elite group selected for the opening few days at the park and begin to investigate a world where nothing is what it seems – nothing.

Having enjoyed the Jurassic Park rehearsal that was Westworld, I tuned in to this sequel hoping for, at very least, more of same stuff with a clever new slant on it. In defence of the film it does try to do something with the plot and widens it out into a bigger, potentially better conspiracy story but for some reason it fails to really engage. The first half of the film drags like a chain smoker and it seems happy to just bang out sequences that we are supposed to go 'wow' at simply because they involve special effects or robots. This is a terrible first hour because the special effects at best are superimposed men painted red and green to look like holographic chess pieces and, at worst a laughable moment where people sky down the red dust on Mars – on rather, they ski down a normal mountain but the whole scene is shot through a red filter! That is not a special effect and even in 1976 I doubt that these 'effects' were enough to stop audiences from getting bored in the first half of the movie.

The second half is a marked improvement but, by then, a lot of damage had been done and a flurry of action and conspiracy was not quite enough to make it a good film. It does have some good scenes but, ironically enough, these feature between the duplicated characters rather than being the effect shots that the producers were clearly banking on being the business side of the film. However, the extent of the threat is never translated to the film and the ending is terrible – far too muted to have even the faintest relation to the plot we were being sold just a few minutes before. The film only once or twice has even vague tension and certainly nowhere near the degree that the plot demanded.

The cast are also hamstrung by the material. Fonda looks bemused the whole time and it looks likely that nobody told him what was happening in the film – he certainly doesn't look like a man who has just uncovered an evil conspiracy! Danner is also as shapeless and dipsy and she didn't make me care one bit about her. The support cast try hard to look 'evil' and 'conspiratorial' but really they are not given the tools to do the job and just end up scowling! A cameo from Yul Brynner just seems to be totally pointless and resulting in his entire scene just being stupid.

Overall this is a very poor sequel. It tries to repeat the formula from the first film while opening it out into its own plot but it fails in a big way.

The first hour is empty, unspectacular that was meant to be spectacle but wasn't and a second half that has a potentially good plot which is just wasted by a delivery that is so lacking in excitement and tension that you'd think there was no conspiracy or danger whatsoever! Stick to the original.

Usually when a sequel is made without the inclusion of the creator of the original, is where things go downhill. Michael Crichton's film debut with Westworld (1973) was a unique sci-fi / horror film that made its viewers think about what if technology goes awry. Strangely enough, a sequel was made to that, but Crichton wasn't even involved. He wasn't even credited for any of the characters used in his original film! However for this followup, things seemed to stay intact, which is surprising. The more interesting thing about this, is how the story played out here compared to the other. The problem is, it's kind of expected, especially after seeing the trailer to this. But does that make it bad? Well,...it depends on what makes the bigger point.

Worked on by a totally different crew, the story continues from the events of Westworld (1973) as the new and improved Delos. This time Delos is being claimed as "Fail Safe" from its new head of the company Duffy (Arthur Hill). But someone is not convinced and that person is Chuck Browning (Peter Fonda) a news reporter who covered the disastrous nightmare that Delos had from the original film. Joining him is Tracy Ballard (Blythe Danner), another reporter who was looking to take point on the story Browning was given. Together they are invited by Duffy to tour the new Delos system and see all that has been changed. While being there and with Browning's suspicions, they begin digging deeper to find if the company is doing something they shouldn't.

Written by Mayo Simon and George Schenck who had worked on separate projects before this actually manage to maintain fairly good continuity with the original Westworld (1973). While Peter Fonda's character was not in the first film, he is properly introduced and given a history as to how he's connected to the past plot. Yet there are two aspects of the film that don't make a whole lot of sense. The first one being the return of the infamous gunslinger played by Yul Brynner. The reason why he appears is not clear as to why and he has no dialog, which comes off feeling more like a gimmick. The other error in writing belongs to the antagonist of the plot. It's an interesting direction to take, but the motivation doesn't exactly explain itself in detail.

It's strange how the thing that attracted people to Delos were the worlds they could visit. Wasn't it just amazing alone they could build robots? It seems like director Richard T. Heffron who mainly worked on made for TV movies didn't have a strong vision on the story's direction. There's also a subplot about the robots maybe having the possibility to develop feelings but it doesn't go beyond speculation. The example used in this story is about Harry (Stuart Margolin), a veteran worker from the original Delos who befriends an out of service robot named Clark (James M. Connor). The acting in general is acceptable. All the cast members who participate are as believable as they can be. Action is one of the things that didn't turn out okay,...it's just very lame. Nothing out of the ordinary.

As for visuals, the set design looked great. Throughout the film, it is a definite that all the props and sets used were physically there. And for some of them, credit is due as to how creative some of the futuristic things are, like boxing and chess. They even revisit the old abandoned Westworld set of Delos, which is pretty eerie. Cinematography was handled by returning cameraman Gene Polito and also Howard Schwartz. Both do a decent job keeping the look of the film similar to that of Westworld (1973). Then there's the music from returning composer Fred Karlin. What made Karlin's music memorable from the original was his use of prepared piano. That's not here but he does rely on deep pulsing synthesizers and has a main theme for the sequel which is nice. It's a fair match.

This sequel misses the mark when it comes to making the antagonist one that makes sense. The use of Yul Brynner is wasted and the action is rather dull compared to the first. However, the actors still perform well, the set design is still appreciated along good continuity and appropriate music.

"Westworld" was a very good adventure film...and I was very impressed when I re-watched it recently. However, I never got around to watching its sequel until now...and it's very good but also very different in tone from the original. Also, oddly, the sequel was released by American International and the original was from MGM.

When this story begins, you learn that after the Westworld disaster, instead of closing down the park for good, it was re-opened---and now it's much larger and with many new lands. However, when reporter Chuck Browning (Peter Fonda) talks to an insider about the park, he's told there is a big story....and the insider will tell Browning when they meet. Naturally, this means that by the time they meet, someone has attacked the whistleblower....and he dies in Browning's arms. Now Browning is determined to get to Delos and investigate...and he and his partner (Blythe Danner) enjoy Futureworld and its space theme. But it's not all fun and games....and soon Chuck's prying result in their learning the evil truth about the Delos Corporation.

So is it any good? Yes...just very different...which is a good thing. The story is creative, the acting quite nice and I enjoyed it. My only complaints are minor--such as some very broad stereotypes on the plane ride to Delos. It's embarrassing seeing a Japanese businessman holding a katana (WHO brings a Samurai-style sword with them when they travel) and his partner constantly snapping photos. And, a bit of the dialog is a cheesy. Still, overall an enjoyable and worthy follow-up film.

By the way, while you might not think it, the CGI in the film was pretty amazing for 1976.

Coming a couple years after its predecessor "Westworld", the rebooted sequel "Futureworld" is a grade up with a better budget and larger scale production that's just as inventive, if not as clunky as the original. Still I prefer the first a film a little more, as it seemed a bit more enjoyable in its escapism and idea but this one remains a diverting fantasy. The difference here is that the concept is virtually the same, but the angle focuses basically on the things going on behind the scenes at the Delos Corporation, than that of the experiences of their themed vacations. Newspaper reporter Chuck Browning and TV presenter Tracy Ballard, along with some other important guests are invited by the Delos' corporation to attend their re-opening of their theme parks, which is larger and better run to hopefully rid the air of the disaster that occurred years ago at Westworld. However Chuck questions what's really going on and decides to nose around digging up anything that doesn't seem quite right.

Quite a solid, if mechanical follow up, which has a committed cast (Peter Fonda, Blyth Danner, Arthur Hill, Stuart Margolin and a glassy John Ryan in a villain role) and very well executed special effects and implemented set-designs. The story isn't as gimmicky and less than casual, by intertwining between mystery, sci-fi and thriller elements with a strong satirical, if paranoid vibe building upon its suspenseful groundwork. Surprisingly it holds a dark edge, as there's more lurking underneath, but the script can take time out for some agreeable wit. Too bad I think that the ending is quite unfulfilled. When you see Yul Brynner's name tagged to the project, you might just be disappointed… as the gunslinger appears in one sequence involving quite an odd dream inclusion which in the end is rather pointless, but a neat credit for the original film. Richard T. Heffron's direction is tidy with his cruise-like pacing and interesting visuals to match. While Fred Karlin's grandiose music score simply soars.

Overlong, unimaginative, boring sequel to Westworld has reporters Peter Fonda and Blythe Danner visiting the re-opened Delos amusement park to see if the new management has gotten all the murder out of its androids. Turns out they haven't. A sequel that didn't need to be made with an embarrassing role for Blythe Danner. Despite this being made in the 1970s, feminist revolution and all that, she spends the entirety of the movie imitating Noel Neill. Only there's no Superman to save her, just 'king of the wimps' Peter Fonda. She also has a bizarre sex dream about Yul Brynner. Because why not, I guess? That's his sole contribution to this movie, by the way. So if you're a fan of Westworld, don't be fooled into trying this one out thinking at least it's got Brynner going for it. Because he's in it for maybe three minutes.

Years after the Westworld disaster, the folks who brought you Westworld haver reformed, reinvested, and now bring you Futureworld.

It sounds more corny than it is. Actually, this is a deserving sequel, with some great elements, and an intriguing story. While some of the original charm is lacking, they more than make up for it with an emboldened story line, and better effects. Not GREAT effects, but better effects.

When the folks who are remaking the classic Westworld get ready for a sequel, I do hope they look to this one to get a few pointers on what to do. This features some good performances, a few wonderful elements, and a solid grasp of robotics (for its time).

I can't wait to see what the remakes can do!

This rates an 8.4/10 (just like the original) from...

the Fiend :.

Two Journalists learn of strange goings on at Futureworld, they go undercover to explore, and discover that Delos is once again having problems.

I have to be honest, I only recently watched Westworld for the first time, and had no idea that this follow up existed, I'm glad I got to see it.

I don't think it's a patch on Westworld, but then that really did take me by surprise, the sheer originality and horror element of it were excellent. Futureworld doesn't quite have the same intensity or creative prowess, but it's still a pretty good watch.

I liked the story itself, it worked well, with the robots put to great use, with a few interesting twists thrown in for food measure. The sets look generally very good, as do some of the effects.

Some nice touches of humour, I liked the boxers, loved Clarke and absolutely loved the chess game.

If you're like me, you're here for the sci fi, but primarily for the presence of Yul Brynner, it's just a shame you have to wait almost an hour for him to make an appearance. I was sad to learn that this was his final film.

Better than expected, I think this film will definitely be a grower.

7/10.

Take all of the bad cinematography of Made for TV movies, add some 1970s corporate paranoia, throw in some unrelated techno babble,add an evil scientist and cram in as many bad sound effects from Star Trek, Willy Wonka, Lost in Space and every bad scifi movie from the 1960s and viola, you have Futureworld.

Im not even mentioning the silly special effects because Im sure they were pretty whiz-bang back in 1976. But the truth is you can have great Scifi without dating yourself with special effects. 1951's The Day The Earth Stood Still is a perfect example.

Horribly predictable. Tortuously slow, has almost no relation to Westworld other than they both take place in the future and have pleasure robots.

I love a bad movie, but this goes beyond bad.

Some of the dialog is so bad you will laugh out loud.

The Evil Corporate Executive with a gun discovers Peter Fonda on the phone. Evil Corporate Executive: "Put the phone down". Peter Fonda to Evil Corporate Executive: "You're a part of it?" Evil Corporate Executive: (LAUGHING) "Yes, of course I am!"

Someone on IMDb gave this movie a glowing review so I watched it. Ugh.

Logan's Run, made at the same time, has many flaws and has not aged very well, but it is still much better than this flick.