User reviews

A Neolithic revenge story seeks to explain the mysterious man found frozen in the Alps. Written and directed by Felix Randau, and originally release in Germany in 2017 as Der Mann aus dem Eis, Iceman purports to tell the story of a Copper Age man preserved in the frozen Alps for 5,000 years. Beautiful landscapes and harrowing authenticity help balance what might otherwise be a one-dimensional revenge plot.

Kelab (Jürgen Vogel), Kisis (Susanne Wuest), and their clan are living in the Ötztal Alps around 3000 BC, where Kelab protects a fetish called Tineka. The clan is blessed with the birth of a child, but grieved by the loss of its mother. When Kelab is off hunting in the woods, a trio of raiders attack his village, slaughter its inhabitants, and steal their idol. Filled with a desire for revenge, Kelab rescues the newborn and pursues the raiders.

Along the way, Kelab interacts with other Neolithic people, including an old man, Ditob (Franco Nero), and his daughter Mitar (Violetta Schurawlow), in their sparsely populated valley. Can Kelab survive the harsh elements to exact revenge and take back his sacred Tineka?

Iceman was inspired by Ötzi the Iceman. In 1991, Alpine hikers discovered a mummified body partially frozen in ice. Shockingly, scientists dated its age to somewhere between 3400 and 3100 BC. The adult male was so well preserved that scientists were able to determine precisely what he ate in the days before he died. Most intriguingly, they discovered his cause of death was an arrow impaled in his back, compounded by other injuries.

It's impossible to say for certain who this man was and the larger circumstances leading to his death, but evidence gathered from his corpse informs Iceman in a credible and convincing way. Scientists identified blood from at least four other people on his weapons and clothing, so we know he was involved in a violent struggle. The film is so authentic its characters even speak an early version of Rhaetic, a language related to Etruscan and spoken by pre-Indo Europeans living in that region.

Like Alpha (2018), Iceman has great cinematography, was shot in beautiful and sweeping landscapes, and tries to authentically re-create prehistoric culture. Unlike Alpha, however, Iceman has a realistic story. When one man falls from a sheer cliff, he breaks his back instead of being conveniently saved by ridiculously improbable circumstances.

But for all its good qualities, Iceman left something to be desired. The 1981 French film Quest for Fire, in which the the dialog is also spoken in a prehistoric language, benefited from rich interactions between the characters. In contrast, Iceman was oddly solipsistic. Interactions between characters were kept at a bare minimum. I expected much more, particularly when it came to Kelab and his encounters with other humans. I'm not an anthropologist, but I'm pretty sure we were able to communicate and express emotions other than anger back then.

Iceman was generally praised by critics, but left audiences shrugging their shoulders. It currently has an audience favorability rating of 54% on RottenTomatoes. I probably would've had the same reaction if I didn't love historically authentic films. For me, seeing this primitive man's world come to life more than made up for Iceman's deficiencies.

...interesting for the reasonable version of Otzi life, for cinematography and for the status of experiment, for the tension and desire to recreate a lost world. I t is easy to critic this movie but, in my case, preserving the fascination about the discover of the Otzi mummy, the film represents a decent answer to a history who could only be imagined. So, easy to propose comparations or discover mistakes. But the essence remains interesting and the effort is not minor for recreate an entire fascinating universe. So, a not bad revenge story.

Not a bad movie, "Der Mann aus dem Eis" gets weighed down by its "plot" which concentrates on Ötzi's violent death and the days before, creating a murder and revenge story with lots of violence but no levity at all.

The movie gets plus points for trying to get its history right; I liked how it highlights the fact that even then, in the late stone- / early bronze age, humankind was already far removed from the nature it still depended upon. A good idea in this respect were some rituals, plus of course the story's MacGuffin, an obsidian shard used for rituals which is kept in a pretty wooden box.

On the minus side, the amount of violence was maybe historically accurate but if you already go the length of portraying a stone age society halfway correctly (including made-up speech), you might as well include the nicer aspects of human life. A few tender looks and embraces during the first five minutes is all we get.

From the technical POV, the production is OK, out of their limited budget they got everything which could be expected and then some - the sets were fine, the costumes great, casting and acting good (nice lengthy cameo by Franco Nero) and of course the spectacular outdoor locations are an asset. Yet in many instances the camera-work stays rather pedestrian, so while the story shares some genes with "The Revenant", the photography is of lower quality (no big deal, Lubezki is a genius and no mistake). There's only two scenes where the pictures really take flight - one chase along a ridge filmed with a drone or cable-camera against spectacular backdrops, really vertigo-inducing that one - and one lengthy sequence where the hero is trapped in a crevasse below the glacier. Both scenes only emphasize that there was a better movie somewhere but it got buried under a too-simple and violent plot.

Recommended all the same, especially for the realistic portrayal of those early societies.

It's not that "Iceman" is a great film - not in the caliber of, say, 'Amadeus' or 'The Godfather' - but it does have its own story to tell, and in a way you won't see that much. At the beginning of the film, there's this disclaimer: "The characters in the following film speak an early version of the Rhaetic language. Translation is not required to comprehend the story." And it's true. 'Iceman' is basically a revenge film akin to almost every Chinese martial arts (Wuxia) movie or even Lone Wolf & Cub. Apart from the scarcity of language, the cinematography of the eastern Alps is breathtaking. You can almost call 'Iceman' neolithic Nordic noir for the blues on display as well as the general moodiness and bleak surroundings. Interesting in this day and age to release a near-silent film, but I think this one works.

In 1991, a frozen dead man is found in the Alps. He's been there for 5300 years. "This is his story." Kelab returns from hunting to find his settlement burnt down and his family massacred. A three man war party had come to steal a relic.

It's a little slow to start. It's trying to be authentic which includes limited dialogue and everybody looking like the same caveman. The sets and the costumes seem very authentic. Rather quickly, this gets brutally violent and it's a revenge plot. It becomes a harsh western and that's quite compelling. This can be slow at times especially with the quiet. Nevertheless, this is a simple and effective tale of a brutal age.

Loved the simplicity of this tale, brutal & stunningly beautiful from the get-go! Stunning cinematography & excellent camera work. I won't say anymore because I believe going in on this one blind, is absolutely the way to go!

9/10 - Solid ancient & epic tale of revenge.

When I found this movie I was very curious what kind of story they put forward. Knowing that there is not spoked in a modern language or translated made it even more appealing. However, it turned out to be disappointing.

For the good part, I have to say that I enjoyed how they tried to show how people used to live five millenniums ago. I don't know if it was really like that or not, but I appreciated the attempt. You don't see often that kind of undertaking.

However, the story that unfolded was nothing but modern day Hollywood blockbusters set in another era. Put Tom Cruise in the main role and you have everything. Was that all they could come up with? The hero leaves home and in his absence his entire family gets killed so he sets on a journey of revenge. Liam Neeson could not be more convincing. Of course, we all know what happened to Otzi, although you have to watch the movie to see what led to that.

It's an overall 6 stars from me.

This film is important. It has a great perspective and shows you how far we have really come. I great story of evil and good and their coexistence. It actually lowered my anxiety in a weird way. The sound is just fantastic in this film. As well as cinematography and direction and performance. Nothing really bad to say about, its effective and is bare bones story telling. Not pretentiously overlong. I loved it.

A history of our ancestor. Love for the Iceman. Salute to his vengeance.

A reasonable film, which certainly beat a previous film of a similar subject that I watched recently. The scenery in this was spectacular, and for that alone, it is worth a watch. The costumes were believable as was the sets, they were so good I could almost smell them (stinky!) Slightly slow start, but that seemed to take the watcher into the age, there was little in the way of dialogue, unless you understand an ancient language. Soon though the gory bit began, and gory indeed it was.

Shortly later the film, in my mind became a little tedious, along with a bit of guess work due to the lack of dialogue. But picked up again in time for an ending to fit in with the real life find of an ancient man in the mountains. Most likely none of this was his real story, but it all fitted, and gave an insight into living in those days, which would have been a pretty grim if short life.

An interesting concept, with not a word of understandable dialogue. Yet it still manages to portray an engaging story. I really liked the filming locations and the costumes. Although it had a small cast, you can tell that they used the budget efficiently. At times it was hard to keep track of the various characters because they are all dressed so similarly. The final climax is also a little anti climactic. It is still a fun movie that transports you a bygone world. Although a minor nitpick, I was hoping the relic would play a bigger role and it was shown how they interacted with it regularly..

Would have been a 9 if it was only 40 minutes long and it needs more of a human inter-connection .

This terrific piece of work coul be compared with Jean Jacques Annaud's LA GUERRE DU FEU, because of the prehistoric period during which this movie takes place. And the revenge scheme could of course be used in any movie, a family man seeking revenge after the killing of his wife and clan, companions. It is violent, gritty, tense, and the settings on locations are outstanding. No many dialogues, as you can guess. You can also think about Albert Hughes' ALPHA or Nicolas Winding Refn's VALHALLA RISING . But I prefer this one. I am not sure the Hollywood industry would have made such a film; technically they could have, but it's not gross provider, not destined to wide audiences. The long take in the first part is jaw dropping, announcing the rest of the film. I am still under shock, positive shock, by this feature from Northern Europe. A real, true masterpiece. Mel Gibson could have made it, however, with or without Hollywood, remember his APOCALYPTO; not the same period or settings but the topic very close. THE REVENANT spirit is also not so far from this one.

I'll just admit it right off the bat, I had my reservations about seeing this prehistorical picture from the get go. For starters, it takes place during the post-ice age world of Neolithic earth, the "New Stone Age" period which was at a point in time when most of the late-surviving Pleistocene megafauna had already become extinct and early mankind evolved to a far more familiar state of anatomical modernity in terms of physical appearance and cultural behaviours (a lot less animal-like with regard to instinctively primal characteristics then how their older cave-people ancestors were acting). As someone who is just enamoured with primitive Palaeolithic prehistory, I had an inkling I wasn't exactly going to be all that riveted about watching this film. Despite the prospect of me not enjoying it all that much, I ended up giving it a watch and these here are just my own personal thoughts.

Evoking the pure visceral nature of a survival movie such as this doesn't come easy and is basically a huge feat in and of itself to pull off, one which I feel was conveyed quite adequately in this film (there's no denying). The authentic true-to-life-life costumes, natural surroundings of the rural wilderness setting, and advanced hunter-gatherer village lifestyle with domesticated livestock is ever present and nice to see done some justice to in a project that isn't a historical documentary for once. The pretty standard structure of this speculative story is obviously one of ambiguous guesswork, with dramatising a rage-engulfed Otzi who is essentially spurred into going on a "revenge mission" (of sorts) in order to avenge his savagely slain loved ones after they were all barbarically assaulted by a brutal band of malevolent marauders from another far-off settlement (hypothetically, him seeking out his own personal form of vengeance in accordance with his ancient people's ways and customary beliefs). The performances were solid all-round, with the actors really bringing out that certain sense of true grittiness in hopelessly bleak and extremely grim situations.

When concerning its level of accuracy, the film totally knocks it out of the park; featuring beastly portrayals of just how evil and vile the very nature of the Homo sapiens species could be in some rather disturbingly shocking scenes (carrying out heinous doings with apparently little to no remorse). So I didn't have any issue with potential inaccuracies or anything like that, it's just that it seemed like the movie was going to be average judging by the fairly mediocre plot (and I was kind of right). I know they say it's all about the execution of how these things are done when put into practice, which is all well and good for some but to me, this felt so generic (regardless of how it was executed). Sorry to say but when it comes down to raw movies of this ilk which additionally have prehistoric beasts featured in them, Quest for Fire (1981) and even the superior director's cut of Alpha (2018) are undoubtedly the more compelling (plus entertaining) prehistorical films to me, personally; the former of which I'm well-aware was always envisioned to be a bit more along the lines of a fantastical epic. But hey, at least it's closer in spirit to those types of flicks (even if it does lack some much-needed levity). I'd rather take something similar to Iceman (2017) any day over a period piece about the Roman Empire, Imperial China, or the Old West because I ain't no history buff (I'm a PRE-history buff).

Can't even say I'm all that disappointed because I never had high expectations for this film from the very beginning, to be completely honest. Also, another element of this movie's unoriginality comes in the form of its main story setup; "pillaging hunters mercilessly killing innocent members of an unrelated clan during a premeditated raid in their tribe's territory" is a near-on identical premise as that initially seen in the first act of Ao: The Last Hunter (2010) - I kid you not! And so with all that, I see this as a "one-time thing", where I'm glad I've seen it at least once but don't really have any inclination to rewatch it all over again. It was certainly competently made and all, sure, but I just can't see myself actually wanting to go back and revisit it due to the minor boredom I experienced halfway through. But just because I personally didn't gel all that much with its Bronze Age vibe, that doesn't mean the film won't get you invested in it (I encourage you to see the movie for yourself and to make your own judgment on it).

The intro states that the film won't provide subtitles and that they're not needed to understand the film. Perhaps, but they are needed for me to give this film more than 6 stars. This touch of arrogance by the filmmakers cost them 2 stars ...

I watched this film with awe and fascination, as I was taken back in time some 5000 or more years to a landscape so beautiful yet punishing that once over, was the only world that our ancestors knew as the locus of their day to day existences.

Men and women with a belief that nature was sufficient to sustain them in every way, and yet still, the presence of evil that we still encounter now in our lives.

These are my favourite types of film (ancient historical dramas) and show true devotion to the craft of writing - to be able to draw us into a universe where people much the same as us lived lives we can barely remember in our modern world, except for the evil and emotion that human beings are capable of.

I get the language choice, the lack of much dialogue. Pre-historic eras may very well have had minimalist and simplistic communication languages, so the story being told is done as is presumed about the language, through action, through some grunts, and through the reading of each character. It works because you are able to follow. I always thought it possible that such eras could just as easily have advancements in their usage of resources promoting their survivability. We tend to think of past generations as lacking compared to our own, but when we dive into history, we see things to marvel at in the capability of human ingenuity. I say this with the argument that communal structures, tools/weapons, and skins for clothing/blankets, isn't hard to believe for people of history who have to compete with the elements, with wildlife, and with their fellow Man. Modern fashions seem to play a major role in our capacity to see past practicalities as outdated, archaic, and arcane, with a blanket treatment against complicated histories. You may ask what's the point of this film, to which I can't give you a black-and-white answer on, outside of the opening liners, but it takes creative license fully on for the oldest mummified corpse, giving us a violent tale of vengeance in the process. It's a potent point for me.

The film captures some amazingly beautiful landscapes. Visually the film looks quite tremendous. It's suppose to be the story of a Neolithic man whose body was more recently discovered in the Ötztal Alps. As far as the story goes, there really isn't much of one here at all. Even though there is no dialogue a modern person can understand, some parts are still so typical that they are sadly overly predictable. Other parts are just silly and don't seem well thought out. Story wise, this is so obviously a work of modern fiction. That's the main problem here. While the film looks good visually as I said, the people behind the film just don't seem to be very good storytellers. It's standard, overly simple, and even somewhat illogical at times. There are certainly much better films about prehistoric people than this. In my view, this won't be worth most peoples time.

3.5/10.

The story tries successfully to merge the scientific facts about ötzi ( 5300 years old alps ice mummy) with an challenging story. I love the movie, maybe because i have the same paternal haplogroup as ötzi :)