Iceman

If you can set aside the scientific implausibilities (or impossibilities) that abound in this movie, you can appreciate it from a number of angles. I first saw it many years ago and just watched it again - and still found it touching and relevant. Timothy Hutton starred as Sheppard - part of a scientific team in the Arctic who discover something frozen in the Arctic ice, and eventually discover that it's a Neanderthal who was somehow trapped there perhaps 40000 years ago. Intending to thaw him out and cut him up and ship various parts of his body around the world for study, the team is shocked when the Iceman comes to life. Played superbly by John Lone, the Iceman is alone, afraid and bewildered by the strange surroundings in which he finds himself, and the team basically continues to see him as a science project for lack of a better way to describe it - a specimen to be studied. But Sheppard sees him as a man and tries to understand him, communicate with him and befriend him. The interaction between the two came across as authentic, and the bond between them was believable. The viewer bonds with the Iceman too - or, if you don't, there's something wrong with you. The viewer starts to see him as a person; starts to sympathize with his plight. This is definitely a movie that pulls you in successfully.

It's also a movie that - while dated in many ways - does have a strange relevance to today's world. We're not likely to ever find a frozen Neanderthal and bring him back to life. Even Otzi the Iceman (who was frozen in ice only 5000 years ago is most definitely dead and not coming back.) But there are scientists who think they can bring back extinct species like mammoths, and some speculation that eventually someone might try to bring back a Neanderthal (notwithstanding that most of us aside from Africans already have Neanderthal DNA in our bodies.) Watching this movie and thinking about that possibility - I started to wonder. Should we? Even if we could? What sort of life would we give to the poor creature? Would we treat it as a human, or would we treat it as a lab rat, subjecting it to never ending experiments and tests and studies? Would we be Sheppard - or would we be everybody else? I suspect I know the answer to that.

Maybe it's best to leave the Neanderthals where they are - buried deep in our own DNA. (7/10)

A group of scientists stumble upon a fully frozen Neanderthal, whose cells seem to have miraculous not been ravaged by the subzero temperatures and long term prison. It is these cells the scientists wish to harvest and study as a means of advancing cryogenics. Little do they know that their attempts revitalize the Neanderthal and in turn lead to an even bigger scientific, and personal, feat.

While it doesn't drastically stray from the 'fish out of water/unlikely friends' tropes, the usually comic Fred Schepsi actually pulls in a fairly decent sci-fi drama. Sure, some of the science here is a fairly sizeable stretch, but John Lone's outstanding and sympathetic performance as Charlie the Neanderthal easily carries to film. His simian movements, expressionistic grunting and the incredible make up utterly sell him in the role, and he completely vanishes into it. The rest of the cast include the likes of Timothy Bottoms, Lindsay Crouse, David Strathairn and Danny Glover as the various scientists, though Bottoms plays the main one who bonds with Charlie, and he does fine, being the typical 'nerd with a good heart' but Lone eclipses him.

The film also does a good job capturing the frigid and lonely landscapes of the Arctic region, with plenty of snow covered vistas, wide chasms and pastel blue skies, very much contrasting an ancient natural world with the tech of the science base. The score by Bruce Smeaton also captures a similar vibe, going for a very ethnic/tribal sound with plenty of woodwind, and comes off as both touching yet also complementary, and never too obnoxious or grand to upstage the story or the actual emotions. In fact, it actually reminded me a lot of Jerry Goldsmith's work.

Honestly, this is a pretty cut and dry affair; if you're looking for a moving little drama of clashing worlds with an incredible title performance, 'Iceman' is an easy recommend. However, suspension of disbelief may have to be pushed further to swallow its somewhat goofy premise and science.

If you want to know how to shoot a masterpiece, then watch this film. Not only is it well shot, but it's also has a lot of integrity for the material being shot.

As other reviews have mentioned this is a film about bringing a species of man from our past, into the present day world. How much animal is in us, as homo sapien sapiens, and how much humanity is in our distant cousins the Neanderthals. And if you watch this film, and watch the interests of each party, you will truly begin to wonder who has more humanity within themselves.

The film making style takes some liberties with presentation, and we get a sense that the editing glosses over some of the obvious clues that one of the main characters should pick up on in terms of his circumstances. But, if you can over look that, and accept the fact that the subject of the film is perhaps a bit dim witted in addition to being from a more primitive era in Earth's history, then you should be able to appreciate the "plausibility" of the film's premise.

There were arguable two great eras in film making. The 30s and 40s as one era, and the 80s, with spikes of greatness sprinkled in the 60s and 70s. And "Iceman" comes from that era in the 1980s when Hollywood was rediscovering itself after Lucas and Spielberg had reminded the dream factory of what films were supposed to be about. "Iceman" is a creation of that re-genesis, and in terms of a style and presentation of story, it truly shines.

If I had a complaint, and I'm not sure that I do, it's that I'm curious why the story necessitated a predominantly interior motif, as opposed to letting the story take place on location in a non-arctic environment. The film is rich as it is, but letting it take place elsewhere might have added a dimension to the film by allowing story possibilities. One wonders about these things.

The cast is perfect along with their performances, the location has a kind of stark magnificence (as a lot of sculptured ice and snow fields tend to have), and the lensing and lighting are both without flaw. My only regret is for the ending of the story itself. It is a tear-jerker.

The subject may not interest a lot of people, so buyer beware, but if you like excellent films, then do give Iceman a chance. At the time of this writing it is only currently available on regular 4:3 DVD format. Hopefully it'll see a bluray release someday.

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.

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.