Iceman (1984)

The Worst Film Ever

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

A team of Artic researchers discover a caveman (beautifully played with touching depth, grace, and humanity by John Lone) who has been frozen in a glacier for 40,000 years and manage to revive him. Anthropologist Stanley Shepherd (an excellent and engaging performance by Timothy Hutton) befriends the caveman so he can learn all about his past while Dr. Diane Brady (a superb portrayal by Lindsay Crouse) and her surgical group want to figure out precisely how the caveman managed to survive for so long frozen in the ice. Director Fred Schepisi and screenwriters Chip Poser and John Drimmer treat the fascinating premise with refreshing and commendable restraint, compassion, and intelligence: This film thankfully eschews cheap thrills and fancy special effects to instead place a welcome and provocative emphasis on heartfelt and thoughtful drama as it explores the caveman's impossible predicament and desire to finish a spiritual quest he started thousands of years ago. Moreover, the characters of the researchers are especially well drawn as smart and capable professionals saddled with a daunting and unusual situation that they have no formal training on how to properly handle. But it's Lone's exceptionally expressive and convincing work as Charlie the caveman that makes this picture so special and captivating; Lone effortlessly pulls off the amazing feat of portraying this primitive man as a deeply sympathetic figure and even gives the Neanderthal a winning sense of gentle humor, as evidenced in the marvelously warm scene in which Charlie grunts along to Shepherd's a capella rendition of Neil Young's "Heart of Gold." Most importantly, Charlie is presented as a pitiable human being rather than a savage brute, which in turn gives this movie extra poignancy and resonance. The across the board fine acting by the top-rate cast helps a whole lot, with especially stand-out supporting contributions from Josef Sommer, David Straithairn, Danny Glover, and James Tolkan. Kudos are also in order for Ian Baker's gorgeous widescreen cinematography, Bruce Seaton's haunting score, and Michael Westmore's subtle make-up. Great touching ending, too. Highly recommended.

Maybe it's unfair to pick at a movie made in the '80s but they did make some good ones back then, didn't they? The sound track is muddy, the visuals are gunky (except for the outdoor snow shots), and the acting is uninspiring. The philosophical ideas are old hat and predictable.And the story? I admit I gave up after about 45 minutes. During the be-yuh -- bird! scene that went on forever. I truly am amazed that so many people have raved about this movie. I love Neanderthals and the snow and science/fiction, so why don't I love this movie? It's just not very good.I kinda knew I was in trouble when they had that chunk of ice traveling cross country dangling from a helicopter a la Felini. Felini had a stature -- of David, I believe. This was a block of ice. So, a great movie is to this movie like Michaelangelo's David is to a giant block of ice. I hope that is not a spoiler.

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.

People think Timothy Hutton didn't do any good movies after winning the Oscar for Ordinary People, but that's not true. Among other really good movies he's done are Q&A, Taps, Falcon & The Snowman, French Kiss, and Iceman, which is way better than you'd think it would be, considering the plot is so much like Encino Man. Scintists dig up a Neanderthal and thaw him out. Some want to study him, and one (Hutton, in a good performance) just wants to communicate with him. Most of the actors are good (Danny Glover has a small role) and the script isn't stupid. The Iceman comes off as a real person, not just a furry guy with a club. Like Quest For Fire, the guy is played as a primitive person, not just an ape.The Iceman is played by John Lone (the bad guy in Year of the Dragon and the star of The Last Emperor), He almost unrecognizable under all the makeup, but his performance is right on the money, A lot of his acting is through body language, and its really good. He conveys many emotions with subtle and unsubtle movements. Again, this is underrated movie, and Mr. Lone should have gotten an Oscar of his own for his performance.